New World Disorder — How we Got Here

The world is in extraordinary turmoil — a violent Islamic Caliphate overturning the borders of Syria and Iraq; a war in Europe pitting Russia and pro-Russian rebels against the new regime in Ukraine; Israel invading Gaza and trading rocket exchanges with Hamas; Egypt, Libya and Yemen disrupted by the Arab uprisings; confrontations among Japan, China, Vietnam and the Philippines in the South and East China Seas; and gang wars in Central America driving thousands of young families and children across borders. Worse yet, Europe is caught up in its own internal squabbles, leaving the U.S. without the full support of its most powerful and reliable allies in dealing with these crises.

This is not what was expected when the collapse of communism ushered in a “new world order” based on universal support for liberal democracies! How did we stray so far from expectations? The answer is really quite simple. America ignored the twin lessons of World War I and II, and the more recent experiences in the Balkans, and forgot the vital importance of nationalism, the “dark side” of democracy.

The lessons of World War I and II are that ending a war and creating a durable peace are two wholly different things. At the end of World War I, the victorious allies thought that their victory had earned them the right to dictate the shape of the world to come. Imposing harsh reparations and penalties on Germany, and carving up the Ottoman Empire into French and British protectorates, the allies ignored the nationalist aspirations of Germany and various Arab and Kurdish peoples.   Yet those nationalist aspirations could not be wished away or suppressed. The result was a boomerang of German nationalism that triggered World War II, and an eruption of Arab Nationalism under Nasser and other Arab leaders in the 1950s and 1960s that kept the Middle East in turmoil for decades.

By contrast, at the end of World War II, the allies set out to craft a durable peace that would respect the aspirations of various nations. Although Germany was kept divided, West Germany was welcomed into NATO and became, along with its former enemies Britain and France, a key part of the European Union. Japan was pacified and disarmed but became part of a strong security pact with the United States. More importantly, multi-lateral institutions were established — the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, and world trade agreements – to safeguard international trade, enforce global peace and human rights agreements, and aid the development of the emerging nations. In short, enormous efforts were made to create a durable peace that constructively engaged both friends and former foes.

At the end of the Cold War, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, American faced another moment like that at the end of World War I and II. What should have happened was for America to lead an effort to create new multi-lateral institutions to ensure a post-Cold War peace.   This would have included a stronger EU leadership that was capable of giving Europe an effective foreign policy and a unified banking and currency system; an expansion of NATO to end the focus on anti-Soviet operations and instead embrace a global role promoting democracy and human rights, with NATO partners such as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand fully integrated into a new global security alliance; and rules to add membership and voting rights for newly emerging nations as they inevitably gained economic and demographic weight in a post-superpower world.

Instead, the US acted much like the victors in WWI. Under neo-conservative leaders, America assumed its victory in the Cold War gave it the right to shape the world’s future. Seeing ourselves as the “sole superpower,” we unilaterally expanded NATO up to Russia’s front porch, and believed we could reshape Afghanistan and Iraq simply by taking out their dictators and calling for democracy.

Yet in doing so, America wholly forgot the recent lesson of the Balkans: democracy has a dark side, namely nationalism, that can promote turmoil and bloodshed. When the Yugoslav dictator Josef Tito died, nationalist politicians began competing for power. After turmoil in the 1980s, the various nationalities that composed Yugoslavia began to break apart into ethno-nationalist states. However, the struggle for people and territory among those states led to war, ethnic cleansing, and revolutions. It took several years, a NATO bombing campaign, supervised negotiations, and two revolutions (in Kosovo and Serbia) to resolve the various crises in the region. Thus the lesson: overturning dictators in pursuit of democracy unleashes nationalist passions; it does not necessarily resolve them.

At the dawn of this century, the promises of Arab nationalism remained unfulfilled, and have transformed into Shia and Sunni nationalisms that are fueling current conflicts. The EU, having assumed nationalism would fade, is instead facing resurgent right-wing nationalist and anti-EU parties. In Russia and Ukraine, nationalist aspirations to overcome the humiliations of the Cold War and Russian domination, respectively, are playing out in deadly conflict. And in East Asia, the nationalisms of a booming China, declining Japan, and aspiring Vietnam and Philippines are set for further collisions.

Nationalism is a force that cannot be ignored. It can be tamed by a framework of international agreements that accord dignity and respect to the interests of diverse nations. But to ignore the power of nationalism and treat other nations with disdain is to repeat the errors of World War I.   One must hope that it is not too late for Europe, America, Japan, Australia, and other countries (Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey?) to work together to restructure and strengthen existing multi-lateral institutions to reflect current global realities. Failure to do so will leave us facing the real risk of a World War III – not the nuclear superpower war that some had feared, but a bonfire of extremist nationalism among developing nations that has already begun to sweep many parts of the globe.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Borders and Bodies

The world has recently seen what seems like a sudden eruption of violence and disorder, from civil war in Ukraine and Iraq and Syria to Israel’s invasion of Gaza.  There is also Boko Haram attacking young men and women in Nigeria, violent militias doing as they please in Libya, renewed Taliban assaults on Kabul and in Pakistan, and attacks on the Rohinga Muslims of Burma.  Disorder and deaths continue in Mali and the Central African Republic,  overshadowed by the violence closer to Europe and in the Middle East.

What has happened?  Sadly, all of this violence was contained in embryo in the political settlements of the early and mid-20th century.

The 19th century revealed the power of aspirations for nationalism.  People everywhere began to fight back against supra-national empires.  By the mid-20th century, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the British and Dutch imperial empires were gone, replaced by dozens of newly independent states, from India, Pakistan, and Indonesia to Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey.   Israel and Egypt, Algeria and Libya, Afghanistan and Burma all emerged from the shell of past imperial territories.

Yet in many, many places, the break-up of empires did not lead to the emergence of true national states, with a dominant ethno-national identity.  Instead, the great powers who dominated at the end of WWI and WWII drew up borders to suit themselves: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine were thus not national states, but multi-national entities that combined different and often antagonistic groups.   The same was true of Yugoslavia, which broke up violently into true national states in the 1990s (excepting Bosnia which still remains an unstable multi-national entity).  Today, the Russian Federation still aims to hold on to diverse national minority groups in the Caucasus (leading to the Chechnyan wars) and wishes to continue as the dominant influence in Ukraine, central Asia, and other parts of the former USSR.  Similarly China continues to incorporate Tibet and Xinjiang, where nationalist aspirations remain strong.

The inevitable result of suppressing or denying nationalist aspirations in a world based on the legitimacy of nationalism is going to be outbreaks of violence.  Whether expressed through religious extremism (as in much of the Middle East and increasingly in south Asia), tribal hatreds (as in Libya, Somalia, Sinai and Yemen), or ethno-linguistic clashes (as in Ukraine, former Yugoslavia, and much of Africa), groups who feel their identity and culture are being threatened are fighting to control their own future.

For many years, nationalist aspirations in the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia were suppressed by authoritarian regimes, backed by foreign powers (or by the superpowers themselves).  The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union triggered a series of declines in the power and reach of authoritarian regimes; this has set off a free-for-all of both moderate and extremist nationalist and ethno-religious movements struggling to create new states.

In Syria and Iraq, it seems almost inevitable that Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds will no longer tolerate being forced to share the procrustean bed of a single state. Nor does there seem to be any future in the world’s powers trying to preserve such states.

We may be moving toward the “Kosovo” model, where even tiny communities, if they share a sense of national identity and feel oppressed by being part of a larger entity, will demand and fight for their own state, and seek international support in doing so.  Under such conditions, we can expect identity groups everywhere — from Kurds to Palestinians to Tamils and Pashtuns and Baluchis and many others to periodically take up arms and ask foreign powers to support their cause.

What is the way out of this explosion of violence?  In some cases, the answer may lie in referenda and secession.  In  other cases, autonomy or federalism may suffice.  Europe has its own experience in Northern Ireland and the Basque region of Spain where ethnic and/or religious separate movements adopted violence and terror tactics.  The lessons of these conflicts were that finding solutions takes time, and takes a two-pronged approach: fight against violence and terror with precise, proportionate force, and negotiate with political representatives to find acceptable levels of autonomy or federalism or representation.  Protection of minority rights and cultural expression is essential; all that can be negotiated is whether such protection and expression can take place within the boundaries of a larger state, or only through separation from that state.

So the violence we are seeing today should be no mystery.  Whether it is Israelis suppressing the aspirations of Palestinians (which can never be met as long as they include seeking the end of Israel), or Russia seeking to influence events in Ukraine, or Iraq’s Shia government aiming to exclude and suppress Iraq’s Sunnis, the clash between nationalist aspirations and governments seeking to overcome them has been written into the fabric of the last two centuries.  We will likely see much more conflict until national borders that accord with nationalist aims are established and respected.  Until that day, which still seems distant, the bodies will continue to pile up.


Posted in The Global Economy, The Middle East Revolts | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

One and a-half cheers for jobs

It’s always nice to get good news, and the Labor Department telling us that the U.S. economy added 288,000 jobs in June was definitely good news.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t good enough.  It would be great if most of those additional jobs were full-time jobs at good pay. They weren’t.  Fully 275,000 new jobs in June were part-time.

Overall, we are still in VERY slow recovery mode in the US job market.  In Dec. 2007, just before the recession began, 16.9% of the employed workers were working part-time jobs(defined as under 35 hours per week).  In the pit of the recession in in February 2010, that rose to 20.1%, or almost one-fourth higher.  Today, after four  years of recovery, the fraction of employed workers working less than full-time is  (ta dah!) 19.2 %.

So we have hardly at all recovered the balance of full-time vs. part-time work that prevailed before the recession.

The same is true with regard to work-force participation.  The totals look pretty stuck: In December 2007, the percentage of working-age Americans in the labor force was 66%, which is pretty much what it had been for the preceding five years.  Since  then, labor-force participation has steadily fallen, without any sign of recovery — to 65% in 2010, 64% in 2012, and 63% in 2015.   The latest figure: 62.8% in June 2014, matches the lowest level since 2004.

Hours worked and real median wages tell a similar story of stagnation — there just doesn’t seem to be much demand for labor that would drive wages higher.

So yes, businesses hired workers — but mainly lots of part-time workers, and bosses were not working existing workers harder or increasing their wages.

We thus have to wait and see:  was this surge in hiring an effort by business and construction to make up for the production lost during the terrible, weather-dampened first quarter, when GDP fell by almost 3% at an annual rate?  If so, then hiring part-timers to push up production for a few months in order to make up lost ground in the first quarter is just going to be temporary, and we will see new hiring decline back to lower levels later in the year.  Or was this surge an indication of the much sought-for “take off velocity” in which the economy starts generating more jobs, which generates more demand, which generates more hiring, in a virtuous circle to kick up growth?

Given the lack of increase in hours and wages, and the ever lower level of labor force participation, it is hard to believe that the June surge alone is going to start that virtuous cycle of higher demand.  It will take a few more months of strong jobs data before we can be confident we are getting there.

Meanwhile, we have to wait–but let’s give one-and-a-half cheers for a job number near 300,000 per month.  If we see more like that in the months to come, I may start to abandon my pessimistic outlook and start to see true recovery.




Posted in The Global Economy, U.S. Politics | Leave a comment

Why Winners Go Down: Economies, Firms, or States

I have spent much of my career wondering why winners go down.  Revolutions, of course, my main specialty, are the most spectacular case of winners going down.  The former rulers and dominant classes are overthrown and cast aside, much of what they had built up over decades or centuries being lost.

But there are analogous cases in other fields.  In global economics, leading economies fade and are overtaken by others.  Spain, with its glorious global empire in the 1500s, was overtaken first by the Dutch, then the British, then the Americans, over the next four centuries.  In the process, first Spain, then Holland, then Britain, went from being the richest and most powerful country in the entire world to a condition of near irrelevance in the global hierarchy.

In capitalist competition among firms, there are similarly winners who become losers.  IBM is a great survivor, as are Ford and GM, Coca-Cola and Proctor & Gamble and others.  But who now remembers such once-great iconic firms as Woolworth’s, A&P, Pan American, Kodak or Montgomery Ward?

Today, I am preparing for a lecture tour in Japan to address Japan’s future.  There —  just like in America, but much closer to their own shores — they are looking at the dynamism of China and asking about themselves:  will we be overtaken?  Are we the next “winner” in recent history to become a “loser” in the shadow of China’s spectacular rise?

In thinking about this, I am thinking in general terms about what makes once-great nations, economies, or firms turn into failures, sometimes spectacular ones.

The answer is pretty simple.  It’s as old as the story of Easter Island, or as new as the story of Kodak.  And it’s a well known story; it is just remarkable how difficult it is for people to learn from it.

The simple answer is this: the world is always changing, as new ideas and new markets and new technologies come on the scene.  Some of these are what Harvard Prof. Clayton Christenson calls “disruptive innovations,” because they have the potential to make novel and weaker competitors able to compete effectively with established dominant players.  So in order to stay on top, dominant firms or nations have to periodically re-invent themselves. Whatever advantage made the dominant firms or nations dominant will eventually lose its edge; so to stay on top, the dominant firms or nations need to find new advantages to stay ahead of emerging competitors.

Thus the Spanish advantage, based on heavily armed infantry and caravel ships, which overpowered all competitors in the 16th century, gave way to faster and more powerful warships and much better drilled and armed troops developed by the Dutch, using wealth from innovations in windmill power, commercial grain and dairy farming, cod fishing and processing, warehousing, and finance.  Then the British developed even better navies and more powerful national finance mechanisms and made a better imperial bet: grabbing the markets for Asian manufactures (in India for cotton cloth and in China for ceramics and silk), rather than the Dutch approach of taking a monopoly of spices in Indonesia (raw materials of declining value).  British efforts at creating home-manufactured substitutes for these items led to an unexpected industrial revolution that made Britain supreme.

In each case, the dynamics were similar.  The decision-making elites in the dominant nation were so successful at exploiting the advantage they had, that they couldn’t see their way toward abandoning those advantages to gamble on something else. Worse yet, during their period of global dominance, they were rich enough to afford certain inefficiencies that made their lives easier.  Thus the Spanish could afford tax privileges for their elites; the Dutch could afford to become ever more reliant on finance rather than production, even the British in the wake of their industrial revolution allowed themselves to become reliant on apprenticeships and the success of tinkerers to drive innovation rather than create a modern scientific educational and training system for its workers and industrial research (as Germany did, who soon displaced Britain as the global leader in manufacturing).   These inefficiencies in fact came to be seen, in an error only visible in hindsight, as basic rights or advantages that the elites were loathe to surrender and fought to maintain, even as they condemned their nation to growing impotence and irrelevance.

What we see here is the problem of undertaking short-term pain for long-term gain writ very large.  For an individual, making that trade-off is difficult, but possible.  But for an entire elite class, it often seems truly impossible to convince them that undergoing the pain of giving up much-enjoyed and valued privileges and wealth and easy profits and power, in order to give up current advantages that are fading and find new ones that will assure the future, is worthwhile, indeed essential to their survival.

Part of this is rooted in elite’s attitudes toward inequality.  When a nation or firm is poor or small and struggling to catch up, the inequality that matters to that nation or firm’s leader is often the gap between their country and that of the world leader.  To close that gap, they need to make sure that every person in their country, or their firm, is as productive as possible.  They invest in whatever techniques they can find to boost that performance throughout their economy or firm; in the process they often find some advantage than when honed and developed propels them to become formidable competitors and even to overtake the formerly dominant leader.

But when a nation or firm experiences rapid gains and starts to catch up to, or even overtake its competitors, its elites and leaders may grow attached to the wealth they have gained and the particular techniques and habits that accompanied it.  They become wedded to their privileges and social practices as the foundation of their elite status.  At that point, they may cease to care very much  or at all about the welfare of their ordinary workers and citizens, instead doing whatever they think will best maintain their own wealth and power.  This was the case for Spanish aristocratic army commanders; for Dutch oligarchs and financiers; French noble landlords; and British industrialists.  For a while, they can indeed maintain and grow their wealth by abusing and exploiting the ordinary soldiers, workers, and people of their society or firm; but in the longer run they will lose the enthusiasm and productivity and competitive edge of their society or firm as a whole.  Instead of being able to innovate and draw on the strength of the best workforce or most capable citizenry, they will be thrown more and more on their own devices, and then easily overtaken by firms or nations that have better prepared and empowered their people to innovate and strive to overcome others.

This was shown most clearly on the battlefields of 18th century Europe.  Over the 17th and 18th centuries, noble commanders grew ever more distant from their conscript troops; the latter fought only under duress and with little enthusiasm for any cause or loyalty to their commanders, seeking mainly to survive.  When Revolutionary France changed this equation by recruiting troops to preserve a republican regime that made them citizens, led by officers chosen and promote for merit, they overcame every army thrown at them by other still-aristocratic European monarchies.

But Japan taught the same lesson to comfortably inefficient American manufacturers in the 1970s and 1980s — by empowering workers, raising their education and human capital, Japanese manufacturing overtook American giants in regard to both cost and quality, bringing American firms in numerous industries to their knees.

America survived by restructuring its old industries (although many went bankrupt or nearly so and never regained their global domination), but mainly by pioneering in new information and computer and materials industries.  America’s great research universities, and the ease of forming new companies to exploit their discoveries, allowed America to retain its place in the world economy despite the loss of its former dominance in much traditional manufacturing, where Japan and Germany and Korea (in many high end industries) and China (in most low-end industries) took over.

But today, both Japan and America again risk fading away.  American elites have created a system of income and wealth inequality and expensive private-financed education that is gutting the state universities and making private university education unaffordable for the vast majority of the population, along with K-12 education that is, as a whole, among the worst in the developed world.  Tolerating a stagnation in wages and decay in relative human capital (recent tests of 15 and 20 year olds show that American high schoolers and college graduates rank toward the bottom of the 20 leading industrialized nation in skills), American firms will struggle to compete against firms and countries with much more capable talent.  For the last thirty years, America’s competitiveness has relied heavily on the skills of the baby-boom generation (including Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and many others) and immigrants (Sergey Brin and numerous Asian founders of high tech and financial firms).  As the baby-boomers, who were at the time the best educated population in the world, fade away, and the doors to immigrants close tighter and tighter except for the family members of existing Americans, the overwhelming advantages that America had over other nations will fade as well.

Japan has a different problem but one just as profound.  Japan still has the world’s best educated population — by all tests its high schoolers and recent college graduates have the best literacy and numeracy of all advanced nations.  Yet Japan has its inefficiencies as well that are crippling it today: a respect for the elderly that keeps control of key institutions in the hands of 70 and 80 year old leaders while it is difficult for younger people to start their own firms to compete; and a confining view of marriage that makes women choose between family and career and makes choosing a family unattractive.  The latter has resulted in drops in marriage and fertility that are causing the size of the youth and working-age populations to plummet, starving Japan’s domestic market demand and labor force.  At the same time, Japan is opposed to immigration, and severely lagging other advanced nations in English language skills, so that it is unable to draw in talent from outside its own shrinking population.  Despite the quality of its young work force, Japan is thus starving itself of the numbers of young people and families it needs to sustain its own growth.  Unless it can change these aspects of its social practices, it too will continue to fade in global competition with more dynamic societies.

The statues of Easter Island are mute testimony to what happens when elites continue to place maintenance of their own positions above the welfare and productivity of the ordinary citizens of their society, and are unable to wrench themselves out of old habits.  But history shows us that this is the norm, not the exception.  Winners become losers; that may be as true of America and Japan today as it was in so many places across the centuries past.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Should we vs. Can we?

My recent posts on staying out of Iraq have produced several interesting comments (click on the titles of the posts below then scroll down to see the comments and replies).

Let me be clear — if I thought we could improve American security and reduce killing and strife in the Middle East by some kind of intervention, I would be in favor of that, as I was in Syria, and in Libya.

Did past US actions contribute to the current problems? Regrettably, yes.  As the most powerful country in the world and one long involved in the region, do we have a moral responsibility to try to reduce the violence?  Again, yes.  And should the U.S. do everything to reduce the risks of terrorism against Americans at home and abroad — a third time, yes.  That is what the American people want when they say that terrorism is the most significant threat to U.S. security.

However, the real-world question, not the abstract moral one, is whether any actual interventions: air strikes, inserting special forces as advisors and intelligence coordinators, or calling on Iraq to change its government are actually going to do any good.

President Obama already faced such a decision once, in Syria.  There, in the early days, Obama decided that even though there was a cruel dictator facing a serious rebellion involving growing dominance by extreme jihadists (in fact the same ISIS organization now moving into Iraq), and producing hundreds of  thousands of deaths and refugees, the U.S. would do nothing.

At the time, I believed that early in that conflict, the U.S. could have effectively intervened to limit the role of jihadists and force a negotiated settlement on Assad.  But the time has passed for that, and at this point not intervening (unless the conflict spills into Jordan or Turkey) seems the best course.

But now in Iraq, Obama faces a situation very much like that in Syria, except that the jihadists are even more dominant (although, to be clear, the Sunni rebellion in Iraq includes many groups besides ISIS).    So why now choose to intervene here?  In Syria, there was at least a hope of eliminating (in Assad) a strong ally of Iran.  In Iraq, where Iran is the country most committed to the survival of the regime in Baghdad, saving the government — even if it can be saved — simply supports a bad government allied with Iran.

Could Iraq develop a more inclusive government?  Perhaps at one point, but I fear at present that opportunity has passed.  Much more likely is the (overdue?) dissolution of Iraq into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shi’a independent countries.  The  Shi’as of Iraq are unlikely to ever allow the Sunnis of Anbar and other western provinces full equality and a return to prominence in a united Iraq.  The Kurds have been enjoying de facto independence and moving steadily toward actual independence for some time.

The academic literature on civil wars is fairly clear — unless overwhelming force can be used to separate the combatants, such wars only end with the victory of one side or the other, or a painful stalemate that forces the sides to negotiate.  Moderate foreign intervention usually has the effect of making civil wars last longer, as it is insufficient to provide a victory and just encourages the side being supported to fight on.

Does it make sense for the U.S. to intervene so massively as to halt the conflict by putting troops on the ground to push back the forces of ISIS? And if we did so, what then?  Does the U.S. again occupy Anbar and try to beat down the inevitable insurgency?  Haven’t we been there, done that already?

And if the U.S. is not willing to intervene with overwhelming force, what will be accomplished by intervening “just a little?”  Will that enable the demoralized and poorly trained Iraqi military to defeat, occupy, and suppress the Sunnis of Anbar?  Unlikely.

With support from Iran, the Shi’as of Iraq should be able to preserve the bulk of the portion of the country where they dominate.  And then Iraqis will have to work out their own fate, whether to divide their country into real nations, or not.  However, there is little or nothing the U.S. can do to decide that outcome.

Could the ISIS-dominated state in Western Iraq and Northern Syria then become a terrorist threat to Europe and the U.S.?  Perhaps; but for the most part ISIS is far more engaged in conflict with Sh’ias and secular regimes in the Islamic Middle East. By far the greatest target of Muslim terrorists have been other Muslims; whether in the Middle East, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, intra-Islamic conflicts have far outweighed attacks on Israel, India, or Western nations.  The Boston Marathon terrorists came out of Dagestan, not Pakistan, Afghanistan, or the Middle East.

As long as the West is perceived as the enemy of Islam, fanatic Muslims will plan attacks against the West, whether those fanatics come from north Africa, Central Asia, southeast Asia, or even the Muslims of Europe or America (or even, as with the Fort Hood shooting, from within the U.S. military).  What we should have learned in the last decade is that having American and NATO troops fighting in various Islamic countries will not stop or suppress Islamic terrorist attacks inside or outside the Islamic world.  Homeland security remains the best way to protect Americans from terrorist threats.

In the long run, the best way to reduce Islamist terror threats is for the U.S. to be perceived as a supporter of the legitimate interests of Muslims around the world in freedom, dignity, security, and economic opportunity, for men and women alike.  I do not believe either support for the Sisi regime in Egypt, or military intervention of any kind in Iraq, contributes to those goals.


Posted in The Middle East Revolts | Leave a comment

As I was saying…

Just a few headlines from today to confirm yesterday’s message:

“Jailed Al-Jazeera journalists convicted in Egypt. …

In an interview on Al Jazeera shortly after the verdicts were read, Amnesty International director Steve Crawshaw deplored what he called an “outrageous ruling” and called it an “absolute affront to justice.”

Mostefa Souag, the acting director general of Al Jazeera, called the verdict “shocking” in a televised interview.

“I don’t think it has anything to do with justice,” he said, calling it another step in Egypt’s “campaign of terrorizing people and terrorizing the media.”

Al Jazeera English managing director Al Anstey said in a statement that the sentencing “defies logic, sense, and any semblance of justice.”

And nearby:

“John Kerry holds talks in Iraq as more cities fall to ISIS militants”

According to the article:

“As radical Sunni militants snatch city after city in their march toward Baghdad, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Iraq on Monday. …”I’m here to convey to you President Obama’s and the American people’s commitment to help Iraq,” Kerry said when greeting Iraq’s speaker of parliament, Osama al-Nujayfi. “The principal concern is the integrity of the country, its borders, its sovereignty,” …. His trip is emphasizing “our highest-level commitment to Iraq during this time of crisis,” a State Department official said.

OK — so what exactly represents our “highest level commitment?” 300 advisors?  What exactly was Kerry thinking when he said “the American People’s commitment” to help Iraq is concerned with keeping the integrity of their borders.  Really??  Can you find any poll that remotely suggests a majority of the American people have a commitment to maintaining the integrity of Iraq’s borders?

This loose language is foolish and dangerous.  It is foolish at home because it presumes to commit the American people to a state they hardly know and certainly no longer want to support; it is foolish abroad because it commits us to the cause of a regime that we will in fact not fight to defend, and when that regime falls the US will again look impotent to both enemies and allies.

No one likes an I told you so, so let me just say it again:  We have no business supporting the governments of Iraq or Egypt at this time. We should be staying as far away from both as we can, and Kerry’s actions to engage and support them is a bad policy that we will come to regret.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

When it is vitally important to do nothing!

Disasters everywhere:  Syria is in flames, Iraq is collapsing, Afghanistan’s election is disputed with riots, Boko Haram is still unchecked in Nigeria, Libya is breaking up in slow motion, Buddhists (Buddhists!) are massacring Muslims in Sri Lanka, tanks and armored vehicles are on the move in Ukraine.  In these difficult times, when on all sides cries arise to “DO SOMETHING” is it vitally important to be selective in deciding whether doing something–anything–is really superior to waiting things out.

As someone who in the past was a firm advocate of intervention in Afghanistan after 9/11, in Libya after the first rebellion in Benghazi, and in Syria from the beginning of the rebellion, it may surprise some that my advice regarding the advance of ISIS in Iraq is “Do nothing.”

But so it is.  Just as the initial US intervention in Iraq in 2003 burgeoned into a disaster (except for the Kurds, who gained a de facto independent state in northern Iraq), further intervention will likely only make things worse for the U.S.

The fight between ISIS and Iraq is a fight between two undemocratic, extremist religious groups who seek to destroy each other.  It is a mud and bomb-slinging match, with vicious propaganda and vicious weapons, and to blunder into the middle of this will only leave the U.S. or NATO dirty and scarred.  On the one hand, ISIS is a fanatic Sunni group who wishes to destroy anyone who stands in the way of their goal of turning the historically rich and multi-religious regions of Syria and Iraq into a homogenous orthodox Sunni society under religious/military rule. On the other hand, the Maliki government in Iraq has acted like a fanatic Shi’a group who wishes to destroy anyone who stands in the way of turning the historically rich and multi-religious society of Iraq into a Shi’a dominated society under authoritarian rule.  Maliki’s government has not been as photogenically violent as ISIS, but in its own way it has sought to destroy the role of Sunni Arabs in Iraq by marginalizing them, disdaining their votes and rights, and ensuring they have no dignified place in Iraqi society.  So wonder so many Iraqi Arabs have in effect joined ISIS, given the choice between these two monsters — better the monster who believes in you than the one who has been your enemy!

To imagine that any good can come to the U.S. or NATO from associating oneself with the survival or cause of either of these contending parties is a terrible, destructive illusion.

President Obama has sent 300 “advisors” to Iraq to assist the government.  Who are they, and what is their mission?  They are not civilian advisors, but experienced elite military officers, SEALS and special forces.  What is their mission?  The cover story is that they are in Iraq to assess the fighting potential of the Iraqi army.  Really?  After the last few weeks, anyone can answer that question without entering Iraq — it is terrible!  Maliki, like any aspiring personalist dictator, has driven out professional military officers and replaced them with personal supporters chosen for political loyalty, not military experience and skill.  They are now enlisting tens of thousands of volunteers to be thrown in to a line of defense around Baghdad without any significant military training.  Those who do not run will be slaughtered.

The only plausible mission for the “advisors,” given the movement of aircraft carriers into position in the Gulf, will be to gather intelligence to guide US air power in striking at ISIS forces.  Yet this is a foolish hope.  ISIS is not dumb enough to present nice massed tank or armored vehicle columns, as did Saddam Hussein, for US airpower to destroy.  ISIS will bury itself in and around towns used as staging areas: Fallujah, Husaybah, and others.  Use of US airpower will inevitably kill civilians, and the US will once again appear to the entire Sunni Arab world as shedding innocent Muslim blood.  As is almost always the case with large-scale military actions, those actions taken in the name of trying to halt terrorists will in fact worsen our problems of terrorism.

Even worse, if that is possible, is Secretary Kerry’s visit to Egypt to meet with Egypt’s new President Sisi.  This is an outrage of the worst sort.  Sisi heads a government that overthrew an elected President in a military coup, and then when it tried to validate itself by popular elections — running virtually unopposed — it had to hold the polls open an extra day to try to persuade enough people to come out and vote for Sisi to make the election credible.

The Sisi regime has trampled on human rights in a variety of ways.  The epidemic of violence against women has been supported, not stopped, by the Egyptian police.  HUNDREDS of people have been sentenced to death–for what?  For participating in a demonstration during which ONE policeman was killed.  There was some hope that these sentences would only be for show, and that the death penalty would be thrown out on appeal; but that hope was forlorn.  Yesterday an Egyptian court upheld the death sentences for 183 members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Moreover, since last November, Egypt has had a law in effect that bans all public demonstrations unless they receive a permit from the government 72 hours in advance.  This is a regime that jails journalists, brutally abuses women and political opponents, and intends to stamp out any democratic and civil freedoms, as well as any opposition.

And yet the U.S. continues to support this regime with over a billion dollars of military hardware each year.  And an official accompanying Secretary Kerry to Cairo explained — to my utter disbelief — that the purpose of Kerry’s visit to Cairo, aside from trying to rally support among Sunni nations (!??) to support the MALIKI government (which is now backed by the chief nemesis of the Sunni nations, Iran!) is to “make the point that it is in Egyptian political and economic interest to build a more inclusive government. … ‘We do not share the view of the Egyptian government about links between the Muslim Brothers and terrorist groups,’ said the official. ‘With regard to the challenge that the Muslim Brothers pose, I would characterize it more as a political challenge than a security challenge.'”

This is foolishness on a scale that beggars the mind, even for the U.S.  Is there no one in the U.S. State Department who can spare Secretary Kerry the embarrassment of appearing so ignorant?  Has no one told him of the life-and-death struggle for the past six decades between the Egyptian military leadership and the Muslim Brotherhood?  This is like trying to encourage a cobra and a mongoose to form an inclusive government, persuading the cobra that the mongoose should be seen “more as a political challenge than a security challenge.”   As soon as Kerry leaves, as long as he has ensured that Egypt will continue to receive U.S. military aid, I am sure that peals of laughter will ring out throughout Cairo at the Secretary’s naivite.

What the U.S. should do in Egypt is dissociate itself as fully as possible from the Sisi regime, and claim that the U.S supports the Egyptian people and their rights to dignity, free expression, and personal security.  We should stop all aid and demand that only when a truly inclusive government has been provided through free and competitive elections, the military returned to their barracks and subjected to civilian rule, and journalists freed and women protected, will the U.S. find Egypt a suitable recipient of significant U.S. aid.

Every day that we support the government of Sisi, ordinary Egyptians and Muslims everywhere will conclude that the U.S is an enemy of democracy and of Islam, just as they did from our support for Mubarak.

Dare I say it:  At this point in the mess that the Middle East has become (with the sole exception of Tunisia, which is making progress on building an inclusive democratic regime and deserves our support, and the possible exception of Jordan) the best thing, in terms of military action, is to DO NOTHING.  There is a good case to be made for offering humanitarian support to refugees in Turkey and Jordan, who are suffering from the chaos in Syria and Iraq.  But beyond that, there is little we can do that does not make things worse for those in the region, and the U.S.

President Putin, who the U.S. is warning not to intervene against the new regime in Ukraine on the grounds that Ukraine’s new government is a democracy, must be shaking his head as he sees the U.S. gather forces to support Sisi in Egypt and Maliki in Iraq.  Clearly, the U.S. has no principles, nothing but naked self-interest, and so clearly Russia must act in the same way.  Thus we sow trouble with our sorely misguided actions, and reap ever worse and worse outcomes.

Posted in The Middle East Revolts, U.S. Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments