Iran's Democracy Marathon

Any movement for democracy takes time.  Iran is no different.

“Iran will be a marathon,” former Italian Ambassador to Iran Roberto Toscana says.  Basically, there won’t be a repeat of Tunisia or Egypt.  As much as all of us would like to see rapid democratization there, we’re better off allowing the marathon for democracy to run its course.

Quick sprints to democracy, without developing the proper political culture, lead to a long-term failure of democracy.  We’re beginning to see this in Iraq and problems are already surfacing in Egypt and Tunisia.  In all three cases, democracy--or attempts at democracy--came quick and fast.  There was no time to develop an appreciation for the culture and institutions necessary to create a lasting democracy.  More recently, in Libya, this has been a major cause for concern.  Qaddafi gutted that country of its institutions out of fear they could become more powerful or challenge his authority. 

Most don’t know that Iran’s push for democracy started with the 1906 Constitution Revolution—my great-grandfather was a part of those pushing for reforms.  Much like the Magna Carta was the first step for the British; the 1906 movement was indeed the first step. The mere fact Iran’s movement toward democracy has been in motion for over a century provides observers, like myself, with hope that the potential for lasting democracy is high.  Of course, that is if the Green Movement is successful and continues on its current path. 

Toscana claims, “Iran has the political prerequisites for democracy…much more so than any Arab nation.”  Despite government crackdowns, it is surprisingly vibrant with varying degrees of discussion, debate, and dissent.  Among the religious leadership there is even varying opinions on Khomeini’s velyat-i-faqih ideology.  Some have claimed that a sizeable majority of clerics dismiss it and espouse a more quietist approach to politics, because after all politics is considered corrupting.  This goes in direct contrast of most American’s perceptions. 

Another hopeful trend has been the Green Movement’s strict adherence to non-violence.  This ideology has allowed it to gain legitimacy, not only at home, but also abroad.  Gaining legitimacy is essential to leading Iran toward democracy. 

The Green Movement has also exposed the current regime’s penchant for violent suppression opposition, which in turn erodes the regime’s own legitimacy.  As the Islamic Administration’s legitimacy evaporates, the Green Movement will hopefully be able to step in to fill the leadership void.  There is no doubt, however, that the regime will fight for its survival.

Remaining a non-violent movement and resisting the urge to strike back will be paramount.  It‘s no coincidence that Martin Luther King, Jr. is better remembered than Malcolm X.  One preached non-violence, while the other is remembered for his violent approach to the civil rights movement.  This is not a case in which the ends justify the means (the regime has already proved that to be an ineffective policy); rather it’s a case where the means qualify the ends.

Yes, this process will take time, but we have to remember our own country’s democratic tradition wasn’t built overnight.  It took two constitutions, a bill of rights, a civil war, two world wars, women’s suffrage, a civil rights movement, and an equal rights movement to get where we are today.  The idea that it can happen overnight in Iran is a pipe dream; you wouldn’t try to run a marathon without training first, would you?  More importantly, this push for democracy has to remain organic or homegrown; in other words, it has to be Iranian. 

Just like a marathon, Iranians will have to find the right pace for change in order to be successful.

Ten Observations from an Informed but Innocent Outsider

Since mid-January, I’ve been following the unrest throughout the Middle East.  It should come as no surprise; I’ve studied this area for the last ten years—although very far removed from the region itself. 

Throughout the last six weeks, I’ve made several observations.  They are, of course, in no particular order.

1)       Despite the grassroots nature of the revolutions and unrest and despite the lingering anti-Americanism everyone talks about—coupled with the ubiquitous anti-Israeli sentiment—there has not been much of either coming from the protesters.  No chants of “death to America” or “death to Israel” can be heard throughout the entire anti-government movement.  This does come at a surprise, but shouldn’t be read as an endorsement of either by the protesters. 

2)      There has only been a cursory discussion of the conflict between peace and justice.  This conflict is extremely important in the post-revolutionary stage in any region.  Revolutions that refuse to address the issue will surely succumb to more violence that could further destabilize the region.  In many cases, peace will have to come without getting any sense of justice.  And often the converse is true, seeking justice could ultimately lead to further violence. 

3)      There is, in fact, quite a bit of difference between the movements throughout the Middle East.  Sure there are some similarities, and there may even be a framework that each movement has followed.  But, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.”  Egypt is not like Tunisia, Yemen is not like Bahrain, and Jordan is not like Libya…feel free to interchange the nations however you please.

4)      Obama’s hands off approach to the revolutionary fervor spreading throughout the Middle East is a breath of fresh air.  After all, these revolutions cannot have a “made in America” stamp.  Thus, by imposing the US’s will or ideology on the protesters Obama will negate the organic nature of all those movements.  His decision to provide Humanitarian assistance in the situation with Libya is another step in the right direction.  This is reminiscent of George HW Bush’s response to the fall of the Berlin Wall.  He refused to actually go to Berlin, because in the end it was their movement, not his. 

5)      Military adventurism does not provide any country with long-term maneuverability.  America’s invasion of Iraq, has limited its ability to provide any support or assistance to those in Libya or even Iran.  I am in no way advocating military engagement in either country, but invading Iraq has limited rational options for President Obama.  And in some cases, the use of force is required.  However, the US cannot be seen as forcing its will upon another Muslim nation. 

6)      Our close relationship with nations throughout the Middle East has allowed space for peaceful transitions.  We saw this in both Egypt and Bahrain.  While there was some violence, our sound relationship with high ranking officials in both places allowed Obama to pressure those countries to not use force to quash the protesters.  His message was simple; force was not going to be acceptable.  In Iran, and Libya to an extent, that leverage was not there and thus those nations have used whatever means necessary to punish those protesting.

7)      Al-Jazeera has supplanted CNN as the most comprehensive news organization regarding Middle Eastern issues.  Some would even argue that they have taken over the number one spot in every region.  Certainly their coverage of Egypt, Tunisia, and even Libya has put CNN to shame.  Sec. of State Hillary Clinton said as much in a recent congressional hearing.  It’s pretty bad when a high ranking official makes that sort of statement. 

8)      Relying on dictators to provide stability in any region continues to be a shortsighted policy.  While providing any nation with the short-term satisfaction of dictated stability, this policy is ultimately doomed for failure.  As we are seeing, no matter how long the dictator remains in power, with or without our support, the inevitable change in government can destabilize an entire region.  Certainly, the prospects for short-term “western-style” democracies could be slim, but the long term advantage of popular movements throughout the Middle East ensures a stable future.  The more people have a stake in their own governance, the more likely those states will become more pragmatic, peaceful, and prosperous.  The short-term benefits of dictatorship can never be allowed to trump the long term benefits of democracy.

9)      Talking to everyone, regardless of their position or status, allows for better understanding of each group.  Ignoring groups because they don’t fit within a specific set of requirements limits any country’s—or any organization for that matter—ability to pursue policies within their interests.  The US’s early success in Afghanistan was partly because of its engagement with Iran—even with their lack of mutual diplomatic recognition.  Their lack of success in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process could be directly linked to their unwillingness to negotiate with Hamas.  In the case of Egypt, it would behoove Obama to engage the Muslim Brotherhood in dialogue.  Even if this leads nowhere, what each side gains is a better understanding of the other—this is probably the biggest problem facing the Iranian-American relationship.  Both sides can continue to build a relationship of understanding.  It should be no surprise that the nations in which the US has no Embassy are also the same nations with which they have poor relations.

10)   OIL!!!!  We have to end our over reliance on oil.  This has nothing to do with global warming or peak oil theories.  It has everything to do with the volatile nature of the regions in which we find oil.  Oil’s grip on our economy can--within a relatively short time period--cause our economy to come to a screeching halt.  Weaning ourselves from oil is necessary to ensure the long-term viability of our economy.  We can do this by first seeking out methods of becoming more efficient with the aim of switching to alternative sources of energy—whether for transportation, electricity, heating, etc.  We have to be in it for the long haul. 

After weeks of unrest, which doesn’t seem to show any signs of fading away, it’s fairly clear to me that we need to rethink how we operate.  The lens, through which we looks upon the world, has to change.  Our formula for making decisions has to be tweaked in order to ensure the long term viability of the country. 

Act 3: Iranian Democracy

“It is your right to be free.  It is your right to exercise your will and sovereignty…and choose the type of government and rulers.”

You’d be surprised that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that right before former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resigned.  He was speaking at a celebration for the Iranian Revolution, which coincidentally happened exactly 32 years before those in Tahrir Square were successful in overthrowing Mubarak. 

I guess he thinks Iranians love him.  

But, his show of solidarity with Egypt opened space for Iranians to organize anti-government protests thinly veiled as marches showing solidarity with Egypt--a fundamental miscalculation on his part. 

And in hypocrisy in its truest form, Iranian government authorities denied organizers permits for the protests. 

So, is he with democracy or not?  His actions show that he’s okay with democracy elsewhere, but not at home. 

What’s the deal Moody?  Are you afraid of people power?  Are you afraid that you’ll be held accountable for the massive human rights violations during your presidency? 

Mr. President, I don’t think you have been a student of history.  Something of which you should be ashamed, as you are Iranian and experienced the unrest of the 1979 Iranian Revolution--one which sprang up because of the Shah’s decadence, human right violations, and lack of reform.  You should know history does not favor those who choose not to reform. 

Remain steadfast Mr. President, for all of our sake; we’re tired of hearing your belligerently bellicose rhetoric.  We’re tired of you and your friends taking Iran’s image even further into the gutter.  Soon you will be gone the way of Mubarak (take your cronies with you), and hopefully Iran can regain its rightful place in society--leading the way for democracy in the Middle East, choosing its leaders, and national sovereignty.  Tunisia was Act 1, Egypt was Act 2, and we are now witnessing the beginning of Act 3 in your country. 

Nothing Except Democracy will be Acceptable!

Now to the Hard Part....

As I said in my previous piece on Egypt, we must calm our emotions.  Situations like the one we see there require us—those on the outside, at least—to take a very dispassionate approach to analyzing the facts on the ground.  Again, that’s easier said than done. 

How can we not be moved by the fight for freedom and democracy we are witnessing in Tahrir Square?  Many of us wish we could be there alongside the protesters fighting the evils of tyranny and dictatorship.  The passion of the protesters is laudable; after 30 years under the Mubarak regime they’ve earned the right to scream, shout, and bang on metal barriers.  Mubarak, not unlike the Shah of Iran in 1979, has been unable to recognize the writing on the wall—literally and figuratively.  The people want him gone and he should listen.

But what next?  Will their struggles be over?  As I said early on in the protest, “the easy part is the revolution.”  If our struggle in Iraq is any indicator, Egyptians have a long way to go before reaching normalcy.  The difference, however, is that the Egyptian movement is organic—it’s by the people, not through foreign interference. 

Organic or not, the people in Tahrir Square will face an uphill battle to bring Egypt back to the position they envision.  If their perseverance over the last eleven days is any indication, they’re up to the task. 

In the short term, they’ll face issues many issues directly related to the last ten days of insecurity.  Their economy has come to a screeching halt; the unrest caused the stock market to shut down as prices fell uncontrollably.  Food security will also have to be addressed as the protests caused many bakeries and other food producers to close; food prices are rising globally making this issue even more exigent.  Tourism, which generates significant income for Egypt, has also taken a hit as tourists from across the globe fled the unrest.  As if that is not enough, they’ll have to formulate some sort of transitional government; one that will appease as many as possible and strong enough to quell those dissatisfied with its makeup.  The military will have to play a part in the transition; their new role needs to be discussed ASAP.  They’ll also need to reformulate their internal security apparatus seeing as the old one not only had a complete meltdown, but also turned violently against the anti-Mubarak protesters.  And let’s not forget the psychological toll that will undoubtedly face many as they return to normalcy. 

As Tahrir Square empties and people go back to work, these issues will have to be addressed.  In the medium term, as the most immediate issues are attended to, the transitional government will most likely be questioned on their foreign policy—this includes, but is not limited to, Israel and Iran.  But, a bigger internal problem will be the “pro-Mubarak” groups we saw rampaging through the streets over the last few days.  Will they have a place at the table in the hopeful democracy or will they play spoilers for the rest of Egypt?  Egyptians will have to think long and hard about how they view those groups and those currently working in government—pro-Mubarak or not.  If the US policy of de-Baathification provides any insight, Egyptians would be wise not to completely shut out those working within the Mubarak regime—as hard as that will be. 

Within the anti-Mubarak camp, the Muslim Brotherhood will have to do some serious reflection on how they want to proceed.  Although, they have released many statements saying they don’t want to participate in a new government—transitional or not—some throughout the world remain unconvinced.  Many believe they orchestrated the protests—a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of the situation, it must be noted.  The international community is rightly worried about their outspoken criticism of Israel and their support for Hamas in Gaza.  They’ll have to address these concerns as the situation moves forward.  Even with their widespread internal support it may be a good idea for the Muslim Brotherhood to tone down any desires to pursue a seat in the new government; essentially lay low politically, but continue the community outreach programs.

In the long run, who knows?  I’m sure new issues that will test the resolve of the burgeoning Egyptian democracy will arise.  More than likely they’ll deal with internal security issues regarding groups dissatisfied with their new slice of the Egyptian pie or something dealing with Israeli-Palestinian relations.  Both of which could de-rail any long-term progress.  But the conviction we’ve seen from the protesters has shown they can overcome the hurdles—seen and unseen—facing them in the future. 

Until that time comes, though, we have to remember two things.  First, this is an Egyptian movement; there will be no Made in America stamps.  The movement has to be theirs; in no other case will the people be able to overcome the obstacles they’ll face.  Second, we have to temper our expectations, because democracy takes time and, in its developmental stages, can be extremely fractious. 

GO PACK GO!!!!

Sooooooo, despite the crisis happening in Egypt, I’ve somehow decided to write on a less dangerous, but equally serious topic—which team I’ll be supporting for the Super Bowl.

First, I have to say, I like both teams.  Both are exciting, dynamic, and play defense with an intensity of the anti-Mubarak protesters in Egypt—I couldn’t resist a Middle East reference, sorry.

But after a long and drawn out analysis of both teams, I decided I have to cheer for Green Bay.  My decision is based not on an overwhelming anti-Steelers sentiment, but I generally have a stronger feeling toward the Packers. 

For starters, one can never get a true sense of Americana without a visit to Lambeau Field.  I’ve had that luxury—Favre’s last regular season home game.  The fans could have not been any more gracious, welcoming, and energetic.  It was party in its truest sense:  RV ride over to the stadium packed with 30+ supporters; Beer, Brats, and Bean Soup at the tailgate; the stadium itself; the fans; and the history.  Of course, Steelers fans would argue that this point is invalid as I’ve never been to Heinz Field.  I recognize this, but remain steadfast in using this point—Heinz Field doesn’t have the history.

As far as the players go, I must admit that I like Aaron Rodgers much more than “Big Ben.”  I’ve liked him since his time at Cal, so I’m not jumping the bandwagon.  His style of play is much more academic, intelligent, and clinical than Big Ben (I’m not saying Big Ben isn’t this way, it’s just that Aaron Rodgers demonstrates these qualities more than Big Ben).  More often than not, I cheer for players like this.  So, for the sake of consistency, I have to cheer for Rodgers.  His off the field behavior is also laudable and should be replicated by all athletes—I had to go there. 

But, I do have a small connection to the Packers; their punter is from Murray, KY.  I spent several years there while studying at Murray State University.  When in Murray, I coached his younger brother’s soccer team.  So, in hopes of supporting acquaintances—however distant they may be--reach the pinnacle of their chosen career/profession I’m throwing my support behind Tim Masthay and the Green Bay Packers.

Lastly, the Steelers have won two Super Bowls over the last six seasons and possibly a third if they win on Sunday.  Green Bay’s last Super Bowl win was in 1995, it’s high time for another.  It will be essential to burying the Favre hatchet. 

As hard as it to choose a team for the Super Bowl, I’m cheering for the Packers on Sunday. 

GO PACK GO!!!!

Egyptian Chess Match

It’s hard to follow the situation in Egypt without emotion.  The last few days were spent glued to my television and computer.  But it is in these situations that cooler heads prevail. 

Egypt is on the brink of revolution—if not already there.  Mubarak, the 30 year dictator, has refused to step down, while the people have refused to leave the streets until he does.  Something has to give.

All the while, international response has been remarkably muted.  President Obama has been seen as less than enthusiastic about supporting demonstrations against Mubarak.  As disappointing as this is—the tepid response from the White House—one has to realize how strategically important Egypt is.  It is a vital national interest to the United States; a key ally in the US’s Middle East policy.  Stability is essential.

On the other hand, the US has the opportunity to be on the right side of history in the Middle East for the first time in many years.  The longer Obama takes to decide on which side he stands, the longer he gives the impression he stands with Mubarak.  President Carter’s inability to recognize the Shah of Iran’s failures and imminent downfall hurt us 30 years ago; we can ill afford to make the same mistake in Egypt. 

But, I understand Obama’s hesitation.  Events on the ground in Egypt don’t lend themselves clear conclusions, except that Mubarak has to go.  No clear leadership apparatus has emerged from among the protesters.  No clear indicator of the new government’s make-up.  So it’s difficult for Obama and his advisers to formulate a message. 

Obama also has to contend with other regional allies who could be threatened by their own internal opposition.  Even tacit support by the US of the Egyptian protests could threaten stability in the region.  Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar all face serious opposition to the ruling parties or monarchs.  Of even greater immediate concern is the security of the US’s biggest ally in the region—Israel.  Will the protests and the ensuing unrest threaten to unravel the positive relationship between Egypt and Israel?  Will further protests throughout the region force a new approach by Israel’s neighbors? 

Calling on democratic reforms in the region could give anti-US groups political power.  The last time the US called on a government to hold elections, Hamas took Gaza.  The old adage, “Be careful what you wish for,” comes to mind.  It doesn’t help that Mubarak has been playing into those fears by telling US administrations he’s keeping out the Islamists. 

But, this situation bears some parallels to 1978-79 Iran.  We remained blind to the weight and momentum of the anti-Shah protests.  President Carter even went so far as to call the Shah a beacon of stability and progress.  Our inability to recognize the writing on the wall cost us an opportunity to build a relationship with the Islamic Republic; all because we were afraid of upsetting the Shah. 

So, therein lies the problem, politics—both global and domestic—is, like my friend says, “a chess match.”  Except in this case, each piece is important, with known and unknown potential, full of misconceptions, fraught with pitfalls based on those misconceptions, and with perpetually changing roles and positions. 

If Obama “stays the course,” we’ll lose the battle for the Arab street—Muslim, Christian, secular, religious.  Another colleague said his response is a lot like asking a “woman who’s been beaten by her husband for 30 years to accept him back, because he’s sorry and promises to reform.”  Not such a good plan to build rapport. 

That being said President Obama has to do two things.  First, lend support to the movement—all they need to know is that their movement for democracy has his moral support.  Second, Obama needs a re-evaluation of the US’s Middle East policy.  What kind of message are we trying to send?  Unfortunately, rethinking our message is easier said than done. 

Needless to say, the Egyptian movement towards democracy is going to happen whether we support it or not.  The question is, will we be along for the ride?

Yet another setback in Lebanon

Hassan Khalil, publisher of Al Akhbar, described the situation as follows: “In Lebanon it’s never over for anyone.  You cannot write off anyone or anything.”  Al Akhbar is a left leaning newspaper that supports those opposed to the recently deposed government of Saad Hariri.  (Thanks to the New York Times for using this quote in their most recent piece on Lebanon).

The origins of this most recent conflict can be traced back to the 2005 assassination of Rafik Hariri, father of Saad.  But should we be surprised that tensions have flared up again?  It was always going to be this way.  So, what next?

To understand Lebanon, one has to realize that first it is not really a country in the sense of a western-style nation state.  It is more of an amalgamation of factions--primarily religious factions--who have chosen to come together to form some semblance of governance.  The biggest threat to stability in Lebanon is not the sectarian nature of its politics—although, I would say it does often threaten Lebanon’s stability—but the very fact that the central government does not hold a monopoly on power, aka FORCE. 

Some would argue it never has.  Lebanon has always had sovereignty issues, whether it was interference by Syria, Iran, France, or Israel.  This foreign interference has interrupted any forward progress toward a sovereign Lebanon.  But some events operate as beacons of hope, possibilities for change. 

The 2005 assassination (the six year anniversary just around the corner) of Rafik Hariri looked as if we would witness a turning point in Lebanese politics.  The Lebanese citizens that came out in droves to protest the assassination were fed up with intervention by foreign entities.  The protests were enough to force the Syrian military to leave. 

But, in 2006, indicative of the central government’s lack of control, Hezbollah instigated a brief war with Israel.  In Hezbollah’s calculation, they knew the Lebanese government could not side with Israel and any war with Israel would only bring them more political capital no matter the outcome.  They were right.  All the central government could do was to beg for calm and cessation of violence.  The whole exercise showed Hezbollah was big enough to hold Lebanon hostage; proving the central government could do nothing to contain Hezbollah.

Hezbollah was rocked by the war with Israel, but their stock rose exponentially.  With money from Iran and Syria, they were able to quickly rebuild most of what had been destroyed.  Something the central government had been unable to do.  In 2008, drunk with power Hezbollah made another strategic calculation.  The central government had attempted to wield some power by announcing they would shutdown Hezbollah’s communications.  Hezbollah basically said, “Go ahead, but you’ll have a war on your hands.” 

From May 6^th to 21^st street battles raged throughout Beirut and other major cities.  These battles were between militias controlled by the different factions within Lebanese politics.  The Army stayed out for fear of splitting their forces based along sectarian lines.  Violence ended with the Doha Agreement which gave opposition groups—including Hezbollah--more power in parliament.

Hezbollah as a political force continued to grow.  The current crisis is a manifestation of that growth, which threatens rule of law and justice for the assassination of Rafik Hariri.  By derailing the attempts of the international tribunal investigating Hariri’s assassination, Hezbollah is setting a dangerous precedent in Lebanon.  They are worried about having members named as co-conspirators in the investigation.  So, instead of facing the consequences they successfully forced the dissolution of government and threaten violence if their demands are not met.  After all, they have the power to do so.

In the short term, Hezbollah will continue to gain power both politically and militarily.  Najib Miqati, the new Prime Minister, will be their man in parliament.  Iran and Syria will be empowered by their proxy’s gain and the US and its allies in Lebanon—including Israel--will assuredly have egg on their face.  Justice will not prevail and we may never learn who was really behind Rafik Hariri’s assassination, although based on Hezbollah’s claims since the beginning of the investigation one can easily think they were involved. 

Tension will remain high for some time to come.  Until the central government is able to gain a monopoly of power and force within the country in order to ensure the faithful execution of the rule of law, these situations will continue to arise.  At this point all out war like we saw during their 15 year civil war remains unlikely. 

The long term ramifications are much harder to predict.  An empowered Hezbollah could overstep its bounds and face a steady decline, but I doubt that.  As long as Iran continues to be the lone voice for Palestinians and Hezbollah remains an Iranian proxy (which will continue), Hezbollah will continue to reap the benefits of their position—against Israel and the US and for the Palestinians.  Lebanon will continue to be the battlefield for the covert/proxy war between Iran and Syria on one side and the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel on the other.  Yes, I put Saudi Arabia and Israel together on one side; their hatred for one another is a rouse.  I don’t feel like the conflict will spread to neighboring countries; Egypt and Tunisia’s issues are of an entirely different making. 

This could be an attempt by Iran to distract the P5+1.  Some say the 2006 War between Hezbollah and Israel was just that; an attempt to take attention away from Iran’s nuclear program.  Or Iran could attempt to mediate the situation in a separate bid to engender goodwill, thus buying them time for their nuclear program.  That’s probably a stretch, but with Iran anything is a possibility.  The fact they are funding Hezbollah (which is an Iranian creation) would more than likely eliminate them as an impartial arbiter. 

Three things have to happen in order to prevent things like this from continuing to occur.  First, and probably most difficult, we have to find a solution to the Israel-Palestinian impasse.  It will be a tough mountain to climb, but reaching this goal will eliminate much of the fuel for Hezbollah’s—and by proxy Iran’s—meteoric rise.  Second, we have to recognize Hezbollah—the same goes for Hamas—as a legitimate political force with a significant following.  Their involvement in any solution would give it creditability, without their blessing any agreement will be doomed.  Finally, rule of law has to be imperative in any future Lebanese state.  Reliance on militias and sectarian organizations to settle disputes in Lebanon will only serve to deepen the crisis.  As a nation, they have to come together and actually take steps toward a state governed by rule of law. 

Lebanon is a vibrant cosmopolitan nation, where under the surface tensions run supreme.  We all have to work together to ensure that there will be no repeat of the 15 year civil war.  A strong commitment to the goals above by all sides will be the only way to a favorable solution.