13 Jan 2007

Tackling the Middle East


I would like to point out that I am going to write on this issue once, and once only.

I noticed in my time at university that a cause celebre among politically-active young people (especially in the years 2000-2004) was their stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jewish students and Arab/Muslim students would frequently engage in debates, demonstrations, protests, and performance art (which I promise I will allude to in a later entry) on this issue, as if handing out flyers at Georgetown or Harvard Yard was the final remaining key in solving some 70 years of ethnic, religious and communal conflict. I cannot tell you how many times I was subjected to polemics and speeches on censuses from the 1930s, individuals from this or that side that met untimely (yet symbolic) ends, this and that injustice committed, etc. American students would often side with a group based on their political affiliations, roughly speaking conservatives being pro-Israel, liberals being pro-Palestinian (and with the politically active yet irrelevant often taking the most detailed positions). Nevermind that most American Jews are Democrats, and most Palestinian Arabs live in a socially conservative culture that would make your average college student cringe: these are just some of a litany ironies that surround this sad struggle.

In any case, I mention all this as the Economist has published what I think is a fine and succinct editorial and article on the subject of Israel's international image, especially among the Jewish diaspora. The article correctly points out that too often groups that are organized to support and promote Israel in other countries (such as in the US) often wind up masking the great social and political debates actually occurring in Israel in favor of touting the rhetoric of Israel's political right, and lazily accusing any dissenters from this ideology of being anti-Semitic. As the editorial notes, "Helping Israel should no longer mean defending it uncritically. Israel is strong enough to cope with harsh words from its friends." Especially in America, the relationship with Israel is distorted by the existence of AIPAC, a large lobbying group, and Christian evangelicals, who (in another ironic yet to me repugnant relationship) support Israeli hawks and settler groups in the believe that their reconquest of Zion will bring about the Second Coming, and of course actually causing all the Jews to either convert to Christianity or perish in flames. Talk about Israeli Jews bedding with the Devil! And I wonder why these strident Christians are not a little more concerned over the fate of Palestinian Christians...but once again the ironies abound. The end result on the American end is that we support Israeli politicians in some of their occasionally less-than-sensible ventures, and lose all credibility as an impartial arbiter.

At the same time, America has acquired a most unusual ally (and a non-official ally at that - there are no treaty obligations defining either party's rights or responsibilities). Despite its size, it seems that Israel calls the shots in this relationship in a way Americans would allow no other country of 5 million to do. Israel acts, and America responds. American criticism is very light towards Israeli disacknowledgement of its nuclear program, or military incursions to densely-populated Palestinian areas resulting in heavy civilian casualties, or the issue of the wall being built through the West Bank, and this is while the American government heavily subsidizes the Israeli military. Even more bizarre, America finds itself subject to occasional espionage by its smaller ally: witness the 2006 guilty plea of Col. Lawrence Franklin and the 1987 plea of Jonathan Pollard to passing classified information to Israeli officials. Such scandals should be the stuff of conflict between America and Russia or China, not the means to build a strategic friendship between a large power and a small recipient of aid. No staunch ally of anyone's should engage in such behavior.

However, I do agree with the pro-Israel side that often too much is played up over Israel's shortcomings while the Arab side's shortcomings are played down. Groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are pledged to destroy a Jewish state and use methods that attack civilians (which constitute acts of terrorism, but once again a discussion of that politically-charged term is best left for another time) , and I will not bother to get into Iranian President Ahmadinejad's antics. Nor shall I go into the details about how anti-Zionism is used by Middle Eastern governments as a political safety valve for their crushing of internal political debate.

Furthermore, I would like at this juncture to point out that I feel that Israel is a necessary good for the world. I think history has proven that the Jewish people need a separate state of their own in which to live freely, and that this state might as well be in their ancestral and holy lands (rather than Uganda, Madagascar or Paraguay, as some Zionists a century ago tried). One could argue "why are the Jews so special?", to which the proper response is that they have directly and indirectly shaped the morals and moral history of the world's Abrahamic religions, to which in various guises a majority of the world's population adheres. As Thomas Friedman pointed out in From Beirut to Jerusalem, one reason why Israel envinces so much international criticism is precisely because the Jews helped to invent the concept of universal justice. And as for why should they get their own country, well, it is an idea that they made a fact and have kept so for almost a century. If all the Gypsies moved to Voivodina and declared it an independent country for their people's defense, the world could not argue with that. But the fact is that the "wandering" Jews actually succeeded where other international minorities have not. They should not be penalized as a result.

But at the same time, the Palestinian Arabs deserve some sympathy, as they have been likewise turned into a stateless people, and in their homelands are deprived of life, liberty and property, and are subject to a great deal of social disorder and violence (some of their own making, some the making of the opposing side). They likewise have expressed a desire for an independent state, and should be allowed to achieve so, free from oppression and violence. The world should not wait for them to magically become an enlightened, peaceful democracy before granting them a state, as their current chaos, self-tyranny and ghetto-like rule is intricately connected with the conflict at hand.

I agree with the Economist and moderates on both sides, in that a lasting peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians is actually quite straightforward: a shared capital of Jerusalem, a Palestinian state roughly following the pre-1967 "Green Line" (but one that leaves the biggest Jewish settlements in Israel in return for land elsewhere), no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees to Israel, no claims on Judaea or Samaria by Israel on Palestine. To this a mix of reparations payments could be added, potentially a demilitarization and an economic union (another good idea proposed by Thomas Friedman in the above-mentioned book, written at a time when he was still a serious writer). The only problem with this peace plan is actually going through the torturous political landscape needed to make it a reality. It seems at times that the political (and military) fight is at its bitterest when it is Israelis vs. Israelis or Palestinians vs. Palestinians.

This seems to actually be a common factor in war: a warring people are more concerned with fighting their enemies at home than in effecting a decisive victory against the stated enemy. Witness the whole "surge" debate among Americans. In any case, there will be a lot of rough dealing with extremists in Israel and among Palestinians in order to achieve peace, and apparently such courage is at the moment lacking.

And finally, I must admit that until Israeli and Palestinian leaders can summon that political courage, I have found myself largely washing my hands of this conflict. I am not a Palestinian Arab, nor a Jew, and the endless arguments and bitter conflict seem typical of an internal family feud (which this arguably is, between the children of Isaac and his half-brother Ishmael). Both nationalities are very cosmopolitan, very well-educated and have a collective historical memory of legalism and trade, as well as a hard habit of forgetting injustices. This does make for one difficult and protracted conflict. Another familiy's problems are sometimes best left to the relatives to sort out, without taking sides in the affair. Furthermore, although Jerusalem is for many the spiritual center of the world, one must put this conflict in perspective: a grand total of 6,385 people have been killed to date in 20 years of Israeli-Palestinian conflict (including 1322 in the first Intifada). Although this leaves out the six other Arab-Israeli wars, this is still small potatoes when considering some 300,000 killed in Darfur since 2003, or the 4,000,000 killed recently in Congo in the most destructive war since World War II. These conflicts get no space in the international mind, while UN resolutions, hilltop settlements, rights of return, uses of the River Jordan's water etc. abound ad nauseam.

In any case, I hope for peace, hope for a more open and constructive dialogue between America and its Israeli allies, and steadfastly avoid college demonstrations and students with flyers.

Women Problems for China

I must confess that I enjoy the Pocket World in Figures that the Economist gave me as part of my subscription offer: I love information comparing the nations of the world on a wide variety of subjects. One which the book lists is the male - female ratio in countries across the world.

I note this because a recent BBC article suggests that China will face a shortage of tens of millions of women within a generation. All this while the over-60 population will rapidly increase to around a third of the population, and while the overall population increases another 200,000,000 to around 1,500,000,000 in the next quarter century. To put things in perspective, the Chinese population is expected to increase by a number almost equalling the sum of all Americans. And to put things in greater perspective, this is a phenomenal increase considering that the Chinese population when Mao assumed power was a mere 400,000,000 (closer to our projected population by this midcentury). Ironically, the one child population and a preference for boys is to blame for the overrepresentation of males and seniors in Chinese society, and yet seems to have only gone so far towards slowing population growth there. It is truly beyond my comprehension how so many people can live sustainably in that country.

But I digress from the main point of this post: male female ratios. Here are some countries' breakdowns (number of men for every 100 women), courtesy the boffins at the Economist:

UAE - 214 (!!!)
Saudi Arabia -117
China, Pakistan - 106 (already pretty high)
India - 105
Bangladesh, Taiwan - 104
Cote d'Ivoire, Iran, Malaysia - 103
Algeria, Nigeria, Turkey - 102
Egypt, Peru, Phillipines, Singapore, South Korea, Venezuela - 101
World (average) - 101
Indonesia, Kenya - 100
Canada, Chile, Israel - 98
Brazil, USA - 97
Japan, EU (average), Mexico, South Africa, Thailand - 96
Switzerland - 94
Kazakhstan (CIA Factbook) - 93
Hong Kong - 89
Lithuania, Russia - 87
Estonia, Ukraine - 85
Latvia - 84

So what can we learn from this breakdown? We of course should always be wary of statistics, but nevertheless a few things become clear to me. First, a large majority of the world's countries have ratios somewhere between 100 (or a man for every woman) and 95 or so (a few women extra). Anything beyond this range seems like a recipe for trouble and turmoil. There are some exceptions: South Korea has more men than women (but has one of the highest population percentages on the internet ... perhaps a necessity for the extra men?). However, by and large, you can see that countries with an excess of men either have problems or are out looking for them. Likewise for countries that have a dearth of men - these are mostly former Soviet republics, the lack of men there having to do with their smoking, drinking and killing one another (the average Russian man lives to 60, the average Russian woman to 75). And also, now you can see why women from the former Soviet republics are so interested in meeting some nice, sober Western guys. If you have the means, I highly recommend it.

As for the extra Chinese, Indian and Saudi men, well, I leave that to the reader...any suggestions?

12 Jan 2007

Somali Strikes

I suppose my mention of Black Hawk Down was a little ironic, because probably the most interesting news these days (in an otherwise boring news patch of the month for those of us not interested in Rosie O'Donnell) has been this week's American airstrikes on targets in southern Somalia. The targets were three suspects thought to be the masterminds behind the 1998 East African Embassy bombings. Reports have been all over the place in the past week: originally it was claimed that al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri was among the targets (quite a feat considering that Predator drones were attempting to target him in a village in northern Pakistan this time last year). Now reports are saying that none of the suspects were actually hit.

The airstikes have brought the usual international criticism. Let us look past any resurrected, tired rhetoric to analyse what is occuring. One the one hand, these strikes can be seen as a potential success: as in Afghanistan, they are providing strong air support to local ground forces pursuing targets of the American national interest. In this sense, it is a good example of well-applied force for national gain (on America's part). It also provides useful support to the Somali Transitional Government that the American government wishes to succeed.

Speaking for myself, however, I question the value of this intervention. One, the current administration is appearing to fall for its same traps all over again as in Afghanistan. When Bush made it clear so many years ago that hunting individual terrorist masterminds (like Bin Laden, or OBL once you get your security clearance) is a waste of military resources, why then go at it all over again, with potentially the same limited results? With all this talk of a decisive troop surge in Iraq, do we need naval and air forces committed to Somalia (they could surely provide our troops on the ground with some strong support in the upcoming weeks in Baghdad).

Foremost, as I have questioned time and again concerning the Iraq strategy, what exactly is the intended end result? The Islamic Courts Union has been routed from Mogadishu, and in its place the local warlords have returned to their bad old ways, complete with a resurgence of the qat narcotic (Afghanistan, anyone?). An allegedly democratic and secular, UN-recognized government now sits in Mogadishu, but these descriptive terms are essentially just promises invoked in hope of expected international aid. The writ of this government doesn't extend far beyond the capital (Puntland is a self-governing region, and Somaliland is a fully functioning - if unrecognized - independent country). Unlike Afghanistan, the new government exists almost solely through the military efforts of Ethiopia, a veteran of bloody conflict against Somalis. This is more akin to the US supporting Russian troops in taking Kabul from the Taliban. One look at some of the images of Ethiopia's armed forces should show that this regional power isn't at a Russian level of professionalism (the troops more closely resemble day-laborers armed with 50 caliber machine guns). Furthermore, there appears evidence that Somalia is being used as a proxy conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, while Ethiopia's own local civil wars are mixing into Somalia as Somalis in Ogaden attack the Ethiopian military, and the Ethiopian military rounds up Oromos (a long-fighting and oppressed plurality ethnic group in Ethiopia) in Mogadishu. Anyone the least bit familiar with armed conflict in Africa knows that this chaotic maelstrom is par for the course.

Despite an American desire, (from the American right as well as left) to see all Islamists as one global enemy, I am not sure what is to be gained by encouraging the current situation in Somalia. The US is ill-equipped to undertake another nation-building task, and as far as I can tell not likely to convince any capable power to undertake such a feat. I can quickly foresee the Somalis tiring of Ethiopian rule and giving greater and greater aid to an ICU insurgency against the foreign invader, especially more so to one now openly backed by the US (we have not been so popular in Mogadishu since 1993). More to the point, this is exactly what ICU leaders have planned from even before their "defeat" (and what many Somalis worldwide expect). Ethiopia itself is a less-than ideal partner in this endeavor, as beyond the traditional hostility to it in Somalia it is an autocratic country accused of fixing elections, massacring demonstrators and sending political opponents to labor camps (but for whatever reason is a darling of international donors, as well as the headquarters of the African Union, and therefore apparently beyond reproach). The region, furthermore, is terribly environmentally degraded and overpopulated, which makes it an even worse ticking bomb to tinker with. This seems like another mess that the US has gotten involved in with little clear idea of what is at stake, or what a desired yet realistic outcome would be. I thought we learned enough of that in 1993.

In any case, the picture above is of a Lockheed AC-130, used to target enemy ground forces with massive amounts of fire power, and supposedly used in the strikes in Somalia. There are 21 in active service, mostly used by the US Air Force Special Operations Command. It was first brought into service over Nha Trang, Viet Nam in 1967. They can provide one hell of a suppressive firepower, but admittedly their usage would seem limited when trying to specifically find and target three suspects in mangrove swamps. Ironically, one of two AC-130s lost in service exploded over Somalia in 1994 (the other was shot down in 1991 in Iraq...).


fg

11 Jan 2007

And Now For Something Completely Different...

Following in Tim's footsteps, some pictures from New Year's in Washington, DC. These are all from the National Zoo:

Giant Panda in a Tree



Golden Tamarin Monkeys


Is that an Ewok? Just a Sloth eating lunch...


One of the Zoo's Sumatran Tigers out for a walk...


...and a Mexican wolf out for a swim.

A view up to the roof through the indoor rainforest in the Amazonia exhibit. It was a pleasant 35 degrees C in here, with plenty of humidity. Much like how I remember Southeast Asia when I was there.



A Book Review for Half a Book

I recently have been reading my way through a book called The Long Walk, by Slavomir Rawicz. It is a gripping story of seven Polish and Eastern European Prisoners of War who escape from a Siberian gulag in 1941 and walk through Mongolia, China and Tibet to reach British India.

Why do I say this is a review of half a book? Because halfway through the book I read about Slavomir Rawicz on Wikipedia and BBC News, and was more than a little stunned by the news: the story is not true! He was actually released from a camp in 1942 and sent to Iran, eventually making his way with other Polish emigres to England, but even there not performing the military role he claimed to have done.

I must say that I am more than a little disappointed by this news. The story is a fantastic story...although with the benefit of hindsight perhaps too fantastic (can seven overworked and undernourished men really escape from a Gulag and walk through metre-deep snow for six weeks going 30 miles a day on starvation rations?). The story also includes sightings of Yeti in the Himalayas, but alas apparently even that was added by the British ghost-writer who sought to validate their existence (I believe that they could exist, but like Mulder or Houdini on their personal quests the blatantly falsified information angers me all the more for the bad reputation it gives to such a search).

I am also more than a little disappointed because I would very much like to read an account that describes Stalinist Russia and its gulags as Elie Wiesel's "Night" describes Auschwitz. It is ironic that the Holocaust is such a well-documented and (despite the rantings of some such people as I described in my EuroParliament post) reasonably well-understood and well-studied event, while the Stalinist atrocities going on literally right next door are so poorly understood. Even the numbers are debated. There seems to be pitifully few accessible works in English for us Westerners to read on Gulags, and even less that is not written by those with political axes to grind (Soviet emigres and all varieties of Eastern Europeans at differing stages of war with the Soviet Union). I guess my search continues.

And I shall hopefully finish this work of fiction I set out reading as a piece of history. Churchill was right: Russia continues to be a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

At the Movies Again...

...Or more correctly, watching DVDs from the library. This time it was "The Prince and Me", starring Julia Stiles, a film about a young woman who is preparing for medical school but instead falls in love with a prince from a fictive royal family of Denmark. In the tradition of Hollywood movies copying plots I believe that this film was already made as "The Princess Diaries" (yes, I watched that one with my little sister because I'm a good older brother). Well, this one was terrible. The plot was all over the place, not terribly romantic (or comedic), sort of set at the University of Wisconsin, sort of set in Copenhagen (which from a little checking on the internet appears to be a beautiful Prague in springtime). The acting was subpar. And, humourously, the entire constitution and society of Denmark has been reinterpreted for the silver screen. First (obviously), Danes speak English as their first language, even the royal family at home. Second, enough with all this nonsense about Queen Margaret - Denmark is ruled by a King whose wife seems to resemble Zsa Zsa Gabor. Also, the Crown Prince is a Prince William type playboy with a 12 year old sister... so much for the two real princes in their 30s (who married an Australian and Hong Kong woman, respectively, not Americans...). I (and probably the people of Denmark) was also unaware that the monarchs of Denmark personally convened and chaired Cabinet meetings. What a load of crap.

Long and short, if anyone has Black Hawk Down, let me please borrow it and watch it. It may be a depressing film, but at least its somewhat based on reality. That plus there comes a time when I can't take any more romantic comedies...it's time for something to cleanse the filmgoer's palate of all that artificial movie saccharine.

Surge

That blog entry before this was the first in almost a month, so I feel it was a little messy and rambling, but I needed to get something out there (Talk amongst ya'selves..). I promise to keep the next batch short and to the point, with some taut prose.

So I just watched the Bush speech, like I'm sure many political junkies and foreign affairs fans have done. I found it interesting. To the point, and actually rather well-spoken (a point journalist James Fallows has raised is that Bush seems to mis-speak more often when talking to his "Base" than when seriously dealing with a bipartisan audience). He was correct that whatever happens, there will be more violence in Iraq, and so people need to be prepared to deal with that. He also mentioned that America cannot afford to appear to lose in this conflict there: I would agree with him on that point too. As Paul Kennedy pointed out in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, that is the bitter irony of power: once a committment has been made, there is no way to withdraw from that committment without losing relative power. However, often these committments are expensive in terms of blood and treasure, and can likewise diminish power (talk about a prisoner's dilemma). As I have said before, this is why the debate on invading Iraq in the first place should have been taken more seriously - now it is far too late for the politicians to be squabbling on when and how to minimize an American presence there.

But on to this "surge", the new buzzword for 2007. Ultimately, it is a slight of hand and seems to be done for political reasons. The extra troops are troops already stationed in the Middle East - timetables have just been fiddled with. The whole debate over troop levels seems to be too much of an inside-the-Beltway game at the moment. Strategists need to seriously discuss the best means to secure a victory, or at least a stable situation, rather than the political horsetrading occuring at the moment.

Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty

The new year has brought the European Union two new members, Bulgaria and Romania. These two countries are the latest intakes in the EU's expansion this decade, and their presence could point to future difficulties in the European project.

For all the techno-jargon about "absorbtion capacity" and whatnot, the fact of the matter is that the two newest members are much poorer, have poorer infrastructure and a more corrupt society than the EU's more venerable members. Romania and Bulgaria are in quite a different world than, say, Ireland, Sweden or the UK, let alone Germany, or even Poland or Slovakia. The promise of EU membership has forced these countries to undergo reforms, but it is far from a finished project.

I mention Bulgaria and Romania because their addition has caused a small stir in the European Parliament (and it obviously takes something unusual to bring notice to the EUP). European Members of Parliament now include representatives from Romania's Greater Romania Party and Bulgaria's National Attack Party. In the world of EU politics, these two parties are considered rather unsavoury, what with their anti-minority, nationalist overtones. Their membership has allowed the formation of a new Pan-European political group: Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty, which will include Le Pen's French National Party, the Freedom Party of Austria (formerly led by Joerg Haider, until he tried to reinvent his political career), the Flemish Nationalist (and anti-immigrant) Vlaams Belang, and various far-right politicians from Italy, including Alessandra Mussolini, the granddaughter of Il Duce and niece of Sophia Loren (for details on her career as a topless model please consult, as always, wikipedia). No word yet on any support coming from the Danish People's Party or any of the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn's followers. These parties share a common distrust of the EU, especially regarding attempts to write an EU constitution, support stricter anti-crime measures in their home countries, oppose any EU membership for Turkey, and generally oppose immigration into the EU. Opponents can point to antisemitic histories of some politicians in this group, as well as a few national irredentists (just let the name "Greater Romania" sink in for a minute ... sadly I'm not sure how great it would be).

Quite a few have had some electoral successes in years of late, and a number have participated in or supported national Cabinets in their home countries. To traditional supporters of liberal democracy, such politicians are fascists, pure and simple. I remember a Professor of mine, a former high level State Department employee, remarking to my class that of course the EU must shun Austria and force it to change its government if its government included Joerg Haider! Such people must not be tolerated!

And there in lies the secret of such parties. European politics especially are dominated by something of a political elite...something that might seem quite familiar to the US State Department. All members of this "elite", despite their rhetoric or hairsplittting campaign promises, largely offer the same thing: parliamentary democracy with the same social democratic economics and values. So well and good if people want it, but if they are looking for something different then there is precious little on offer in the mainstream. As a result, these parties appeal to certain needs and fears felt by European voters. Attempts to exclude them only seem to prove that the system is rigged (and it is true that supporters of liberal democracy, whether Republican neoconservatives or UN-minded liberal internationalists, seem to expect a pretty narrow range of acceptable results from democracy despite the world's great variety of cultures, historical experiences and problems - one can see this in calls for Palestinian democracy followed by an international boycott once Palestinians elected a hardline Hamas government). The growing popularity in Europe has led mainstream politicians, such as Sarkozy in France, to address some of their voters' concerns about immigration and crime.

Socialists and communists seem to fit in to democracies and even have a hard left organization in the European parliament - the Party of the European Left, which includes as observers the unreconstructed members of some former Eastern European Communist regimes. It seems that "establishment" opinion seems more tolerable of them than of suspected fascists. In a true democracy, it is better to give everyone a voice ... usually the better to debate them and let them show their own failings (the European far right is an especially fractious lot).

So I say good luck to the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty Party. I disagree with what you say, but defend your right to say it. Just please do not try to deprive people of fundamental civil and political rights, or try to overthrow your governments and carry out genocide (admittedly, I am not too worried about the latter - professional politicians seem much more harmless than professional militaries, intelligence services and secret police forces that dabble in politics). Ultimately, all politics really is is a means to for the rest of us to humour the politically insane.

As a final warning, I would point to our far right European politican associates that the attempt to organize a Fascist International in the 1930s was a dismal failure (so much so I cannot even find reference to it on Wikipedia). Strident nationalists ultimately do not seem to get along with other strident nationalists ... especially when they are trying to deport each other's populations and control each other's territories. The only common enemies they gather are people favoring democracy... and eventually everyone gets a little tired and wants to throw the old bums out. So the Far Right bums beware of their antics, because they too will meet the same fate.