The Case for Hillary

(disclaimer: this was written in February 2007, a time before Barack Obama had sponsored and passed the Sudan Divestment and Accountability Act, the Iran Divestment Act, and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, and also before Hillary Clinton's inept campaign managers steered her towards embarrassing lows. This is one of my more eloquent pieces yet, and in hindsight one of the more regrettable)

It was once noticed by a young Governor of Arkansas that whereas Republicans tend to fall in line in presidential politics, Democrats want to fall in love. And last summer my heart was won by an assertive, intelligent woman named Hillary Rodham Clinton. While working as an intern in her Washington office, my conversation with the outside world usually began with a single question: “Is she running for president?” The unfortunate truth is that even such an influential figure as myself, the Deputy Secretary of the Copying Machine, was not quite in the loop. But as I spent my summer delivering her mail and alphabetizing her files, I did acquire much admiration for the way she does business.

To begin, the Clinton operation has perfected politics to a science, and it goes without saying that this team is capable of running things on a larger scale. But before delving into what policies might be enacted in any future Clinton administration, we must determine whether such a thing is even possible. When deciding upon the best standard-bearer for any particular election, the smart thing for a party to do would be – in this order – to first determine whether a candidate actually has a shot of winning, and only then choose from the possible victors he or she whose policies are the most to your liking. According to my calculations, Hillary is not merely the best candidate, but she is the only candidate that Democrats can put forward if we are to win back the White House in 2008.

The most widespread myth about Hillary Clinton is that she engenders so much antipathy among the population at large that it would be foolish to choose such a lightning rod. There is indeed a vast, right-wing conspiracy which really, really hates her. And these same people hated the supposedly “electable” Gore and Kerry, and they will similarly spout no less vitriol at Obama, Edwards, and any other non-Republican candidate – because that is their job. Yet these hacks are irrelevant, because their audience is a segment of the population which is never going to cast their ballot for a Democrat anyway. Among liberal and unaffiliated swing voters – the much larger segment of the electorate whose ballots decide elections – polls show that Clinton remains a very popular figure. In fact, if the election were held today and Hillary Clinton were our nominee, all evidence suggests that there would be a Democrat sitting in the Oval Office.

The response of most self-ascribed liberals in regards to Hillary runs along the lines of “I like her, but I don’t think that she can win.” The conventional wisdom that Clinton is simply unelectable must be shattered immediately. According to an ABC/Washington Post poll taken the day after she announced her candidacy, Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic candidate who would be able to beat the most competitive Republican, Rudy Giuliani. The same poll finds that she would beat the presumed Republican nominee John McCain by 6 points. No other Democratic candidate comes close. One can argue that any current data is skewed by early name-recognition, but the fact is that Obama and Edwards are running considerably to the left of Clinton – too far for the comfort of many swing voters, and that all evidence suggests that they are more likely to lose the general election.

Rhetoric about hope and transcendence is certainly moving, but if you want to hear inspiring rhetoric, go to church. If you want to be inspired by politics, go for someone who knows how to change public policy. Barack Obama and John Edwards have put forward worthy proposals, but during their tenures in Congress neither of them have demonstrated any ability to get things done. Though after slightly more than six years in the world’s most august deliberative chamber, the junior Senator from New York has been able to work across the aisle in a hostile Republican Congress to pass legislation on issues as various as homeland security, health care, pharmaceutical safety, emergency contraception, veterans benefits, education, and economic development. The measure of a politician is whether or not they can get things done, and by that standard Hillary Clinton is as good as they come.

Naysayers on the right claim depict her as a sort of socialist peacenik, and her detractors on the left accuse her of being acquiescent with the forces of reaction – both are wrong. A good bet is that if someone in public office is being met with enmity from the ideologues from both sides of the aisle, it is an indication that they are doing something right.

The Clintons’ governing philosophy is that “government can be a positive force in the lives of Americans”, and this modest truism is more refreshing than you might think. By November of 2008, the American people will have been living through their eighth year of an administration which deliberately runs up debt in order to justify its underfunding of all non-military spending programs, has nonchalantly overseen a rise in Americans living without health insurance and in poverty, has failed to protect its own citizens from natural disaster, has botched not one but two wars and has then proceeded to neglect our veterans. This is what happens when we are cursed with public servants who willfully demonstrate the Reaganite dogma that government itself is the problem. Our country does not need a revolution; what we need is a government that works, and that is what Hillary Clinton’s brand of substantive politics promises to deliver.

The primary duty of the government is to ensure the health and safety of its citizens. These self-interested, even conservative ends might not sound particularly romantic, but they are the paramount concerns of the vast majority of Americans – and also just happen to be precisely the fields in which Clinton has demonstrated her prowess. This is hardly a concession to the right; if anything, it is central to the understanding of the need for effective public policy. Clinton has found not only found a sound agenda but also a winning campaign formula of national security and economic security, and if elected, she will dedicate her administration to stabilizing the health care, energy and job markets as well as the geopolitical situation in the Middle East.

Health care is an issue which Hillary Clinton has essentially owned since she chaired the commission on health care reform in the 1990s. Then she proposed a great increase in government intervention, but such pipedreams have laid dormant while Congress has been in Republican hands. Reading the political environment as it is, she has successfully achieved more incremental reform in the realm of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, computerizing health care records, stem cell research and over-the-counter birth control than her grand ambitions of universal health insurance. But America’s health care crisis is still one of the most poignant issues in the public sphere, and now that Congress is in Democratic hands Senator Clinton will probably take the lead on a major initiative in the near future to expand government subsidies for health insurance, legally compel individuals to purchase it through the private sector, or both.

Clinton is squarely among the most hawkish members of the Democratic caucus, and rightly so, for as a Senator whose constituents were the primary targets of the 9/11 hijackers, New Yorkers are particularly concerned about homeland security. Too many liberals are wont to scoff at this subject as to do so it to at least recognizes the intentions of the Bush administration in its failed policies, and – in a few instances – where they might have even gotten things right. But the fact is that anyone who wants to be considered for the role of Commander in Chief must be well-versed in the duties that entails. On the home front, Senator Clinton has been especially attuned to the issue’s steak and potatoes; enhancing security in airlines, railroads, ports and nuclear power plants, and one of her biggest fights as of late has been to scrap the absurd formula which allocates more counterterrorism dollars per capita to small states Wyoming than those like New York which were actually struck by al-Qaeda and replace it with a rational, risk-based regime.

Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is essentially the War on Terror liberalism espoused in Peter Beinart’s The Good Fight. Clinton aptly grasps that the enormous challenges which our country faces cannot be avoided with the puerile instincts of isolationism and narrow self-interest, but that these generational endeavors require a robust government to lead the nation in collective action, harnessing the power of democracy and free markets to secure the greater societal interest. She welcomes the integration of the world market as an incentive for the increased competitiveness of the American economy, sees global warming as a test of our ability to reform our means of production, and she maneuvers on our mission in Afghanistan to enlarge our military and humanitarian presence.

In regards to the single most controversial and consequential foreign policy issue of the day, Senator Clinton can be fairly described as a hawk as she voted for the resolution which authorized the President to use force against Saddam Hussein. Peacenik activists have used the fact that Clinton has not explicitly apologized for her vote as alleged proof that she is not sufficiently antiwar, but this is petty theatrics. The real question at hand is what, if elected, Hillary Clinton would do in regards to the current situation in Iraq, and that she stated pretty clearly at this winter’s DNC meeting, “If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will." In all fairness her promise is quite vague, but then again, Eisenhower ran on no more than the simple pledge that “I will go to Korea.” And he won, and he did, and so will Hillary.

Hillary Clinton has been skeptical about a firm timetable for withdrawal, and for this she has been decried by the leftist blogosphere as undifferentiable from the status quo. That is not the case, for Clinton has since called for the government to “change the course in Iraq” and supports the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations to withdraw the majority of troops by 2008 – which is essentially a timetable in all but name. And instead of retreating from Iraq with a pacifist worldview, Senator Clinton believes that there are still wars worth fighting; namely the war in Afghanistan, the Darfur genocide and the rest of the Global War on Terrorism.

The other lingering concern about Hillary is the role that will be played by her spouse in her campaign and administration. Will she run as her own woman and distance herself from the memory of the peace and prosperity of the prior Clinton administration, or will she let the aspiring First Husband publicly work on her behalf and essentially assume the role which she played in 1992 and 1996? Let us just say that it would be laughably absurd for Hillary Clinton to run away from her political mentor and the man who gave her last name. There are few individuals with a greater understanding of the federal government than infamous policy wonk Bill, and it would not be unfathomable to picture the relatively young ex-president as Secretary of State, diplomatic envoy to the Middle East, or some sort of advisor to the President. In comparison, instead of receiving advice from his accomplished father and former President George H.W. Bush, current President George W. Bush consults “a higher father”. Who would you prefer to lead the free world; someone who takes their advice from God, or someone whose chief political advisor is Bill Clinton?
I rest my case.

On the Movement Against the War in Iraq

As one of the many Americans opposed to the war in Iraq, I make a habit of going to demonstrations where I can fraternize with sympathetic souls. They tend to be enjoyable events where I can express myself, get a good cardiovascular workout and reunite with missed friends. But as I was wandering the National Mall on January 27, my optimism for a looming change in foreign policy was joined with reserved skepticism towards my fellow demonstrators.

Hundreds of thousands of people marched on Washington that day to express their desire for an end to the Iraq War, mostly the kind of people you would expect to see at a rally like this; disgruntled veterans, grieving family members, Catholic and Quaker pacifists, organized labor, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Hollywood stars, and lefty gadflies like Dennis Kucinich. But most of those who came to express their dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs cannot be pigeonholed so easily; after all, to be a critic of the war is now to find oneself firmly within the mainstream of American public opinion. This is why I have such faith in this movement’s potential to succeed in ending the war in Iraq, and why I am also so discouraged with its current leadership.

My frustration can be best illustrated by my experience on the bus to our nation’s capitol. Participants shared their thoughts over the loudspeaker to pass the time, so I encouraged my fellow disaffected students to register to vote, write to their Congressmen, and to even consider a career in public service. The response was terrifying; self-proclaimed Anarchists, Communists and Islamic Revolutionaries shouted down this “white bourgeois reactionary” for daring to work within the institutions of American democracy – as opposed to plotting its violent overthrow. With this it dawned on me that the biggest obstacle to ending the Iraq War might well be the antiwar movement itself.

This earnest student of American politics believes that for the opinions of the common citizenry to translate into substantive results, Iraq activists must learn the ways of Washington realpolitik. And what I am advocating is not merely superficial change. The fact is are that the plurality of Americans are against the war, but many lawmakers are still wary of being associated with the radical groups and ideologies which make up the most visible elements of the war’s opposition. And rightly so, for as awful as the war is, many of these factions are rather despicable themselves.

On the Mall that day, demonstrators called for not just withdrawal from Iraq, but the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, the Philippines, South Korea, Somalia and every other country in the world in which there is a United States military presence. As some students scrawled on their makeshift riot gear, “US Out of Everywhere.” The reemergence of such sentiment has been one of the unfortunate consequences of our disastrous entanglement along the Tigris and Euphrates, but this is not so much of an indictment of the administration as it is of those who have fallen prey to the seductive logic of pacifist isolationism. The belief that military intervention is necessarily wrong in all places and at all times is as dogmatic and fanciful as the neoconservative ideology which begat this mess in the first place. Though opposition to the protection of American interests can be dismissed as naïve idealism, what is truly reprehensible about this intellectually bankrupt philosophy is that it precludes even the use of force for humanitarian ends (such as intervening to end the Darfur genocide) for the sake of avoiding the appearance of American imperialism. What is precisely wrong with the vocal leadership of the current antiwar movement, why it creates such problems for those in the reality-based community, is that it is not merely anti-war in Iraq but anti-war.

Before considering anything else, the discourse on American foreign policy must recognize that there are wars worth fighting. The United States must exercise some degree of intervention in Iraq and the Middle East as we have indeed vital national security interests which necessitate the preservation of political stability in the region; namely, continued access to the oil supplies and a moderate public opinion towards the West. The preemptive invasion and continued occupation of Iraq has been such a tragic mistake for this very reason, because it has overextended our armed forces, fractured the international counterterrorism consensus, diverted scarce resources away from eliminating the Al Qaeda network and Afghanistan’s resurgent Taliban, and has engendered greater willingness for Muslim youth to join extremist groups hostile to the United States. Any arguments about the moral or ethical dimensions of American foreign policy aside, what is more important is the national interest-based rationale for withdrawal; strategic redeployment from Iraq is necessary because our country’s current path is counterproductive to the larger objectives of the Global War on Terrorism.

As the dovish multitude hundreds of thousands strong passed the rather pathetic counterdemonstration of no more than a few dozen hawks, one of the endangered species held out a sign which actually brought up a good point: “Why aren’t you protesting the terrorists?” From the speakers’ rostrum there was much anger directed towards the American sins of Haditha and Abu Ghraib, but very little was said about the even greater evils which brought about this overreaction in the first place. Though I hate to invoke such imagery, anyone who has seen the charred remnants of Ground Zero knows the consequences of failed government policy towards anti-American Islamic fundamentalist movements, there was little evidence that anyone at the rally had any suggestions for dealing with our geopolitical rivals other than the doctrine of laissez faire.

Unfortunately, one of the pitfalls to which the antiwar crowd often succumbs is the sophistry that any foreign occupation must be wrong, and therefore any opposing faction must be in the right; this illogic has resulted in the morphing of some genuinely concerned lovers of peace and freedom into apologists for quite violent, illiberal movements such as the Mahdi Army, Hezbollah and Hamas. Though such groups’ demands for national sovereignty are certainly worthy, the former’s anti-Sunni pogroms and the latter two’s orchestration of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, among other things, make it difficult to believe that there is anything truly democratic about them. As Harry Truman found himself on the eve of the Cold War flanked by redbaiters on the right as well as Communist sympathizers on the left, today’s liberals must also hold a careful line against both ideological extremes.

Despite its organizers’ faults, what nevertheless makes the movement against the Iraq War so promising is that it represents the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans. This significant fact is unfortunately overlooked by the most prominent group coordinating antiwar activism, United for Peace and Justice, which operates as a motley federation of narrow interest groups and counterculturalists. If they wish to ever have a role in the peacemaking process, they should take a cue from the Palestinian Authority’s Fatah leadership and begin a mass purge of their most extremist member groups; to begin, the Communist Party. Any benefit that including such fringe groups might have in bringing bodies to a rally is certainly offset by the fact that few mainstream politicians will dare touch it with a ten foot pole. Among those which should be expunged from the coalition are groups dedicated to the Palestinian national liberation movement, for regardless of whether they are right or wrong, they are but a distraction to the issue at hand. Just as Lincoln refrained from invoking the abolition of slavery during the Civil War so as to keep the border-states in the Union camp, in the effort to establish a national consensus against the current policy in Iraq there is absolutely no reason to invoke the single most venomous controversy in the entire world. Since there has been no indication of United for Peace and Justice’s desire to remake itself, the mantle of the movement should be passed on to more effective liberal groups such as MoveOn, Campus Progress and particularly the ad hoc Win Without War – which labels itself as “a mainstream voice advocating an end to the war in Iraq”.

The only way for the energy and idealism of the antiwar movement to translate into tangible results is for all of the folks who show up to peace vigils put down their Chomsky readers and accept that the only way that they are going to ever get anything done is through the American institutions of capitalism and democracy. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when the available means are quite sufficient to attain our goals. As a matter of fact, the gears have already begun to churn in our favor.
If activists wish to actually bring this misbegotten war to an end, the first thing that we must adequately grasp is how profoundly the political dynamic has changed since last November’s elections, namely that we now have a Democratic Congress largely as a result of antiwar sentiment. Now that advocates of exercising the legislative branch’s constitutional authority to change course in Iraq are firmly ensconced in the most powerful corridors of Capitol Hill, the difference that can be made by the old-fashioned traditions of civic activism have already begun to show. Now even stalwarts of the Republican foreign policy tradition like Senators John Warner, Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel have decided to resist the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq – which according to the latest Pew Research Group poll is now supported by a paltry 23% of Americans. What shall actually be done still remains up for speculation.

The primary objective of the movement against this ill-fated war should now be the passage of legislation calling for a binding timetable for the withdrawal from Iraq – this should be the antiwar movement’s holy grail. This bill will need to be approved in both houses by not just simple majorities, but by at least two-thirds majorities that can sustain President Bush’s certain veto. For the Whips to accumulate sufficient votes remains and uphill battle, but we private citizens can do much more than simply watch from the sidelines.

The first avenue for the great vocal majority to make the timetable for withdrawal into reality is the race for the next Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. As the current holder of that title has made clear, how to end the war in Iraq shall be bequeathed to his successor, and the identity of the next Decider will be is up to us to decide. So register to vote, take part in the primary and of course the general election – even if you are a Republican. If you are willing to spend your weekend at an antiwar rally, it is worth your time to get seriously involved in an electoral campaign.

The second avenue is lighter on democracy and heavier on capitalism. As we have learned by recent events, one of the most effective ways for private citizens to effect change is through their Rolodexes and checkbooks. Yes, what I am calling for is for the antiwar movement to reach its apex of political sophistication and entrench itself in the business of campaign finance.

Go to all the antiwar demonstrations your heart desires, but if you want to make a real difference, this is my advice: tune in, turn on, and get involved in the democratic process. Partaking in this game of wealth and power might require the most principled of us to hold our noses and learn to compromise, but that’s politics.

Brokering Peace in Sri Lanka

(October 2005)

In August 2005, Foreign Minister Lakshmin Kadirgaman was shot in his swimming pool by snipers located in a vacant house next door. His government reasonably suspects the assassins to be members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a rebel group fighting for the independence of the ethnic Tamil minority. Though the type of gun used in the killing was one frequently used by the LTTE, authorities have yet to identify his killers, and thus a firm connection between the murder and the rebel group remains elusive.

Kadirgaman’s assassination took place while I traveled in Sri Lanka as a volunteer with the Tsunami Relief Project, and the streets and airwaves of the entire nation were immediately awash in hagiographical tributes to their revered statesman. Because he was an ethnic Tamil working in a government accused of anti-Tamil prejudice, Kadirgaman carried an aura of dignity which transcended partisanship. He had actively worked to attain international aid for the Sri Lankan civil war from nations around the world, particularly Norway (which is currently facilitating negotiations with the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE rebels) and the United States (which has given billions of dollars in military aid as part of the Global War on Terrorism). Kadirgaman was a great individual, and so as to further his legacy, I spread the story of his country’s plight.

There are two main ethnic-religious groups in Sri Lanka: the predominantly Buddhist Sinhalese, who make up approximately 74% of this country of 19 million, and who live in the developed South; and the predominantly Hindu Tamils, who make up another 18% of the country and live mostly along the Eastern seaboard and in the Northern jungles. Both groups were treated fairly equitably while under the colonial rule of the British viceroyalty, but when the country became the independent republic of Ceylon in 1948, the Sinhalese imposed a barefaced tyranny of the majority. The country now has a vibrant spoils system in which Sinhalese government officials give most public sector jobs to their lighter-skinned brethren, an unofficial policy which has created an obvious socioeconomic disparity in many communities – communities where the steadiest paycheck comes from the police station. Aspiring Sri Lankan politicians have historically made demagogic appeals to the Sinhalese people’s chauvinistic anxieties against the Tamils, and have banned the Tamil language in public schools, universities, and government offices.

This flagrant bias could even be seen in the government’s actions in response to last December’s tsunami; state-financed refugee camps were quickly constructed in Sinhalese South. In the Tamil East, the Kumaratunge administration handed over lands which used to be home to poor fishing villages to private tourism developers, displacing hundreds of thousands from the mostly darker-skinned underclass inland. And now, nine months afterwards, the Sri Lankan government had still done almost nothing to rebuild Tamil communities hit by the tsunami - almost all relief projects there were sponsored by either private charities or foreigners.

The straw that broke the camel’s back and first ignited the Tamil revolt, however, came in 1983 when members of the notoriously corrupt police forces organized violent riots against the Tamil minority in the capitol city of Colombo. Immediately, Tamils across the island nation went to the streets calling for freedom from violent discrimination, and radicals led by current insurgent leader Colonel Villupillai Prabakharan called for an independent Tamil homeland in the North. The sensitivity of the Tamil minority were no stranger to us Tsunami Relief Project volunteers; while we were working in the mixed-ethnicity city of Batticaloa, riots had broken out along the Jaffna peninsula after a Sri Lankan military officer’s rifle discharged at a barbershop and killed his Tamil barber. News of the outrage quickly spread to the Tamils of Batticaloa and violent demonstrations ensued.

For 22 years the LTTE has waged a guerilla war against the Sri Lankan government, and ruthless acts of terrorism are among their favorite tactics; assassination is in fact their preferred method of changing administrations. So as to expel the Indian peacekeeping force from the Tamil regions, Liberation Tigers killed Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, and in 1993 the insurgent group assassinated Sri Lankan president Rasinghe Premadasa. Civilians targets have also been hit, such as the Temple of the Tooth which houses what is supposedly a mandible from the jaw of Buddha; this act, if it had successfully destroyed the relic, would have had enormous symbolic consequence, since Sri Lankan regimes since antiquity have carefully guarded the tooth as a source of divine legitimacy.

Nevertheless, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are more than just a motley gang of thugs and killers. The LTTE is less like Al Qaeda and more comparable to Hezbollah; they finance their militant activities mostly through taxes from the Tamil population and actually operate what can be called a weakly-functioning civil administration in the territory they control. That is why, though the LTTE is undeniably a terrorist organization and classified as such by the US State Department, it is difficult to lump them into the same category as the religious fundamentalist terrorists on which our FBI, CIA and military have squared their sights.

The LTTE is nonetheless a fringe group primarily limited to the despised and impoverished caste of Untouchables, a group so radical that they impede economic progress so as to maintain the suffering of their constituents, which is then used as a rallying cry for their cause. They are so lacking in willing recruits that they resort to abducting fourteen-year-olds to use as child soldiers. The vast majority of Sri Lankans, Sinhalese and Tamils alike, are weary of this war, which has afflicted thousands of families and costs $700 million a year, out of an annual federal budget of only $4.2 billion. This spending has deprived the economy of funds sorely needed to invest in basic infrastructure; as I was walking along a path of sand and rocks in the war-torn town of Batticaloa, my guide remarked to me, “This is a road. It will never be paved until our civil war ends.”

The truth is that Sri Lanka has so much potential for development and growth that were it not for the Liberation Tigers, it could have possibly been one of the Asian Tigers like nearby India. But such a long-lasting civil war and climate of political instability have frightened off the kind of foreign investors that could create new industries and Western tourists who might otherwise be spending their money there. Peace could very well transform the culture of entrenched poverty which is all-too-familiar for millions.

Since the island’s people so fervently desire peace, in 2001 Lakshmin Kadirgaman and the LTTE rebel leaders settled a cease-fire in what is known as the P-TOMS agreement (“Cease-fire” is an extremely relative term, as shots are routinely exchanged in Batticaloa and kill about one person per day). And while the Norwegian government has since taken the mantle of the international community in an attempt to negotiate a permanent peace treaty, it now seems more elusive without the diplomatic skills of the late Foreign Minister. Nevertheless, if peace is ever to be achieved it will be either through granting the Tamils complete independence or at least a significant degree of autonomy in a federalist scheme. The latter seems much more likely, as neighboring India does not want to kindle the flame of sovereignty among its own Tamil population, and Sinhalese opinion is adamantly against granting independence to a group whom, though they have historically been on the receiving end of Sinhalese oppression, they see as their fellow countrymen.

The world power which could do the most to end the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka – the United States of America – is painfully uninvolved in the peace process. The only evidence of our country’s involvement I found while taking a break from clearing rubble at a beachfront YMCA now used as a base by Sri Lankan soldiers. I went to hang out with the machine gun-wielding platoon that was napping and playing poker, and the commanding officer proudly showed me their dog’s new puppies in his office. There I caught a newspaper on his desk blaring: “US Ambassador Pledges More Military Aid to Combat Terrorism”.

Simply put, giving block grants of military aid to the Sri Lankan government without any further engagement is only slightly better than doing nothing at all, and does little to further our campaign to weaken organized terrorist groups. The amount of change that we can effect by simply sending an ambassador to the peace negotiations, or by commissioning Condoleeza Rice to condemn the LTTE’s use of child soldiers at a press conference, would be incredible for these people. Though the prospects seems bleak when our current administration is so preoccupied with its own ethnic conflicts in a much more strategically important region of the world.

Even so, our country has other tools with which we can attain a lasting peace in Sri Lanka, namely our unrivaled economic power. The deeply-indebted government is wholly dependent on loans from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which in turn are effectively run by the United States. At the time being we are using this influence over Sri Lanka to make it privatize its banks, deregulate its industries, and institute other policies consistent with orthodox free market ideology – policies which, by the way, led to such a dramatic decrease in the job security of Sinhalese public employees that they vented their rage at the Tamils as scapegoats in the riots of 1983 which precipitated the civil war. But while we are using our influence to make the country more attractive to foreign entrepreneurs, we can also nudge the Sri Lankan economy in a way that services their own desperate needs.

According to the Four Noble Truths adhered to by Sri Lanka’s Buddhist majority, all of life is suffering, suffering has a cause, suffering can be ended, and suffering can only be ended by eliminating its cause. The radicalism which fuels the LTTE rebels is a result of an impoverished population – a population that is fairly cognizant of the ethnic discrimination which has caused them such hardships. We as Americans are in a position to at least dull the edges of this radicalism. While Paul Wolfowitz is privatizing and deregulating the Sri Lankan economy at the head of the World Bank, he can also make loans to the government contingent on their being spent more proportionally among the Sinhalese and Tamil populations, or he could he could push for fair distribution of tsunami relief funds and fair hiring practices. And if he wanted to be truly meddling, Wolfowitz could even encourage the Sri Lankan government to make Tamil another official language.

Any of these options are more than feasible and would not require a cent of American tax dollars. Once the Sri Lankan civil war ends, we too can garner a peace dividend by saving money on military aid and gaining a newly dynamic trading partner. We would also gain the goodwill of a small but grateful nation, a commodity for which our country is in desperate need.