Three Innocents Abroad

Syria, where I spent about a week of my Spring Break, is the first rogue nation I’ve ever visited. It’s hard to know what exactly a rogue state is, but my past exposure to the term tells me it’s not a desirable descriptor.

Unlike Sarah Palin, however, Syria was often very modestly dressed. That is to say, in the city of Aleppo, about a half-hour from the Turkish border, it was quite common to see women in full burqas. Men’s fashion alternated between long white thobes with ghutras, Western-style suits with thobe-like bottoms, and everyday button-up shirts and jeans.

Syria’s buildings were likewise modestly dressed, mostly in dirt. From a high point in Aleppo, my traveling mates (Ruth and Tyler) and I could see several square miles of two- to four-story brown apartment buildings, camouflaged with the desert except for the soot and car exhaust that dyed the walls.

That high point was the Aleppo Citadel. The Citadel was the first of three castles we’d visit in our week. This particular one earned my vote for outstanding impregnability. To storm the keep we first had to cross a forty meter moat via a narrow bridge. The castle keep required five sharp right-angle turns before one ever had access to the inside of the castle. Now imagine trying to dodge arrows and boiling oil. My bet is that before tanks it was impossible.

A second castle stood outside of the Palmyra ruins, which is the most impressive complex of Roman ruins I’ve ever seen. Ruth, Tyler, and I climbed columns, took pictures, and—actually that’s about all one does with Roman ruins. But the castle on a nearby hilltop provided a worthwhile sunset. In one of those surprising moments of travel happiness, we eavesdropped on the filming of a Syrian music video being shot at the ruins. We were less lucky—or less shameless—than the band of older Italian tourists who actually joined in the music video.

The final castle most deserved that name. The Crac des Chevalliers is a French crusader castle that, as we should have expected from the French, occupies the only green, hilly, and attractive swath of Syrian countryside we could find.

After castle-hopping we returned to Damascus, the oldest continuously inhabited city on Earth. At the city center rests the Souq-al-Hammidya, a covered market that led to anything in the “old city.” Its ceiling had steel panels that were shot up by French planes in the 1920s, today leaving thousands of holes through which the sun illuminates the shoppers. The space was less claustrophobic than Istanbul’s equivalent avenue—Istiklal Caddesi. And the bullet-hole stars provided an atmosphere that made this the best place to take a walk in the whole country.

At the end of the Souq is the Umayyad Mosque, built in 705 on the site of a cathedral, which itself had replaced the Temple of Zeus—that’s one more transformation than even Istanbul’s Aya Sofya. The Umayyad Mosque had two significant qualities: golden mosaics depicting Muhammad’s vision of paradise and a vast courtyard of gallivanting children, clearly oblivious of the history all around them. The mosque itself, where Ruth had to walk separately from Tyler and me, was underwhelming, but we happily spent our time in the courtyard, where we're pretty sure Tyler was hit-on by another man (that's illegal in Syria).

We also visited several museums of Syria’s history, which had collections of pots and figurines that apparently interest some people. Most fascinating was actually the October War Museum, which is Syria’s memorial and propaganda piece commemorating the Yom Kippur War in 1973. The Syrian school children and we learned about the Syrian president’s bravery in ordering an attack on the Zionists, and the attack by which Syria’s land, naval, and air forces successfully wrestled the Golan Heights from Israel’s better-equipped clutches. A painting of a peace treaty being signed around 3000 B.C. “proved” that Muslims were a peaceful people, while another portrait of Christians surrendering Jerusalem to Saladin showed that Muslims and Christians could live in peace.

This actually reflected a common defensiveness in Syrian tourist sites. The surprising and beautiful Azem Palace, where Damascus’ governors once resided, included captions that overtly fought stereotypes of Islamic culture as chauvinist, violent, or simple-minded. It explained the layout of the Azem Palace as having entirely separate quarters for men’s business and private life, which kept the family and the women safe from the corrupt dealings of the outside world. Likewise, another caption explained the metaphor of water motifs in the Palace’s architecture as proof that Muslims have multi-layered thinking. It’s kind of sad that a country feels its culture so under assault that it adorns its proud history this way.

In line with this defensive insistence that Syrian people are intelligent and kind, our guide book singled out Syria as a place where women could feel safe going about alone, and it described Syrians as a particularly welcoming people. A majority of Syrians were glad to meet us, fascinated about where we were from (we occasionally said we were Turkish—and got away with it—just to stay on the safe side). They would smile and welcome us to Syria. Even so, my traveling mates and I agreed that Syria is not somewhere we’d recommend walking alone at night—neither is Tempe.

Our most acerbic encounter came on the bus when two Syrian men inquired about Ruth’s heritage. Through a series of uninvited inquiries they ascertained that Ruth is Turkish. Her mother is Muslim. Her father is Christian. “How is this possible? We don’t give our . . .” he trailed off, but the message was clear—Muslims don’t just hand over their women to infidels. Finally, he asked Ruth where her religious views landed. An answer that she was not religious ended that intrusive conversation, though we enjoyed their stares and whispers for the rest of our bus ride.

Altogether Syria was filled with worthwhile historical attractions, great food, and kind people. But even in Damascus, which trails only Istanbul and Beijing in my list of impressively historical cities, I kept thinking how glad I was to be studying in Turkey and not Syria.

The Antithesis

In the United States, Karl Marx—not to mention Friederich Engels—has been largely erased from history. I was never taught much about Marx or Marxism. In my AP World History class, I vaguely remember my teacher describing historical materialism, which I thought I understood, but really I didn’t. Now I think I understand it, but I probably don’t. Later in my freshman honors seminar we read the Communist Manifesto, which—as I have come to learn—is only one chapter in Marx and Marxism.

It makes sense that I wasn’t taught about Marx in the United States. One can’t expect public schools nor private interests to teach a philosophy that espouses revolution of the political and economic system. This is especially true considering the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the ideological, economic, and military rival of the United States for much of the 20th century. On a cultural level, Marxism is antithetical to the liberal tradition that shaped the United States, which says that each person striving for their own self-interest will create the best society. And experiments at implementing Marxist ideas in self-proclaimed “Communist” countries like the USSR and North Korea have achieved bleak results.

But Marxism was a very big deal in world history. As I understand it, Marx adapted Hegelian dialectics for his theory of historical materialism. Marx was an important stepping stone in feminism. Marx (along with Emile Durkheim and Max Weber) formed the foundation of modern sociology. Much of the world’s political economy in the 20^th and 21^st centuries has been shaped by Dependency Theory and World Systems Theory, both of which used Marxist dialectics to understand the international system. And the evolution of the welfare state began with Bismarck's introduction of social insurance in Germany to assuage pressure from Socialist-inspired labor movements. Thus, Marxism massively affected countries all over the world. Its legacy inspired important institutions like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid in the United States. And today many of the world's most powerful countries have prominent socialist parties or regimes that claim to be socialist.

Finally, while the economic systems that Lenin and Mao Zedong built using Marx’s writings have fallen or transformed, Marx’s criticisms of Capitalism still ring true to me. The market system, which excels at increasing aggregate wealth, relies on exploitation of the masses by the elites and produces societal discontent. This is not to say that Capitalism will one day be overthrown by a superior system, as Marx suggested. But I think a better understanding of Capitalism's flaws (as explained by Marx and many others who followed) could alleviate some of the system's darker externalities.

I think anyone who entirely discounts Marxism without first looking into it greatly limits his or her understanding of the world. Every social science is heavily-laden with Marxist ideas, such that when I take classes in Turkey my knowledge of political science is disadvantaged because Marxism was censored in my education. This inhibits my ability to analyze my own social environment and envision ways to improve it.

Referring to Capitalist Neoliberalism, Margaret Thatcher famously used the slogan,“There is no alternative.” Regardless of whether or not this statement is correct, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy the moment we believe it’s true. By accepting ignorance of the alternatives at the behest of our leaders, we rent property in a world of false consciousness. But maybe I’m wasting my time explaining that idea—it’s Marx’s.

Confederate History Month

Recently the state of Virginia re-instituted its recognition of Confederate History Month. This makes it the seventh state to celebrate Confederate history (Virginia previously did so from 1994 to 2002). A source of outrage for many was the Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's failure to even mention slavery in his proclamation. When I told my American friends in Turkey about this, we shared a collective shock. Indeed, while writing about this I have struggled to use a big picture detachment instead of narrow thinking.

I actually don’t oppose a month for learning more about the Confederacy. History is important and under-studied. People should understand the past and current fissures in society. People should understand their heritage and be able to contextualize the Civil War as a conflict between an outdated, immoral economic system and modern industrialization. The Civil War is the bloodiest in our history, and it’s the last time that American civilians were subjected to war—we’ve been “lucky” to keep fighting on other people’s land. The failure of the Confederacy and its human cost is our best lesson in “war is Hell,” which we seem to have replaced with “war is necessary and sometimes optimal.”

However, I suspect that the common display of Confederate flags in the South and the celebration of Confederate History Month is not rooted in these interpretations of why the Confederacy should be studied. While admittedly generalizing, the South—still economically and socially backward—perceives the Civil War, or the War for Southern Independence, as a noble struggle of liberty against coercion. The obvious irony is that Confederate liberty meant the freedom to deprive blacks of theirs.

This is why Governor McDonnell’s initial omission of slavery from his proclamation to celebrate Confederate History is so disconcerting. It either intentionally or obliviously divorces the Confederacy from the ideology and economic system it defended. To be fair, Governor McDonnell’s announcement did not normatively praise the Confederacy. An optimist might say that Governor McDonnell’s proclamation was cool and intellectual, simply saying that this period should be studied in the context of its time and for its continuing significance today. The revised proclamation now available on his website seems to strike an acceptable tone of what the Civil War and the Confederacy represent.

But I’m always afraid that America is becoming a safe haven for backward ideas—xenophobia toward immigrants, hatred towards homosexuals, Biblical literalism, self-regulating markets, private hand-gun ownership, etc. A reading of the Civil War that emphasizes the Confederacy’s fight for freedom would probably do less harm than these other examples, but I’d like us to be subtracting from the list, not adding to it.

Super-Obama

I probably rely on The New York Times too much for my information. I’m already an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama so I should probably pick up an opposition publication. Even as an Obama fan, however, I have a sense that the Obama administration, with the complete compliance of the The New York Times, has successfully portrayed its foreign policy negotiations as much sexier than they really are.

For example, last October Turkey and Armenia signed an agreement to normalize relations, which have been tense ever since several hundred thousand Armenians died as a result of forced exile from Turkey (there’s a more concise word for these events, but it’s a little touchy). In The New York Times’ coverage of the negotiations, it was “a bracing taste of down-to-the-wire, limousine diplomacy” for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The article refers to Clinton’s role as “performing triage.” Consider this wording: “Sitting in a parked, black BMW sedan at a hilltop hotel here, with aides thrusting papers at her, Mrs. Clinton worked two cell-phones at once.” Were there explosions?

There was a similar excitement in reporting of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, which reads:

“Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton burst into a meeting of the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian leaders, according to senior administration officials. Mr. Obama said he did not want them negotiating in secret. The intrusion led to new talks that cemented central terms of the deal, American officials said.”

The image of Obama “bursting” into a meeting seems very Hollywood to me. Imagine Shaft handling geopolitics. One has to be suspicious given that Obama administration officials were the source. To The New York Times’ credit, it also quoted a Brazilian leader who wouldn’t say that Obama was uninvited.

Most recently, The New York Times’ reporting of negotiations between President Obama and President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia over the “New Start” arms reduction agreement characterizes Obama as a tested and resolved world leader. The article describes a phone conversation that went poorly between the two, in which Obama effectively hung up on his counterpart. “Some of his advisors had never seen him so mad,” it reads. From there the Russian leadership is portrayed as devious, testing the young president’s nerve, “suspecting he was weak and certain it could roll over him.” Almost sounding like a movie trailer narration, the article continues, “they misjudged how far they could get him to bend.”

Later President Obama sounds increasingly like a casual commander, averting existential threats for dinner. In a conversation over monitoring each other’s weapons systems, the article reads:

“Let’s just do it on an annual basis,” Mr. Obama proposed spontaneously.

“I don’t see any problem with that,” Mr. Medvedev said.

Mr. Obama turned to his own advisers and asked, “You guys good with that?”

And fittingly the end of the piece presents President Obama both victorious and amiable:

“Ultimately, Russia backed down . . . By Friday, the two presidents set aside the discord underlying those statements. Speaking on the phone, according to an American official, they congratulated themselves on breaking through the mistrust. ‘If you want something done right,’ Mr. Medvedev began in English, and Mr. Obama finished his thought: ‘you do it yourself.”’

Cue music.

It’s obviously the administration’s prerogative to advertise an image of President Obama’s strength in foreign policy, but The New York Times is a very willing partner. I’ve personally singled out the publication, but I haven’t investigated whether other newspapers have been more skeptical toward the same events. It’s also important to note that all three articles have different authors, so there isn’t a New York Times reporter personally crafting Obama’s legacy.

As the complicity of the news media in 2002 with the run-up to the Iraq War has shown, journalists need to be critical. If there’s one leader I trust with too much power over the media, it’s Barack Obama, but I suspect that one day I’ll pick up a book about his presidency and find out how his foreign policy really happened.

Links to the three articles, in the order in which they are discussed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/world/europe/11armenia.html?scp=1&sq=clinton%20armenia%20turkey&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?pagewanted=2&hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/europe/27start.html?pagewanted=all