Here are a few other optional links on Rational Choice if you’re interested:
And: Rational Actor Model Theory
Here are a few other optional links on Rational Choice if you’re interested:
And: Rational Actor Model Theory
We are all Uyghur too
(Photo credit: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr565)
Je Suis Charlie? United We Stand, #BostonStrong, even, BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo. We Americans are a sympathetic, but sometimes selectively sympathetic people. To me, the most common limitations to our sympathy are limitations to our identity formation, limited education, and the reality of power dynamics domestically and internationally.
Limitations to Identify Construction
It’s my opinion that if we look at what I call the Big 5 in Identity Construction -Race, Ethnicity, Nationality, Religion, and Gender- the more closely we identify with the dominant demographic group, the less likely we are to understand or sympathize with the non-dominant groups. Or, to put it another way: Uyghurs (also spelled Uighur, Uigur, and Uygur) are a stateless, Central Asian ethnic group who practice Islam. Since most Americans are not Central Asian, nor Muslim, and have never met a Uighar then it is harder to notice or sympathize with their plight; it is far easier to ignore.
It is harder to notice because, after all, who’s going to tell us? Our education system favors American history -which is understandable up to a point, but I personally studied US History in 5th, 7th, 8th, 11th, and 12th grades. And that doesn’t include state history in 4th grade that certainly overlapped with US History. And when our social studies classes do study other nations and nation-states, it does so with a Western European bias. After all, not only are most Americans of Western European descent, but Western Europe has been the dominant part of the world for centuries prior to American hegemony and has influenced American culture far more than, well, Central Asia for example.
So, if not our education system, what about the news? We have print news, radio news, TV news… surely, we’d hear about a looming genocide in our news, right? No, of course not. The 24-hour news culture is obsessed with the Swamp Soap Opera in Washington, DC, business news and imagined wealth from Wall Street, NY and LA pop culture… more seriously, there are stories of #MeToo, #LivesMatter, #NFLKneelers, crime, school shootings, and stories of local interest that eat up our attention span and clog our access to news outside of America, let alone news about a small stateless group of people in the middle of Central Asian.
Really, its an issue of Power Dynamics. Textbooks, for example, are an expression of political and economic power. How else would you explain pages after pages about the Texas Republic, when Texas was not part of the US, in a US History textbook? Do we have pages after pages on the Hawaiian Kingdom? Pages after pages on the Shay and Whiskey Rebellions in the populous states of MA and PA, but rarely even a mention of Dorr’s Rebellion in the littlest state in the Union, Rhode Island? While most Americans are of Western European descent, Americans are certainly aware of India and China, as there are 1 billion people in each country and the US does considerable business with both countries. Heck, both countries have the nuke too, right? The Uyghurs have no worldly significant population (15 million), no nuke and, heck, don’t even have a nation-state…
So, if you’re still in school, you can be forgiven; if you’re an average guy like Joe the Plummer or Rosie Riveter, you can be forgiven for not knowing about the Uyghurs detention and incarceration. After all, the corporate media chooses what news to cover, right? But if you’re a teacher, perhaps you can help change the paradigm of neotribalistic news coverage, if you’re involved in your religious community or a church leader, perhaps you can speak up and speak out. If you’re a politician in Washington, perhaps, just perhaps, you could live up to the ideals of this country. This country which proudly remembers ending the Second World War and stopping German Nazism… and has done little to stop every genocide since. On February 19, 2005, I wrote this in the Providence Journal:
And not much has changed since. The Darfur Genocide, the Yazidi Genocide, the Second Assyrian Genocide, the Rohingya Genocide, and now the beginnings of a Uighar Genocide. If you’re a member of Congress who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations or House Foreign Affairs Committee, how dare you deposit your paycheck, how dare you run for re-election?
Because Uyghurs look differently than you, pray differently than you, it’s not an issue to bring to the attention of American people?
We have a subcommittee that is literally called the Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Terrorism led by Republican Jim Risch of Idaho and Democrat Tim Kaine of VA. Where are our Senators on the Uyghurs internment camps? The House Foreign Affairs Committee is led by Republican Ed Royce (CA-39) and Elliot Engle (NY—16). The Committee has a subcommittee named Asia and the Pacific led by Republican Ted Yoho (FL-3) and Brad Sherman (CA-30)… And where are they on this crisis; where are our Representatives on the Uyghurs internment camps?
Even more specifically: If you’re Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who introduced the Save Christians from Genocide Act, or Congressmen Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) who introduced the Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief Accountability Act for the Christian Genocide… then you are hypocrites and grandstanders, not leaders. And what Americans need are leaders in Congress, leaders in the State Department, leaders in the White House who stand up for the stateless people of the world, stand up for human rights, and stand up for the Uyghurs people.
Uighars, Uyghurs or Uygurs
The Uyghurs are a Turkic ethnic group in Central Asia. Ironically, most Uyghurs live in a section of China called the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China. Like many populations of Central Eurasia, they are genetically related to both Caucasoid and East Asian populations. There are about 15 million Uyghurs in China, 80% of whom live in the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang. In fact, the Uyghurs city of Ürümqi is the largest city in western China as well as all of Central Asia, 3.5 million people.
Outside of China, according to the World Uyghur Congress, the Uyghur population is believed to number 1.0–1.6 million; which may be part of the reason that the world is ignoring the Uighars. The main diasporic community of Uyghurs are in Kazakhstan (200,000), with much, much smaller communities in Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, and in Turkey. The largest Uyghurs population in the West is believed to be in Australia and number about 10,000. Canada has about 2000 Uighars. Uyghurs are a small stateless ethnic group, with few allies on the World Stage. Uyghurs are also predominantly Muslim, eliciting little sympathy from the Western Christian world. Look at the Darfur Muslims and Rohingya Muslims. In fact, the only Muslim genocide that the West (albeit belatedly) stopped was the Bosnia Genocide, perhaps because they were European Caucasians? Apparently “Never Again” meant, never again if you’re Jewish or European?
According to a 2018 report by The Economist, Uyghurs in Xinjiang suffer under a “fully-fledged police state” with extensive controls and restrictions upon their religious, cultural and social life. Chinese officials refer to Uyghurs as terrorists, justify their repression as anti-terrorism surveillance. And, to be fair, there have been Uighar successionist movements, and acts of violence against the Chinese government apparatus in Xinjiang. Laying aside the “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” argument; do the actions of some members of a population justify the repression of an entire people? Are all Italians in the Mafia, all Germans are Nazis, all Irishmen are in the IRA, and -of course- all Mexicans are “drug-dealers, murderers, and rapists.” When, oh when, are we as Americans and as human beings going to break out of this tribal mentality? When are we going to protect the rights of those who don’t look like us, as much as we defend and demand rights for those who do look like us?
Because, what? The Uyghurs terrorists? Uyghurs extremism? Well, in the Xinjiang Autonomous Uyghur Province of the People’s Republic of China, “Religious extremism” is defined as owning books about Uyghurs or quitting smoking or drinking. Government cameras have been installed in the homes of private citizens. Between 120,000 and one million Uyghurs are detained in mass detention camps, termed “re-education camps,” aimed at changing the political thinking of detainees, their identities, and their religious beliefs. Some of these facilities keep prisoners detained around the clock, while others release their inmates at night to return home. The New York Times has reported inmates are required to “sing hymns praising the Chinese Communist Party and write ‘self-criticism’ essays,” and that prisoners are also subjected to physical and verbal abuse by prison guards. The families of inmates are monitored, and women have been detained due to actions by their sons or husbands…
A student of mine asked me this week, I just finished listening to your podcast about the [first] Uyghurs, but I still don’t think I know who they are… I’ll tell you, they are just like you and me. They are parents and children, they are husbands and wives, they are farmers and businessmen, they pray and they go to school.
First, the PROC came for Chang Ki-Shek and the Nationalists,
And the US did nothing because it was busy in Europe and Korea;
Then the PROC came for the Tibetans,
And the US did nothing because there are few Buddhists and fewer Tibetan-Americans;
Then the PROC came for the Uyghurs,
And the US does nothing because there are few Muslims and fewer Uyghurs-Americans;
And then the PROC may drive your company out of business through corporate technology theft, low labor costs, and currency manipulation….
And you think we should care about you and your job?
Native Americans who were here already and the descendants of enslaved West Africans know a lot about persecution. But so do those who chose to immigrate to the United States. We are a nation of castoffs, of people persecuted and looking for a better world. If we can say Never Again about the Holocaust, we can say no to Uyghur concentration camps too. If, in the face of Sovietization, our president said Eich bin ein Berliner, then today in the face of Hanification, our leaders can say “We are all Uighars too!”
Je Suis Urumqi!
(Photo Credit: Public Domain file shared by QuartierLatin1968.)
Meet the FOCRs? I’d really like to call it the FOCR Theory (Favoritism of Conservative Rapprochement), but let’s just call it Conservative Rapprochement Bias (CRB). Conservative Rapprochement Bias is the propensity for diplomatic breakthroughs to be initiated or codified by political conservatives. The phrase “Conservative Rapprochement Bias” is not an attempt to be derogatory, but to be descriptive; more moderate protagonists and those with a wider viewpoint are often already committed to change, so the gamechanger occurs when conservative or extremists commit to change or peace.
I wrote about this years ago and called it Narrowism. At the time, I defined the phenomena as a suggested political theory which recognizes the tendency for meaningful social and international decision-making must be completed only by those with the narrowest and extreme political perspective. That definition certainly describes the negotiations that led up to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. In that situation, there were four Northern Irish political parties, as well as three nation-states party to the negotiations. The three nation-states (The US, UK, and Ireland) all wanted a deal. Among the Northern Irish, there were the more mainstream parties that desired a deal, namely the Social Democratic and Labour Party of John Hume, and the David Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party. Those two Nobel Laureates deserve all the praise that the peacemakers received, but the deal was never a deal, until the other two parties with narrower and more politically extremist parties agreed to the Agreement, or at least participated in the result. The extremist Loyalist, Ian Paisley of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), initially participated in the negotiations but withdrew when his ideological mirror, Gerry Adams of Sein Fein was allowed a seat at the table following his Nationalist party’s paramilitary (terrorist) affiliate the Provisional Irish Republican Army announced a ceasefire. My point is, negotiations between centrist Nationalists like SDLP, and center Loyalists like UUP, was never going to end The Troubles. The Troubles ended when the IRA announced a ceasefire, Gerry Adams and Sein Fein took their seats at the negotiating table and, post Agreement, Ian Paisley’s DUP took control of the new government after winning the plurality of seats and, ultimately, with Ian Paisley becoming First Minister in 2007.
Yes, the Good Friday Agreement is a perfect example of Narrowism, however, when I proposed the term in 2011, I was naïve. Narrowism is certainly valid, but I now see the phenomena differently. I know believe that the more common pattern is Conservative Rapprochement Bias.
Sometimes that Conservative Rapprochement may even play out within a side of the political spectrum. Look at the US Civil Rights movement: It took a conservative Southern Democrat and master legislator like LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act passed. Would Southern Democrats ever accept a deal brokered by Northerners like JFK, had not been assassinated?
Let’s look back at a few examples of the Conservative Rapprochement Bias:
1972, US President Richard Nixon travels to China and meets Mao Zedong. Would a President Eugene McCarthy have had enough political capital to sit down with a Communist leader?
On September 17, 1978, the Camp David Accords were signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin of the conservative Likud Party, not the liberal Labour Party of Yitzhak Rabin or the centrist party of Yigael Yadin.
In the 1980 Election, candidate Ronald Reagan ran for president against Jimmy Carter railing against Iran and called Russia the Evil Empire, but later the Reagan Administration coordinated the infamous Iran-Contra deal with Iran, and Reagan sits down with Mikhail Gorbachev on multiple occasions. To paraphrase my earlier rhetorical question, would President Jimmy Carter have had enough political capital to sit down with a Communist leader? Or a President Mike Dukakis?
We already discussed that in the Anglo-Irish peace process, nothing mattered -not only Gerry Adams came to the table- but moreover, the Agreement didn’t truly matter until Paisleyists took ownership of the new government. When political extremists like Ian Paisley, Gerry Adams, or even Yassir Arafat as another example, when the political extremists (or even terrorists or former terrorists) participated in peace talks, THAT’S when peace happens. Hardline soundbites like, “The US does not negotiate with terrorists” plays well on the 24-hour news and social media, but the reality is starkly different.
I would even point out that it was a conservative US Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), but on the other hand, there hasn’t been a liberal SCOTUS since the Warren Court ended in 1969. More to the point, it was also the transitionally conservative Burger Court that legalized abortion, banned the death penalty… most recently, it was the conservative Roberts Court that not only legalized same-sex marriage as mentioned before but also confirmed the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in 2012.
[As I said, hardline soundbites like, “No ‘bamacare” and “Repeal Obamacare” plays well on the 24-hour news and social media, but the reality is starkly different when a person or a party has to govern, not just criticize. Heck, the repeal shouters even changed their mantra to “Repeal and Replace,” and it’s still the law of the land… but I digress.]
Back in 2008, former Presidential candidate William J. Bennett wrote in the National Review: “Barack Obama’s position on negotiating with U.S. enemies betrays a profound misreading of history,” adding that if Obama were to meet with Iranian officials, “he will lower the prestige of the office of the president.”
And now we have, not kimchi, but Kim-Trump: The Singapore Summit. The reclusive leader of one of the most reclusive regimes in the world, travelled 3,067 miles to meet with the man who has described Kim as:
“North Korea where you have this maniac sitting there and he actually has nuclear weapons.”
~Sept. 16, 2015~
“Rocket Man [who] is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”
~September 19, 2017~
“Kim Jong Un of North Korea… is obviously a madman who doesn’t mind starving or killing his people”
~September 22, 2017~
And, finally, on November 11, 2017, the President of the United States referred to Chairman Kim as “short and fat.” Perhaps even the same words General George Washington used to describe King George III or perhaps it was what Abraham Lincoln called Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis?
When US President George W. Bush uttered that infamous phrase ‘axis of evil’ in his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, it got all of our attention. For some of us who follow international relations closely, personally I wondered why “W” baited the Iranians since the Iranian government had just shared their intelligence on Afghanistan with the US military in September and October of 2001… just 3 months earlier… but anyway…
Most people, and the media, we knew what he meant, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Libyans, and the North Koreans… the Bush Administration was serving notice to these rogue states. In fact, one of those rogue-states, Libya, straight-up capitulated and offered to give up its WMDs programs. To an extent, it hurts me to admit it, but the Libyan reaction to the 2002 speech is an example of saber-rattling actually working as an instrument of peace, to an extent.**
What???? The Iran Nuclear Deal Framework was a multinational agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, and Iran… six parties! And they were *all* somehow duped?
Under the Corker-Cardin framework establishing oversight of the Iran deal, Congress could vote to approve or disapprove of a final deal, determining whether Obama has the authority to temporarily lift Iran sanctions needed to implement the Agreement. If Congress fails to pass disapproval of the deal — or if Congress does pass a disapproval measure, then fails to override Obama’s veto of it — the deal would move forward.
And it did. The Corker-Cardin framework provided Congress with the right to review the Iran Agreement, regardless of what you’ve heard spun by the pundits.
No sitting-President of either political party has ever met with the leaders of North Korea. This policy was to avoid legitimizing a rogue-state as well as to hold onto that strategic carrot in order to draw concessions from North Korea. And now, like the US Embassy move in Israel, the United States has given up a negotiating item, for apparently nothing in return. But, the reaction to Trump’s meeting with the dictator of North Korea?
Senator McConnell praised the “historic first step” and noted that it was “the beginning of the arduous process,” but he said, “I support the goals contained in the statement and I remain supportive of the administration’s mission.” On the Iran Agreement, Mitch McConnell criticizes Iran nuke deal as “windfall” for Tehran…
On the Iran Agreement, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said, “It is an agreement that will reward a violent, terrorist regime. Instead of stopping the Iranians from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, it merely delays it. This deal is shortsighted and dangerous for our security.” But of the Trump-Kim Summit, Rounds said: “Good news coming from Singapore. @POTUS has made early strides in making our world a safer place. A lot of work to do yet.”
And how about this for sarcastic bitterness:
Of Obama and the Iran Agreement, Jim Risch (R-ID) said: “This deal falls disastrously short of what the Obama Administration originally promised and gives the Iranian government what it desires.”
And of Trump and North Korea? Risch said “If Barack Obama had accomplished what Donald Trump just accomplished, they’d be calling for the stonemasons to get out to Mount Rushmore and put off his head on Mount Rushmore. This is a historic occasion.”
Personally, I’m kinda wondering what exactly Trump *has* accomplished besides a handshake that North Korea has been seeking for decades, and now the regime received without capitulating on anything.
On Trump and North Korea, Sen. James Inhofe (OK) said “I do not trust Iran who has been the leading state sponsor of terrorism for generations, and I have no faith that President Obama’s deal will change the irrational and dangerous behaviors of Iran’s government leaders,” so I guess I’m really curious how Inhofe feels about Kim and his country’s history of bank fraud, cyberterrorism, saber-rattling and breaking of promises to South Korea as well as US Presidents of both political parties….
Here ya go: Of Trump and North Korea, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) even said “I’m so convinced that good things are going to happen,” and even praised Trump for being the first person to ever get Kim Jong-un’s attention and for playing him “like a fiddle.”
Really? Inhofe knows this already? Isn’t it equally possible that Kim played Trump like a fiddle?
The truth is that we won’t know for a long time whether President Trump gave away the cow for free, or if he was the one who started the North Koreans down the road to peaceful coexistence. John Delury, a North Korea watcher and professor at Yonsei University, thinks that it’s even possible that Kim Jung Un is creating a détente with the United States to pivot out of China’s orbit. At this point, who knows? Certainly not I…
But what I do know, is that there is a hypocrisy in the rightwing media (not that there’s not a blindness in the leftwing media on other issues), that there is a selectivity in history and an inconsistency in opinion on international rapprochement initiatives.
Perhaps it’s just partisanship? Or perhaps it’s just that the worst of partisanship is what ultimately becomes the dominant narrative in history. I hope not.
As I said, the Iran Nuclear Deal Framework was a multinational agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, and Iran… six parties! And somehow *all* six parties are incompetent and have somehow duped?
To be fair, North Korea and Iran are not in the same place in their nuclear research and capabilities. And that’s some of the reason for the confusing messages out of some conservatives. After all, North Korea’s research has been entirely weapons-based, so *if* (and that’s a huge if) North Korea stopped its nuclear weapons research, then it would be stopping all of its current nuclear work.
Iran’s nuclear research is much more sophisticated and more of a dual-tracked research. Iran has civilian nuclear research programs as well, so the Agreement honors civilian research.
So, on Trump and North Korea:
Sen. Jon Ernst (R-IA) can say that she was “excited about the opportunity.”
Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) can say the “critical summit is happening because of President Trump’s leadership and unwavering resolve to make the world a safer place,” and added that “[t]he Trump Administration has my full confidence as they move forward in these key talks.”
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) can say a “big opportunity” and “clearly there has been progress.”
But on Iran, the same three said:
Ernst: “This to me is a pathway to nuclear armament for Iran…This deal does not stop them from developing nuclear capabilities.”
Purdue: “This deal won’t prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state — it just delays it,” and “As I’ve said all along, I cannot support any deal that allows Iran to become a nuclear weapons state. Not now, not in 10 years, not ever.”
Sullivan: “Principal objective of Iran negotiations was to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This #IranDeal does NOT do that.”
These statements, to me, are a lot more consistent than the statements by Inhofe, Risch, Rounds, and McConnell…
Ernst, Purdue, and Sullivan are correct. The Iran Agreement does not prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon in 10 years if the Iranians want to. It was never intended to. The Agreement was intended to create breathing room, for Iran to be integrated into the world economy for a period of ten years, so that, as a member of the world economy, there would be a disincentive for Iran to throw those incentives away after ten years of participation in the international system.
Whereas the Trump Administration has, at this point, not offered North Korea the path to peaceful nuclear technology as Iran has been guaranteed, and at this point North Korea is still expected to terminate its nuclear weapon programs in perpetuity as South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, and the former Soviet Republics outside of Russia have all done.
Two different nation-states. Two different nuclear programs.
So, the issue isn’t so much about the “deal” but about the reception of engagement with rogue leaders and rogue states.
Yes, President Barack Obama shakes hands with Raul Castro, and it’s the end of the world, but President Donald Trump shakes hands with the leader of a rogue state one called a member of the Axis of Evil by President George W. Bush and…
Sen. Jim Inhofe says “I’m so convinced that good things are going to happen.”
The two most consistent voices have been Ben Shapiro and Jim Geraghty:
“I’m not certain why meeting with Kim without preconditions is suddenly a grand coup when we would have gone nuts had Obama done the same,” said conservative pundit Ben Shapiro, who criticized Obama back in 2009 and is now often critical of Trump.
National Review’s Jim Geraghty wondered the same. “Remember how much we condemned then-senator Barack Obama’s pledge to ‘meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?’ That wasn’t wrong,” Geraghty wrote.
Yes, Conservative Rapprochement Bias is a suggested political theory which recognizes the tendency for meaningful social and international decision-making must be completed only by those with the narrowest and extreme political perspective. While “not fair” it is none the less true that there is a pattern in politics, sociology, psychology, and religion that the seminal events are most often decided when those with the narrowest perspective agree to change or compromise.
As Yogi Berra said, “Déjà vu all over again.” And here we go again…
Yesterday, I explored the term “citizenship” as well as what it means and doesn’t mean. Sadly, citizenship is not a Golden Ticket as many believe. It is not the automatic panacea that some immigrants believe it is, nor is it an automatic giving away of the cow as those who already have citizenship might believe. Citizenship is tied up into the constructs of the nation-state and modern international relations as well.
Nation-states are sovereign entities recognized by other members of the international community. One of the first definitions of sovereignty is often the definition of borders… that is an argument that is frequently mentioned when discussing southern border security in the United States. After all, what kind of a country cannot delineate and secure its own borders, right?
By THAT definition, of course, Western Sahara and Tibet are not nation-states, but wouldn’t that also mean that Ukraine is not a nation-state either? Nor Syria?
And, inversely, wouldn’t that mean that South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Kurdistan are nation-states? Or, how about this one, wouldn’t securing of the borders mean that Taiwan is nation-state? Shall we tell the People’s Republic of China and the United Nations?
No, securing of borders is not the only standard for sovereign recognition. It’s important, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not the only measuring stick. Sometimes, an existing nation-state believes, demands, takes extraterritorial land, and then claims sovereignty. There’s even a term for when a nation-state expects former land to be returned to them; it’s called irredentism. Let’s look at the US annexation of the disputed land between the Nueces and Rio Grande Rivers 175 year ago… or 50 years ago, the Chinese annexation of Tibet. Or, most recently, Russia’s annexation of Crimea….
On this day, June 3, 1998, the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland entered into effect. The Nineteenth Amendment was approved by referendum on May 22, 1998. It was an amendment, essentially, codified the Good Friday Agreement. Yes, it enabled the establishment of shared political institutions between Ireland and Northern Ireland. But more importantly, it renounced the claim to the whole island of Ireland and replaced the irredentist claim on the whole island of Ireland to an aspiration towards creating a united Ireland by peaceful means, “with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.”
Also, on this day, June 3, 2010, the competition for territorial claims to the former British Mandate of Palestine played out again. If it’s strange to think that Russia should have the right to annex Crimea after less than thirty years… If it’s strange to think that the Irish Constitution claimed the whole of an island that has been divided since 1922, and not independently unified since 1175 and the Treaty of Windsor…
If those are strange irredentist claims… how do we objectively look at the Israeli annexation of West Jerusalem in 1948 and the Israeli annexation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem in 1967?
Palestinians have been trying to call attention to the situation for decades… sometimes ethically and unfortunately sometimes through violence. The eye for an eye mentality of the Irish Troubles and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has left a lot of us blind.
On June 3, 2010, Huwaida Arraf gave her first interview of what happened on the supply ship, Challenger 1, in the Med, on May 21, 2010. Arraf (born 1976 in Detroit, Michigan) is a Palestinian American human rights activist, lawyer, and co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement. ISM a Palestinian-led organization focused on assisting the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict using non-violent protests. At the times, Arraf was also the chair of the Free Gaza Movement which organized the Gaza Freedom Flotillas. These ships carrying Pro-Palestinian activists and were organized to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. Arraf was aboard the 2008 Free Gaza boats as well as the 2010 flotilla that was raided by Israeli commandos in international waters on May 31, 2010.
Perhaps irredentism belongs in the past and off the negotiation tables. Perhaps wars of aggression, frankly any wars, should not be rewarded with territorial annexation. Perhaps the exercise of civil rights should not require oaths of allegiance as they once did in Britain’s Ireland and oaths shouldn’t be required of Palestinians in order to vote in Israel. If Israel claims the extraterritorial land, then all the people living there should be afforded equal rights.
George Mitchell, the US negotiator in the Good Friday Agreement and later US Representative for Peace in the Middle East recently said,
“Each conflict is unique. Each requires a solution that is grounded in the specific and particular history of the people, the region, the issues. There are similarities, of course: religion, territorial demands, national identity. All of that are factors.”
Let’s remember that modern Nation-states have modern responsibilities and that peace can only be achieved through concessions by all parties, and a rejection of irredentist claims on history.
Trump, Pompeo, and Iran
Current US policy toward Iran has three facets of pettiness, ignorance, and arrogance. My criticism of the leadership style of Donald Trump, the new normal of abusive language in political rhetoric, and the arrogance and ignorance of the President and his Administration is well known. The President’s petty Obamaphobia and the hypocritical interpretation of historical facts is dangerous and self-indulgent. He has surrounded himself with washed-out neocons like John Bolton and, now, I’m just waiting for the rehabilitation of Paul Wolfowitz next. And now a Tea Partier is the Secretary of State. Mike Pompeo is highly qualified for many offices, perhaps the CIA, and perhaps even the Pentagon. The leader of the State Department ought to be a Warhawk. Yet, on May 21, 2018, the top diplomat of the United States of America said that the US will “crush” Iran. Crush? Is that now the new-normal for diplomatic parlance?
Pettiness at its finest.
II. The Hypocrisy of Selective History and the Selective Application of National-Sovereignty and International Norms
A. The Hypocrisy of Selective History
Again, each incoming presidential administration has the right to make policy changes and reprioritize both domestic and international agendas. Presidents of both political parties have had a history of engaging with rogue states and terrorist organizations. Yet, hypocritically, some presidential candidates and presidents seem to only vilify engagements by presidents of the opposite political party. From the Iran Hostage Crisis to the Iran-Contra Deal, from the Reagan-Gorbachev Summits to the USS Stark cover-up, from Bush 41’s official acceptance of the Japanese apology for Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1991, to Bush’s continuation of pro-Iraq policies as NSD 26. And Clinton’s normalization of relations with Vietnam and his negotiations with the PLO in the Middle East as well as the IRA and UDA terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland.
In 2004, President George W. Bush began the process of normalizing relations with Libya. Additionally, the Bush Administration used US funds to create the Sunni Awakening militias by essentially hiring the militiamen away from the Sunni uprising militias that had been attacking the US and Shi’a forces.
The point is this: it is hypocritical and/or ignorant to denounce meeting and negotiation with rogue nations and terrorist organizations. It is a tool of diplomacy that has been used by US Presidents from both political parties. In fact, the current president seems as proud of his impending meeting with Kim Jung Un as he and others were critical of President Obama’s handshake with Raul Castro.
B. The Hypocrisy of Selective National-Sovereignty and International Norms
Again, it is important to remember that the UN Treaty is binding US law based upon Article VI of the US Constitution and the ratification of the UN Treaty by the US Senate in 1945. And Chapter VI of this binding document requires negotiation and arbitration of international disputes, not one-sided ultimatums.
US foreign policy for many decades has been a double standard, to say the least. American rhetoric often refers to the rule of law, yet the American government categorically ignored the decision in USA v. Nicaragua (1986). The more recent American use of drones as extrajudicial execution squads are as illegal internationally and, in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki and others, against domestic law as well.
The US government often asserts national sovereignty as a bulwark defense of US policy and unilateral actions yet labels other sovereign states who assert the same supposition as rogue-nations. Either the Americans has the right to impose a unilateral economic blockade against Cuba and Iran has the right to develop nuclear technologies, or Iran does not have the right to develop nuclear technologies and the US does not have the right to unilaterally impose economic sanctions. Both are examples of national sovereignty. Either Iran must comply with international regimes and the US must comply with international regimes as well (again, like USA v. Nicaragua), or international regimes are not compulsory on either nation-state.
If the US government can arbitrarily withdraw from international treaties such as the US Small Weapons Ban, Kyoto Protocol, the Rome Statute, NAFTA, the Paris Accord, the Iran Agreement… If the United States can withdraw from international agreements, then is there any reason for Iran to stay party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Iran can hardly be held in violation to an agreement that the government has withdrawn from, right? What is the incentive for Iran to stay a party to the NPT?
Yes, there is a clear, non-partisan, double standard in how the United States government interprets the concepts of national sovereignty and international law. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously once said that everyone has a right to their opinion, but not to their own facts. Too often in the past, the American government has interpreted the facts of international law to suit US foreign policy. Now, in the Age of Trumpism, we have ignorance and categorical lies, coupled with American’s tradition of selective history and the selective application of International norms.
III. An Ignorance of History and the Concept of Cultural Diffusion
On May 21, 2018, Mike Pompeo made his first formal comments on Iran since President Trump announced his intent to withdraw from the party agreement was negotiated by the P5, the European Union, and Germany with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Seven sovereign nation-states and a non-state actor worked on the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal Framework, and now the United States is taking its proverbial ball and going home. More ignorance of international norms.
The President’s petty Obamaphobia influencing Trump’s understanding of the Iran Agreement, combined with the hypocritical ignorance of historical facts that ignores Reagan’s attempts to negotiate with the Iranian government. In addition, this self-indulgent
Candidate Trump, President-Elect Trump, and President Trump have all repeated ignorant and categorical lies, such as stating that President Obama sent millions in US currency to Iran, without either understanding or articulating that the transfer was a return of Iranian assets frozen since the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The return of those frozen assets (+interest) was part of the negotiated Framework.
President Trump and Neocons, like Bolton, as well as Tea Partiers, like Pompeo, seem to think that negotiation is when everyone else agrees with you. The international community has done that before, it’s called the Treaty of Versailles. And, thanks to the Treaty of Versailles, we got Hitler, Nazism, and World War II. A successful treaty is a negotiated agreement in which each side gets something and, frankly, no one is happy. That’s called diplomacy. Total warfare may work in military combat, but it always fails in international diplomacy.
Let’s go back to Pompeo’s visit to the Heritage Foundation today; in the 16th paragraph of his speech, Pompeo said that, after complying with US demands, Iran will be welcomed back into the “League of Nations.” Yup. He said the League of Nations. And please don’t tell me that it’s an expression, take a look at the text of the speech, League of Nations was capitalized. Who the heck is his speech writer? If it was meant as just an expression, who is the editor? Who released the text of the speech to the public? Did the Secretary read his speech before he arrived at the Heritage Foundation today? Did *he* notice? I dunno, should someone tell, or have told, the top diplomat of the most powerful nation-state on Earth, the United States Secretary of State, …that the League of Nations does not exist anymore? For some reason, I personally feel that he should have known that already.
And these of the people who are in charge of our diplomacy and our reputation throughout the world…
Yes, on May 21, 2018, the top diplomat of the United States of America said that the US will “crush” Iran. Crush. Yes, the new-normal for diplomatic parlance. And, in the same speech, the chief diplomat referred to the League of Nations that has been defunct for 72 years.
Yes, my criticism of Donald Trump’s leadership style is already on record. I do not appreciate the debased new-normal of abusive language in our political rhetoric, as well as the arrogance and, in my opinion, ignorance of the President and his Administration. The President’s has a petty Obamaphobic hang-up and a dangerous and self-indulgent interpretation of historical facts. The President has surrounded himself with washed-out neocons like John Bolton and Tea Partiers like Mike Pompeo. Pompeo, like Rex Tillerson, is highly qualified for many offices like the CIA and the Pentagon. But the leader of the State Department is a Warhawk who promises to “crush” Iran until it rejoins the 72-year defunct League of Nations.
The US policy toward Iran is three comprised of pettiness, ignorance, and arrogance. Apparently, one the one hand, Obama gave the cow away to Iran, but it’s the Art of the Deal to sit down with Kim Jung Un. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. No, no one knows what the future holds for Iran or North Korea, but US negotiations with the PLO and the IRA seem to have gone well. US normalization of relations with Vietnam and Libya seem to have gone fairly well too.
The fact is that the Iranians will have nuclear weapons if they want… maybe not this year, or the next, maybe not in 5 years, but you can’t stop it permanently. It’s called cultural diffusion. The British couldn’t prevent Samuel Slater from bringing the Industrial Revolution to America, nor could America stop the transfer of electronics technologies to East Asia. More to the point, the US and its allies were unable to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Russia, China, India, Pakistan, or North Korea. But few Americas fear waking up to nuclear war with the UK, France, India, or even China or Russia. So, the issue is not nuclear proliferation, its the relationship that the United States has with other nuclear power that matters most. No, the US government cannot permanently prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb forever, but the US can manage the US-Iranian relationship so that in ten years Iran is not an enemy.
Perhaps its time to let go of Zero Sum politics, the hypocritical application of international norms, and Obamaphobia? Perhaps Obama’s engagement and negotiation with the Iranians is as valid as Trump’s engagement and negotiation with the North Koreans?
Just the thoughts of a Babbling Professor…
My name is Tom Keefe, and, remember, Today’s Tomorrow’s Yesterday!
Thanks for Listening!
On this day, May 16, 1983, Sudan People’s Liberation Army (also known as the Sudan People’s Army Movement, or SLAM) began their rebellion against the Sudanese government. This Sudan People’s Army Movement began a civil war that culminated in both the Darfur Genocide as well as ultimately the independence of South Sudan.
Within Sudan are the northern Sudanese Arab Muslims, southern Sudanese African Christians, and western Sudanese African Muslims.
Sudan President Omar al-Bashir has based his rule on war. As noted earlier, the Second Sudanese Civil War had been a conflict between the Northern Muslims and the Southern Christians. The Darfur Conflict came as a result of many factors. To an extent, Fighting a war can centralize authority, unify the population (to an extent), can eliminate political rivals and reduces the net population of military age men. Just as when the Spanish conquest of the Iberian peninsula ended in 1492 and military age men looked for new lands to conquer (i.e., the Americas), after the Second Sudanese Civil War, al-Bashir needed a new enemy to deflect attention from his autocratic rule.
The Darfur genocide occurred in western Sudan and is/was a conflict was between the Abbala (camel-herding) and Baggara/Baqqarah (cattle-herding) Shuwa Arabs on the one side and the Masalit, Zaghawa, and Fur ethnic peoples on the other side. The Fur people are the most numerous in the region; in fact “Dar-fur” means “Abode of the Fur.” The crisis is a combination of racial, agricultural, and political conflict. The Abbala and Baggara people are nomadic Arabs who follow herds of camels and cattle. For their part, Masalit and Fur people are Sub-Saharan African (Black Africans) and are sedentary farmers. The other Sub-Saharan tribe, the Zaghawa, is comprised mainly of sheep pastoralists. Similar to the land wars in the nineteenth century American West, these farmers and herders are in conflict over access to water as well as the issue of fences. As both sides of combatants are Muslim, the issue is more a conflict of “Arabization” than the Muslim-Christian tension that has served as a basis for the Second Sudan Civil War.
The government soon began to attack the Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit people, particularly in the Marrah Mountains. Both sides employed light cavalry tactics (horse, camel or Toyota Land Cruisers) for quick strikes. The tactics also included ‘scorched earth policy’ “with livestock seized, grain stores attacked and looted, wells and watering places poisoned … [as well as] … forced population movements engineered to perpetuate dependency and control.
Adding fuel to the fire of nearly all African conflicts is the ‘low congruence’ between ethnic boundaries and state borders. The Masalit and Zaghawa people live in both eastern Chad and western Sudan. In fact, the dictator of Chad, Idriss Déby Itno, is Zaghawa. For their part, the Abbala and Baggara share a common Arab background with the political leaders of Sudan, particularly dictator Omar al-Bashir. These Arab tribesmen have formed the Janjaweed militia and received support from al-Bashir’s government.
To counter the threat from the Sudanese government, On this day, May 16, 1983, the Fur, Masalit, and the Wagi clan of the Zaghawa peoples formed The Sudan Liberation Movement/Army or Haraka Tahrir Sudan (abbreviated as either SLM or SLA). Although the roots of the Darfur conflict go back decades to 1983, eventually the Conflict grew into what we now recognize as the (2002 or 2003) Darfur Genocide and eventually to the independence of South Sudan.