Rachel Marsden
Barack Obama's foreign policy disasters are
about what one might expect from a leftist
community organizer elected to be leader of the free world. So many of the countries this administration has touched -- Ukraine, Libya, Iraq -- have descended into acute civil war on Obama's watch. It's worth asking why, exactly, this has been the case.
It's not quite as simple as "the left sucks at
war." French Socialist President Francois
Hollande, for example, isn't too bad at it. He's been successfully running a series of ongoing foreign interventions in Africa.
So what does a French Socialist have that
Obama doesn't? Two things: a French public that's relatively pragmatic in its views of military interventionism, particularly within their nation's sphere of influence; and an above-board public coupling of military and business interests, to the point where the French public fully accepts that there is no daylight between the two sectors. If France stages a military intervention, the president doesn't need to perform political gymnastics to justify subsequent corporate involvement.
This clearly isn't the case in America.
It's childishly naive to think that conflict and interventionism are avoidable when you're a superpower. Especially in a time of economic crisis, the pressure is always on to enlarge your nation's slice of the global pie.
The problem is that leftists can't handle this
reality, nor can they digest the idea that it's
natural for humans to fight over the planet's limited resources. Unfortunately for Obama, leftists elected him and likely still comprise whatever is left of his support base. They thought they were electing a magic unicorn who would woo the world with hope, change and rainbows, because he didn't seem to have any oil, gas, and defense contractor friends.
But then the community organizer was
mugged by reality. Not by "the military-
industrial complex" or any other shady
conspiracy entity; just plain reality.
Rather than be up front with the public about the cold hard facts of global competition, leftists like Obama feel compelled to get sneaky and invoke pretext to triangulate their non-interventionism with the real world. Ultimately, it doesn't work, because this is the era of social media and extreme transparency. The only pretext that can be employed discreetly is the initial one. For example, a president can convince the public that intervention is strictly based on humanitarian grounds, but other motivations -- notably economic ones -- will eventually come to light.
The inevitable transition from pretext to
more enduring reality is what vexes this
administration. Take the current events in
Ukraine, for instance. The entire conflict was predicated on the notion that now-deposed former Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych was too pro-Russian. For that to be a problem that merits intervention to the level of coup d'etat, Russian President
Vladimir Putin had to be perceived as the
devil incarnate. To maintain support for
ongoing intervention in Ukraine and any
related spending, that image of Putin would
require persistent maintenance.
Ergo, if Russian troops are guarding their
own border, they have to be portrayed as
being on the verge of imminent invasion. Yet if rogue separatists fire a missile at a
passenger jet, then Russia must be blamed for not having secured the breakaway region by sending in troops.
Within the same week, the U.S. State
Department blamed Russia for the surface-to- air missile attack on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and U.S. intelligence officials said there was no evidence of direct Russian
involvement. Still, Russia was hit with more
sanctions soon after the crash.
The leap from pretext to reality is so
gargantuan that poor execution can often
yield comical results. Western sanctions have targeted figures such as the director of
Russia's FSB domestic spy agency, Alexander Bortnikov, and his SVR foreign intelligence counterpart, Mikhail Fradkov. Does anyone really believe that these intelligence chiefs are losing sleep over having one of their unlimited number of identities subjected to restrictions?
Iraq and Libya have been left to disintegrate because the Obama administration hasn't figured out how to run headlong into a massive failstorm without having to actually be seen fighting. It managed to pull that off exactly once, with Syria. But only because Russia took care of the situation -- right before being kicked in the teeth.
Obfuscation and narrative maintenance seem like so much more work than just being honest with the public. Maybe we should just elect leaders who don't have to waste so much effort bridging the gap between convenient untruths and reality. Unless, of course, we're into that sort of thing.
30 Jul 2014
JAMMU AND KASHMIR: THE NEW BATTLE
Shujaat Bukhari
With Congress and National Conference deciding to go alone in the forthcoming Assembly elections, the electoral battle in Jammu and Kashmir is poised for an
interesting contest. In both the Kashmir and Jammu divisions a triangular contest could throw up some surprises. The ruling coalition partners are, however, making some “thought provoking” statements as to why they parted ways. The NC holds the view that it was not possible to transfer the votes of their respective cadres but Congress has made some interesting points.
Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC) chief Saifuddin Soz blamed the government inefficiency and corruption for the debacle both the parties had to taste in the recent
parliamentary elections.
Generally the coalition parties should have been highlighting the joint achievements and even if they had to fight elections on their own, the reasons could be different. But this is perhaps the only coalition in India that is parting ways on the basis of misgovernance. Soz blames the government, of which his party is a part, as
corrupt. That means whole lot is indulging in corruption.
But if NC leaders are to be believed they maintain that Congress ministers were more corrupt. One thing is clear that both NC and Congress have vindicated the
people’s verdict they gave in recent elections. It reversed all the decisions it had taken in past five years proving that it had no competence to comprehend what
was good for state. Coalition government’s failure to tackle the corruption was main reason for misgovernance and that is why the people rejected them in Lok Sabha elections. In normal circumstances it
would have been ideal for both parties to join hands and go to polls with the “achievements” of six years but they are instead blaming each other for the failures.
Now that the scene is clear all the parties have their knives out to realize the dream of governing the state until 2020. The magic number of “44” is lurking in the minds of these political parties and some of them claim they will achieve it on their own. What is surprising is that the right wing Bharatiya Janata Party has been talking more about “44” given the fact that the results of recently held parliament elections bolstered its confidence. The opposition People’s Democratic Party, though not publicly, is also counting the same figure
and is confident to repeat the performance it showed in the parliamentary elections.
But Congress and NC are two parties, which are yet to make a tall claim of reaching the magic number. Demoralized with the rout they faced in the elections, they even changed the language generally used to nail
the opponents. Whatever way the campaign goes but one thing is clear that the dynamics of the electoral politics has certainly changed in the state. With people
making a beeline to join PDP, it has become clear that the results of the parliamentary elections are being taken seriously and the party is rather expected to repeat the performance in the Assembly elections.
It is very difficult to predict any clear situation as the previous elections were fought for parliamentary seats and the forthcoming one is meant for Assembly.
Though not much difference is expected, it largely is the election, which has lot to do with the local candidate, whether from NC, PDP, Congress or BJP. If the reports
are to be believed, one of the strongest candidates of Congress in Jammu shut his eyes for people voting for BJP candidate in parliament elections thus giving a stunning lead of over 50,000 to Jugal Kishore in this
particular segment. But when it comes to his own election it may be different even as it will be difficult for him to reverse the trend to which he contributed himself.
If the claims of BJP and the independent assessments are taken into consideration, Modi wave still exists in Jammu and in case the BJP’s plan of sending 22 Union
Ministers and the Prime Minister for campaigning materializes it surely will have its own impact. BJP is trying its best to appease its vote bank by continuously
talking about the rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pandits, refugees and the other contentious issues to lure the voters ahead of the Assembly elections. It may not be
in a position to fulfill its wish list but it surely will gain and that will be at the cost of Congress and to some extent the NC. It has also started roping in some new
faces in Valley to make inroads. It’s working on an arithmetic that may suit it in view of boycott, particularly in Srinagar city. Riding on the goodwill the party has among KPs it is concentrating on a few seats in Srinagar so that the bulk of KPs would vote for its
candidates who could sail through in view of near total boycott.
In case the trend that had been set after 2002 in Jammu and Kashmir gets reversed, Congress will no longer be in a position of being the “King Maker” in state politics. Since 2002 the state has seen the coalition politics thriving and smaller parties and even individuals emerging as potential gainers. Congress with substantial numbers played the role of having the key to
formation of governments. It did pave way for Mufti Mohammad Sayeed to become Chief Minister in 2002 despite his party PDP having only 16 members against Congress’s 20. And in 2008 it joined hands with NC to
form the government. In both these tenures Congress used, rather misused, its position to get the maximum. First by running away with important and “lucrative” portfolios and then “black mailing” the chief ministers of PDP and NC on almost every issue.
This time, however, Congress seems to be on the back foot as the rout the party faced at national level and in the six parliamentary constituencies of J&K has given a severe jolt to its morale. Political pundits are not predicting immediate revival in its fortunes. If that would be the case then a new dynamic will be thrown
up in the state. But it depends a lot on how NC will fare in the assembly elections. If it goes down drastically on its existing number of 28, that would be advantage PDP.
The concern rather a threat that will emerge in case voters do not prefer both NC and Congress is that BJP will have an edge in deciding the future coalition. The
coalitions even with Congress, presumably the secular party, have turned out to be very unfriendly for Kashmir.
If one would go to the extent of saying that Congress ministers have proved to be more communal than BJP it would be fair. In their 12 years of rule, Congress ministers, mostly from Jammu have not allowed any
Muslim to hold an important position such as that of a head of a department or equivalent in Jammu region.
There are many more examples like that. But in case a single party from Kashmir does not get a comfortable majority on its own, then it will be at the mercy of BJP
and other forces who are essentially nurturing anti- Kashmir feeling in Jammu.
Imagine BJP winning nearly 20 seats and a party from Kashmir left with no choice but to join hands with them to form a government. BJP is eyeing 44 seats, which is
very difficult to comprehend at this stage. Since NC conceded its whole space in Jammu to Congress, the voters both Muslims and those who don’t support BJP’s
agenda were left with no choice but to go with them. Congress’s misrule and its failure to replace a regional party like NC in Jammu paved way more for BJP than
for another regional party PDP, which has surely improved its vote bank in the region. In both Kashmir and Jammu it is going to be a triangular contest with BJP, Congress and NC fighting a tough battle in Jammu along with PDP in certain areas, in Kashmir the battle is mainly between NC and PDP with Congress having strong base in few constituencies.
While all the prophecies about the results are premature at this stage, 44 and 2020 are important figurative signs for the health of Jammu and Kashmir for next six years.
With Congress and National Conference deciding to go alone in the forthcoming Assembly elections, the electoral battle in Jammu and Kashmir is poised for an
interesting contest. In both the Kashmir and Jammu divisions a triangular contest could throw up some surprises. The ruling coalition partners are, however, making some “thought provoking” statements as to why they parted ways. The NC holds the view that it was not possible to transfer the votes of their respective cadres but Congress has made some interesting points.
Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC) chief Saifuddin Soz blamed the government inefficiency and corruption for the debacle both the parties had to taste in the recent
parliamentary elections.
Generally the coalition parties should have been highlighting the joint achievements and even if they had to fight elections on their own, the reasons could be different. But this is perhaps the only coalition in India that is parting ways on the basis of misgovernance. Soz blames the government, of which his party is a part, as
corrupt. That means whole lot is indulging in corruption.
But if NC leaders are to be believed they maintain that Congress ministers were more corrupt. One thing is clear that both NC and Congress have vindicated the
people’s verdict they gave in recent elections. It reversed all the decisions it had taken in past five years proving that it had no competence to comprehend what
was good for state. Coalition government’s failure to tackle the corruption was main reason for misgovernance and that is why the people rejected them in Lok Sabha elections. In normal circumstances it
would have been ideal for both parties to join hands and go to polls with the “achievements” of six years but they are instead blaming each other for the failures.
Now that the scene is clear all the parties have their knives out to realize the dream of governing the state until 2020. The magic number of “44” is lurking in the minds of these political parties and some of them claim they will achieve it on their own. What is surprising is that the right wing Bharatiya Janata Party has been talking more about “44” given the fact that the results of recently held parliament elections bolstered its confidence. The opposition People’s Democratic Party, though not publicly, is also counting the same figure
and is confident to repeat the performance it showed in the parliamentary elections.
But Congress and NC are two parties, which are yet to make a tall claim of reaching the magic number. Demoralized with the rout they faced in the elections, they even changed the language generally used to nail
the opponents. Whatever way the campaign goes but one thing is clear that the dynamics of the electoral politics has certainly changed in the state. With people
making a beeline to join PDP, it has become clear that the results of the parliamentary elections are being taken seriously and the party is rather expected to repeat the performance in the Assembly elections.
It is very difficult to predict any clear situation as the previous elections were fought for parliamentary seats and the forthcoming one is meant for Assembly.
Though not much difference is expected, it largely is the election, which has lot to do with the local candidate, whether from NC, PDP, Congress or BJP. If the reports
are to be believed, one of the strongest candidates of Congress in Jammu shut his eyes for people voting for BJP candidate in parliament elections thus giving a stunning lead of over 50,000 to Jugal Kishore in this
particular segment. But when it comes to his own election it may be different even as it will be difficult for him to reverse the trend to which he contributed himself.
If the claims of BJP and the independent assessments are taken into consideration, Modi wave still exists in Jammu and in case the BJP’s plan of sending 22 Union
Ministers and the Prime Minister for campaigning materializes it surely will have its own impact. BJP is trying its best to appease its vote bank by continuously
talking about the rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pandits, refugees and the other contentious issues to lure the voters ahead of the Assembly elections. It may not be
in a position to fulfill its wish list but it surely will gain and that will be at the cost of Congress and to some extent the NC. It has also started roping in some new
faces in Valley to make inroads. It’s working on an arithmetic that may suit it in view of boycott, particularly in Srinagar city. Riding on the goodwill the party has among KPs it is concentrating on a few seats in Srinagar so that the bulk of KPs would vote for its
candidates who could sail through in view of near total boycott.
In case the trend that had been set after 2002 in Jammu and Kashmir gets reversed, Congress will no longer be in a position of being the “King Maker” in state politics. Since 2002 the state has seen the coalition politics thriving and smaller parties and even individuals emerging as potential gainers. Congress with substantial numbers played the role of having the key to
formation of governments. It did pave way for Mufti Mohammad Sayeed to become Chief Minister in 2002 despite his party PDP having only 16 members against Congress’s 20. And in 2008 it joined hands with NC to
form the government. In both these tenures Congress used, rather misused, its position to get the maximum. First by running away with important and “lucrative” portfolios and then “black mailing” the chief ministers of PDP and NC on almost every issue.
This time, however, Congress seems to be on the back foot as the rout the party faced at national level and in the six parliamentary constituencies of J&K has given a severe jolt to its morale. Political pundits are not predicting immediate revival in its fortunes. If that would be the case then a new dynamic will be thrown
up in the state. But it depends a lot on how NC will fare in the assembly elections. If it goes down drastically on its existing number of 28, that would be advantage PDP.
The concern rather a threat that will emerge in case voters do not prefer both NC and Congress is that BJP will have an edge in deciding the future coalition. The
coalitions even with Congress, presumably the secular party, have turned out to be very unfriendly for Kashmir.
If one would go to the extent of saying that Congress ministers have proved to be more communal than BJP it would be fair. In their 12 years of rule, Congress ministers, mostly from Jammu have not allowed any
Muslim to hold an important position such as that of a head of a department or equivalent in Jammu region.
There are many more examples like that. But in case a single party from Kashmir does not get a comfortable majority on its own, then it will be at the mercy of BJP
and other forces who are essentially nurturing anti- Kashmir feeling in Jammu.
Imagine BJP winning nearly 20 seats and a party from Kashmir left with no choice but to join hands with them to form a government. BJP is eyeing 44 seats, which is
very difficult to comprehend at this stage. Since NC conceded its whole space in Jammu to Congress, the voters both Muslims and those who don’t support BJP’s
agenda were left with no choice but to go with them. Congress’s misrule and its failure to replace a regional party like NC in Jammu paved way more for BJP than
for another regional party PDP, which has surely improved its vote bank in the region. In both Kashmir and Jammu it is going to be a triangular contest with BJP, Congress and NC fighting a tough battle in Jammu along with PDP in certain areas, in Kashmir the battle is mainly between NC and PDP with Congress having strong base in few constituencies.
While all the prophecies about the results are premature at this stage, 44 and 2020 are important figurative signs for the health of Jammu and Kashmir for next six years.
INDIA'S MYANMAR MISSION
Wasbir Hussain
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's neighbourhood push continues in full steam with Indian External Affairs
Minister Sushma Swaraj now set to visit Myanmar within a fortnight, to try and consolidate ties with the leadership in Naypyidaw. Her visit to attend the ASEAN
Regional Forum (ARF) meeting from 9 to 10 August, besides, of course, holding a bilateral dialogue with Naypyidaw comes at a time when non-government actors in Myanmar are increasingly opposing projects in parts of the country being sought to be implemented with Chinese funding. A case in point is the cancellation
of a $20 billion railway line connecting Kyaukpyu in Myanmar and Kunming in China due to public opposition. The construction was to have been carried
out by the China Railway Engineering Corporation. Sushma Swaraj, therefore, has her job well cut out:
prepare the ground for Modi’s November visit to Myanmar to attend the East Asia Summit and engage in robust bilaterals with the leadership in Naypyidaw. It is
widely accepted that Myanmar is in China’s grip insofar as investments or arms supplies are concerned.
However, it is still advantage India insofar as historical ties between the two nations are concerned. As the leader of the Myanmar delegation at the Fifth Indo-
Myanmar Regional Border Committee Meeting, Maj. Gen. Min Nuang said in Imphal, India, on 25 July “We
share a long common border and have close affinity with your historical, cultural and religious background. We always think of India as a true friend.” Myanmar is a country where Indian and Chinese
influences intersect. However, today, with the public opposition in Myanmar towards Chinese-built or Chinese-funded projects, particularly in the Kachin region, there is definitely a space India can try and fill
in. Myanmar isn’t just the gateway to the ASEAN, but iscritical to the furtherance of India’s Look East Policy.
Swaraj would know it better that to push ahead with the Look East Policy by opening and putting in place workable channels of communication by roads and railway, the India-Myanmar region must be free of
violent insurgencies. Even today, despite high-level military-to-military engagement, several Northeast Indian insurgent groups have bases in Myanmar. The United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang), and several Manipuri rebel outfits have well-entrenched camps in
the country’s Sagaing Division, bordering North-eastern India.
As recently as on 8 May, India and Myanmar signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Border Cooperation. This MoU provides a framework for security cooperation and exchange of information between Indian and Myanmarese security agencies.
Apart from providing for coordinated patrols on their respective sides of the international border and the maritime boundary by the armed forces of the two
countries, both sides have agreed to exchange information in the fight against insurgency, and trafficking of arms, drug, human and wildlife. Steps to prevent illegal cross-border activities have also been
agreed upon.
While agreements such as these have existed in some form or the other, the conducts of local authorities and
military units in Myanmar have been questionable. These are issues that Swaraj will have to iron out so that the border can turn peaceful and relations can consolidate on the trade and security fronts. India’s Myanmar policy cannot be firmed-up without factoring China in. It is important to note that China has had a threefold objective in pursuing and cementing
its ties with Myanmar. First, it set its eyes on Myanmar’s natural resources of
oil, gas and timber, needed to meet the huge domestic demand. Second, Beijing wanted to better its security capabilities by expanding its access to the Bay of
Bengal and the Andaman Sea and thereby allowing for greater protection of its “southwest silk road” trade routes and the development of a modern maritime
reconnaissance system. Third, China was bent on pushing policies to deny India strategic space in the South Asian region.
One would wait to see what the new Indian
Government’s Myanmar policy would be like. So far, New Delhi’s attempts at improving ties with Myanmar looked nothing more than a response to rein China in and not leaving the field open to it – instead of a concerted bid at building a good neighbourly relationship for a solid hold in the region. Besides, India also needs
to note China’s ‘all-weather friendship’ with Pakistan and a fairly growing Myanmar-Pakistan relation that is bound to have a bearing on New Delhi. Rightly, however, India has changed its policy towards Myanmar over the past five years and one would have to wait and see the turn of events after the visit of External Affairs
Minister Sushma Swaraj – that will be followed by that of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's neighbourhood push continues in full steam with Indian External Affairs
Minister Sushma Swaraj now set to visit Myanmar within a fortnight, to try and consolidate ties with the leadership in Naypyidaw. Her visit to attend the ASEAN
Regional Forum (ARF) meeting from 9 to 10 August, besides, of course, holding a bilateral dialogue with Naypyidaw comes at a time when non-government actors in Myanmar are increasingly opposing projects in parts of the country being sought to be implemented with Chinese funding. A case in point is the cancellation
of a $20 billion railway line connecting Kyaukpyu in Myanmar and Kunming in China due to public opposition. The construction was to have been carried
out by the China Railway Engineering Corporation. Sushma Swaraj, therefore, has her job well cut out:
prepare the ground for Modi’s November visit to Myanmar to attend the East Asia Summit and engage in robust bilaterals with the leadership in Naypyidaw. It is
widely accepted that Myanmar is in China’s grip insofar as investments or arms supplies are concerned.
However, it is still advantage India insofar as historical ties between the two nations are concerned. As the leader of the Myanmar delegation at the Fifth Indo-
Myanmar Regional Border Committee Meeting, Maj. Gen. Min Nuang said in Imphal, India, on 25 July “We
share a long common border and have close affinity with your historical, cultural and religious background. We always think of India as a true friend.” Myanmar is a country where Indian and Chinese
influences intersect. However, today, with the public opposition in Myanmar towards Chinese-built or Chinese-funded projects, particularly in the Kachin region, there is definitely a space India can try and fill
in. Myanmar isn’t just the gateway to the ASEAN, but iscritical to the furtherance of India’s Look East Policy.
Swaraj would know it better that to push ahead with the Look East Policy by opening and putting in place workable channels of communication by roads and railway, the India-Myanmar region must be free of
violent insurgencies. Even today, despite high-level military-to-military engagement, several Northeast Indian insurgent groups have bases in Myanmar. The United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang), and several Manipuri rebel outfits have well-entrenched camps in
the country’s Sagaing Division, bordering North-eastern India.
As recently as on 8 May, India and Myanmar signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Border Cooperation. This MoU provides a framework for security cooperation and exchange of information between Indian and Myanmarese security agencies.
Apart from providing for coordinated patrols on their respective sides of the international border and the maritime boundary by the armed forces of the two
countries, both sides have agreed to exchange information in the fight against insurgency, and trafficking of arms, drug, human and wildlife. Steps to prevent illegal cross-border activities have also been
agreed upon.
While agreements such as these have existed in some form or the other, the conducts of local authorities and
military units in Myanmar have been questionable. These are issues that Swaraj will have to iron out so that the border can turn peaceful and relations can consolidate on the trade and security fronts. India’s Myanmar policy cannot be firmed-up without factoring China in. It is important to note that China has had a threefold objective in pursuing and cementing
its ties with Myanmar. First, it set its eyes on Myanmar’s natural resources of
oil, gas and timber, needed to meet the huge domestic demand. Second, Beijing wanted to better its security capabilities by expanding its access to the Bay of
Bengal and the Andaman Sea and thereby allowing for greater protection of its “southwest silk road” trade routes and the development of a modern maritime
reconnaissance system. Third, China was bent on pushing policies to deny India strategic space in the South Asian region.
One would wait to see what the new Indian
Government’s Myanmar policy would be like. So far, New Delhi’s attempts at improving ties with Myanmar looked nothing more than a response to rein China in and not leaving the field open to it – instead of a concerted bid at building a good neighbourly relationship for a solid hold in the region. Besides, India also needs
to note China’s ‘all-weather friendship’ with Pakistan and a fairly growing Myanmar-Pakistan relation that is bound to have a bearing on New Delhi. Rightly, however, India has changed its policy towards Myanmar over the past five years and one would have to wait and see the turn of events after the visit of External Affairs
Minister Sushma Swaraj – that will be followed by that of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
28 Jul 2014
A NEW DISORDER
Stephen Hayes
Moments of clarity often come when you least expect them. In a speech to contributors last week in Seattle, Barack Obama made the case that his presidency has made America better.
In most respects, it was precisely the kind of
political pablum you’d expect from a
president who seems more concerned with
legacy-polishing than governing. He ticked
off his accomplishments, a list that was equal parts premature celebration (deficit
reduction), hyperbole (Obamacare), and
borrowed glory (rising college attendance, a
strong stock market, increased energy
production).
Even if few in this fawning crowd were going to question him, circumstances required the president to acknowledge the growing tumult around the world. Despite all of this success, he conceded, there are some “big challenges overseas” that have some people anxious.
What are these big challenges and why are
we facing them? It’s worth quoting the entire passage:
I am very proud that we have ended one war, and by the end of this year we will have ended both wars that I inherited before I came into office. (Applause.) But whether people see what’s happening in Ukraine, and Russia’s aggression towards its neighbors in the manner in which it’s financing and arming separatists; to what’s happened in Syria—the devastation that Assad has wrought on his own people; to the failure in Iraq for Sunni and Shia and Kurd to compromise—although we’re trying to see if we can put together a government that actually can function; to ongoing terrorist threats; to what’s happening in Israel and Gaza. Part of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s
based on economies that work for all people.
These are remarkable words from an
American president. They suggest that Obama either doesn’t appreciate the causal
relationship between his policies and the
current crises—or doesn’t care. He is proud
that he has brought about the “end” of the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he seems
not to understand that the unrest he goes on to describe is their direct result: How those wars ended shapes how others perceive the United States and its role in the world.
In Iraq, the president was willing to sacrifice the hard-won gains of U.S. military and diplomatic personnel in the pursuit of his overriding objective—getting out. The United States hadn’t created a stable and peaceful Iraq when the president was sworn in on January 20, 2009. But we had largely defeated our enemies there, and even opponents of the war acknowledged the very real prospect of a relatively secure, democratic Iraq. We lost Iraq by choice.
Afghanistan might be worse. In the early
days of the administration, the president and his team described the outcome of that war as crucial to U.S. national security. The goals of U.S. military and diplomatic efforts there— eliminating safe haven for al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and reversing the momentum of the Taliban—were essential to keeping Americans safe here at home. But Obama long ago made clear that he was more interested in ending the war than in winning it. In his December 1, 2009, speech at West Point, the president announced the troop surge and the withdrawal in the same breath.
Today, U.S. troops are coming home, U.S.
objectives remain unfulfilled, and President
Obama dismissively refers to Afghanistan as just one of the wars he “inherited.”
It’s not just the wars. With remarkable
consistency, Obama has demonstrated that he is unwilling to accept the responsibilities that come with being the world’s only
superpower. We said little as the Iranian
regime put down a democratic revolution in 2009, for fear of accusations of “meddling.”
We watched as Assad began to kill his citizens by the thousand, calling plaintively for restraint. When the Russian military rolled into Crimea in an audacious land-grab, we announced our disapproval and pushed for sanctions that we knew—that everyone knew —would have little effect beyond allowing us to say we pushed for sanctions.
In Obama’s telling, the chaos Americans see
on their television screens every night—more than 150,000 slaughtered in Syria, a terrorist army taking over major cities in Iraq, dozens of rockets daily targeting citizens of Israel, nearly 300 innocent travelers dead after a surface-to-air missile downs a passenger plane, and continued Russian aggression—is just part of a natural evolution. In the old world order, the United States played a dominant role. In the new one, we will not.
With a rhetorical shrug of his shoulders,
Obama says that these things may be
unpleasant, but better days are ahead—a new order based on a “different set of principles”
with “economies that work for all people” and a “sense of common humanity.”
These views are a radical departure from
decades of bipartisan U.S. national security
and foreign policy, and they can’t be
dismissed as just the careless ramblings of a
president who has checked out. He’s said
much the same thing before. In a speech
before the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2009, Obama declared: “In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.
No world order that elevates one nation or
group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.”
This is naïve and dangerous. There are
serious consequences to the United States
relinquishing power and influence. We’re
living them—and so are people in the rest of the world.
Moments of clarity often come when you least expect them. In a speech to contributors last week in Seattle, Barack Obama made the case that his presidency has made America better.
In most respects, it was precisely the kind of
political pablum you’d expect from a
president who seems more concerned with
legacy-polishing than governing. He ticked
off his accomplishments, a list that was equal parts premature celebration (deficit
reduction), hyperbole (Obamacare), and
borrowed glory (rising college attendance, a
strong stock market, increased energy
production).
Even if few in this fawning crowd were going to question him, circumstances required the president to acknowledge the growing tumult around the world. Despite all of this success, he conceded, there are some “big challenges overseas” that have some people anxious.
What are these big challenges and why are
we facing them? It’s worth quoting the entire passage:
I am very proud that we have ended one war, and by the end of this year we will have ended both wars that I inherited before I came into office. (Applause.) But whether people see what’s happening in Ukraine, and Russia’s aggression towards its neighbors in the manner in which it’s financing and arming separatists; to what’s happened in Syria—the devastation that Assad has wrought on his own people; to the failure in Iraq for Sunni and Shia and Kurd to compromise—although we’re trying to see if we can put together a government that actually can function; to ongoing terrorist threats; to what’s happening in Israel and Gaza. Part of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s
based on economies that work for all people.
These are remarkable words from an
American president. They suggest that Obama either doesn’t appreciate the causal
relationship between his policies and the
current crises—or doesn’t care. He is proud
that he has brought about the “end” of the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he seems
not to understand that the unrest he goes on to describe is their direct result: How those wars ended shapes how others perceive the United States and its role in the world.
In Iraq, the president was willing to sacrifice the hard-won gains of U.S. military and diplomatic personnel in the pursuit of his overriding objective—getting out. The United States hadn’t created a stable and peaceful Iraq when the president was sworn in on January 20, 2009. But we had largely defeated our enemies there, and even opponents of the war acknowledged the very real prospect of a relatively secure, democratic Iraq. We lost Iraq by choice.
Afghanistan might be worse. In the early
days of the administration, the president and his team described the outcome of that war as crucial to U.S. national security. The goals of U.S. military and diplomatic efforts there— eliminating safe haven for al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and reversing the momentum of the Taliban—were essential to keeping Americans safe here at home. But Obama long ago made clear that he was more interested in ending the war than in winning it. In his December 1, 2009, speech at West Point, the president announced the troop surge and the withdrawal in the same breath.
Today, U.S. troops are coming home, U.S.
objectives remain unfulfilled, and President
Obama dismissively refers to Afghanistan as just one of the wars he “inherited.”
It’s not just the wars. With remarkable
consistency, Obama has demonstrated that he is unwilling to accept the responsibilities that come with being the world’s only
superpower. We said little as the Iranian
regime put down a democratic revolution in 2009, for fear of accusations of “meddling.”
We watched as Assad began to kill his citizens by the thousand, calling plaintively for restraint. When the Russian military rolled into Crimea in an audacious land-grab, we announced our disapproval and pushed for sanctions that we knew—that everyone knew —would have little effect beyond allowing us to say we pushed for sanctions.
In Obama’s telling, the chaos Americans see
on their television screens every night—more than 150,000 slaughtered in Syria, a terrorist army taking over major cities in Iraq, dozens of rockets daily targeting citizens of Israel, nearly 300 innocent travelers dead after a surface-to-air missile downs a passenger plane, and continued Russian aggression—is just part of a natural evolution. In the old world order, the United States played a dominant role. In the new one, we will not.
With a rhetorical shrug of his shoulders,
Obama says that these things may be
unpleasant, but better days are ahead—a new order based on a “different set of principles”
with “economies that work for all people” and a “sense of common humanity.”
These views are a radical departure from
decades of bipartisan U.S. national security
and foreign policy, and they can’t be
dismissed as just the careless ramblings of a
president who has checked out. He’s said
much the same thing before. In a speech
before the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2009, Obama declared: “In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.
No world order that elevates one nation or
group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.”
This is naïve and dangerous. There are
serious consequences to the United States
relinquishing power and influence. We’re
living them—and so are people in the rest of the world.
THE UNDERGROUND WAR ON ISRAEL
Lee Smith
During the first two weeks of the Gaza
conflict, Hamas landed at least two
significant punches. In firing missiles at Ben Gurion Airport, Hamas convinced the Federal Aviation Authority and European air carriers to temporarily suspend flights to Israel. The fact that relatively primitive rockets falling far short of their targets are nonetheless capable of at least briefly severing an advanced Western democracy with a leading tech economy from the rest of the world is a psychological blow. But perhaps the even greater concern for Israeli officials is the revelation of Hamas’s extensive tunnel network.
Until Operation Protective Edge, it was
generally assumed that Gaza’s tunnel system was simply a feeding tube for a community of 1.8 million people. With both the Egyptian and Israeli borders closed, as well as Israel’s naval blockade, goods entered Gaza mainly through the tunnels from Egypt. So did weapons, including missiles made or designed by Iran, which, as the last two weeks have shown, are capable of reaching any site in Israel. The tunnel economy flourished under
former Egyptian president and Hamas
sponsor Mohamed Morsi but has suffered
under his successor, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has won praise from Jerusalem for shutting down as many tunnels as he can find.
However, there is another system in Gaza as well, a network of attack tunnels that end not in Egypt but in Israel, where over the last two weeks Hamas commandos have attempted several terrorist operations.
“Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said that we
are not under siege, we are imposing a
siege,” says retired IDF officer Jonathan
Halevi, now a senior researcher at the
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. “What he meant was that [Hamas] can use tunnels as a strategic weapon. If you multiply tunnels, you can use them to send hundreds of fighters into Israel and create havoc, totally under cover. According to Hamas, the tunnels have changed the balance of power.”
Israeli officials have expressed amazement at the extent of the tunnel network. “Food,
accommodations, storage, resupply,” one
astonished official told reporters last week.
“Beneath Gaza,” he explained, there’s
“another terror city.” That is, Hamas’s tunnel network is evidence of a military doctrine, both a countermeasure to Israel’s clear air superiority and an offensive capability that threatens to take ground combat inside Israel itself, targeting villages, cities, and civilians as well as soldiers. Israel perhaps should not
have been surprised to discover the size and seriousness of Hamas’s tunnel network
because they’ve seen something similar
before, in the aftermath of the 2006 war with Hezbollah. And indeed it was Iran’s long arm in Lebanon that helped build Hamas’s tunnels.
“The spiritual father of Hamas’s tunnel
system is Imad Mughniyeh,” says Shimon
Shapira, a Hezbollah expert and senior
research associate at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Mughniyeh, assassinated in 2008 in an operation believed to have been conducted by the Israelis, is credited with directing Hezbollah’s 2006 war. He was the head of the organization’s external
operations unit and responsible for countless terrorist attacks. He also served as liaison to the top Iranian leadership as well as other Iranian allies and assets, including Hamas.
“Mughniyeh sent instructors to Gaza and took Hamas members to Iran,” Shapira explains.
While Hamas and Hezbollah’s tunnel
technology, equipment, and funding are
mostly Iranian, the knowledge and the
doctrine date back to the earliest days of the
Cold War.
“The North Koreans are the leading tunnel
experts in the world,” says North Korea
expert Bruce Bechtol. They learned as a
matter of necessity. “The U.S. Air Force
basically exhausted its target list after the
first eight months of the Korean War,”
Bechtol explains. “All the North Korean cities were turned to rubble, so they got good at building large tunnels and bunkers, some of them 10 or 11 square miles. In effect, the North Koreans moved their cities
underground for three years, with hundreds of thousands of people living down there.”
“There is no better protection than the
earth,” says David Maxwell, associate director of the Center for Security Studies at
Georgetown University. But Pyongyang also
has an offensive doctrine. “Defectors tell us
that the North Koreans built 21 tunnels under the demilitarized zone, but only 4 have been discovered,” says Maxwell, a retired U.S. Army colonel who served in South Korea.
“Our concern is that the North Koreans would infiltrate, sending thousands of men through the tunnels in an hour, maybe dressed in South Korean uniforms. You can’t imagine the kind of havoc that would wreak.”
Just last week Hamas tried the same tactic,
sending commando units disguised as IDF
troops through two tunnels. For a short time, they fooled real Israeli soldiers in an
observation post.
It’s nothing new for the North Koreans to
work with terrorist groups, as Bechtol
explains. It started with the Polisario, the
North African, and at one time Soviet-funded, terrorist group fighting the Moroccan government. “The North Koreans built them underground facilities, command and control, hospitals,” says Bechtol. “All of it was supported by Soviets, but that changed with the end of the Cold War, when the North Koreans offered their services on a cash and
carry basis only.”
Their top customer is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The North Koreans, Bechtol says, have helped build some of the Iranians’
underground nuclear weapons facilities, as
well as Hezbollah’s underground network.
“They built it in 2003-04, coming into
Lebanon disguised as houseboys serving the Iranians. Maybe nobody asked, hey, how come these houseboys are speaking Korean?”
The significance of the tunnels became clear in the 2006 war, as Bechtol explains. “It lowered Hezbollah’s casualty rate. The
Israelis wondered why the air force was not
inflicting more damage and it was because of those tunnels. It was the first time Hezbollah was ever truly protected.”
Last week a U.S. federal judge ruled that
North Korea and Iran were liable for
providing support to Hezbollah during the
2006 war. According to U.S. District Judge
Royce Lamberth, North Korea and Iran
assisted “in building a massive network of
underground military installations, tunnels,
bunkers, depots and storage facilities in
southern Lebanon.” Lamberth noted that one Hezbollah commander who received training in North Korea was Mustafa Badreddine, Mughniyeh’s cousin. And as with North Korea, Hezbollah’s heavily reinforced underground network has also given rise to an offensive doctrine—to invade northern Israel.
“Hassan Nasrallah says Hezbollah has a two- part operational plan,” says Shimon Shapira.
“One is rocket fire on Tel Aviv and two is
conquest of the Galilee. I wondered what he
meant by that—how is Hezbollah going to
invade the Galilee, take hostages, capture
villages, and overrun military installations?
But we’re learning from what is happening
now. Nasrallah means Hezbollah is going to
penetrate Israel through tunnels.”
The difference between Hamas’s
underground network and Hezbollah’s,
explain experts, is the topography. It’s easier to dig tunnels in the Gaza sand than in the rocky pastures and rich soil of the Galilee.
The catch is that the latter are also harder to destroy since they are further fortified by
nature.
Several Israeli journalists are reporting that
“the fiasco of the tunnels,” as Yossi Melman
calls it, might have been avoided. Either
military and security officials were aware of the extent of Hamas’s network and didn’t do enough about it, or they ran up against
bureaucratic roadblocks. Whether the IDF
needs to detail a specific unit to monitor and uproot the tunnels that cross into Israel on its southern and northern borders, one fact is plain: For decades Israel’s traditional
military doctrine has been to fight its
enemies on the other side of the wire.
However, its enemies’ new North Korean-
inspired doctrine is to go under the wire. If
Israel doesn’t deal with first Hamas’s tunnels and then Hezbollah’s, the next war it faces may well be inside Israel itself.
During the first two weeks of the Gaza
conflict, Hamas landed at least two
significant punches. In firing missiles at Ben Gurion Airport, Hamas convinced the Federal Aviation Authority and European air carriers to temporarily suspend flights to Israel. The fact that relatively primitive rockets falling far short of their targets are nonetheless capable of at least briefly severing an advanced Western democracy with a leading tech economy from the rest of the world is a psychological blow. But perhaps the even greater concern for Israeli officials is the revelation of Hamas’s extensive tunnel network.
Until Operation Protective Edge, it was
generally assumed that Gaza’s tunnel system was simply a feeding tube for a community of 1.8 million people. With both the Egyptian and Israeli borders closed, as well as Israel’s naval blockade, goods entered Gaza mainly through the tunnels from Egypt. So did weapons, including missiles made or designed by Iran, which, as the last two weeks have shown, are capable of reaching any site in Israel. The tunnel economy flourished under
former Egyptian president and Hamas
sponsor Mohamed Morsi but has suffered
under his successor, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has won praise from Jerusalem for shutting down as many tunnels as he can find.
However, there is another system in Gaza as well, a network of attack tunnels that end not in Egypt but in Israel, where over the last two weeks Hamas commandos have attempted several terrorist operations.
“Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said that we
are not under siege, we are imposing a
siege,” says retired IDF officer Jonathan
Halevi, now a senior researcher at the
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. “What he meant was that [Hamas] can use tunnels as a strategic weapon. If you multiply tunnels, you can use them to send hundreds of fighters into Israel and create havoc, totally under cover. According to Hamas, the tunnels have changed the balance of power.”
Israeli officials have expressed amazement at the extent of the tunnel network. “Food,
accommodations, storage, resupply,” one
astonished official told reporters last week.
“Beneath Gaza,” he explained, there’s
“another terror city.” That is, Hamas’s tunnel network is evidence of a military doctrine, both a countermeasure to Israel’s clear air superiority and an offensive capability that threatens to take ground combat inside Israel itself, targeting villages, cities, and civilians as well as soldiers. Israel perhaps should not
have been surprised to discover the size and seriousness of Hamas’s tunnel network
because they’ve seen something similar
before, in the aftermath of the 2006 war with Hezbollah. And indeed it was Iran’s long arm in Lebanon that helped build Hamas’s tunnels.
“The spiritual father of Hamas’s tunnel
system is Imad Mughniyeh,” says Shimon
Shapira, a Hezbollah expert and senior
research associate at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Mughniyeh, assassinated in 2008 in an operation believed to have been conducted by the Israelis, is credited with directing Hezbollah’s 2006 war. He was the head of the organization’s external
operations unit and responsible for countless terrorist attacks. He also served as liaison to the top Iranian leadership as well as other Iranian allies and assets, including Hamas.
“Mughniyeh sent instructors to Gaza and took Hamas members to Iran,” Shapira explains.
While Hamas and Hezbollah’s tunnel
technology, equipment, and funding are
mostly Iranian, the knowledge and the
doctrine date back to the earliest days of the
Cold War.
“The North Koreans are the leading tunnel
experts in the world,” says North Korea
expert Bruce Bechtol. They learned as a
matter of necessity. “The U.S. Air Force
basically exhausted its target list after the
first eight months of the Korean War,”
Bechtol explains. “All the North Korean cities were turned to rubble, so they got good at building large tunnels and bunkers, some of them 10 or 11 square miles. In effect, the North Koreans moved their cities
underground for three years, with hundreds of thousands of people living down there.”
“There is no better protection than the
earth,” says David Maxwell, associate director of the Center for Security Studies at
Georgetown University. But Pyongyang also
has an offensive doctrine. “Defectors tell us
that the North Koreans built 21 tunnels under the demilitarized zone, but only 4 have been discovered,” says Maxwell, a retired U.S. Army colonel who served in South Korea.
“Our concern is that the North Koreans would infiltrate, sending thousands of men through the tunnels in an hour, maybe dressed in South Korean uniforms. You can’t imagine the kind of havoc that would wreak.”
Just last week Hamas tried the same tactic,
sending commando units disguised as IDF
troops through two tunnels. For a short time, they fooled real Israeli soldiers in an
observation post.
It’s nothing new for the North Koreans to
work with terrorist groups, as Bechtol
explains. It started with the Polisario, the
North African, and at one time Soviet-funded, terrorist group fighting the Moroccan government. “The North Koreans built them underground facilities, command and control, hospitals,” says Bechtol. “All of it was supported by Soviets, but that changed with the end of the Cold War, when the North Koreans offered their services on a cash and
carry basis only.”
Their top customer is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The North Koreans, Bechtol says, have helped build some of the Iranians’
underground nuclear weapons facilities, as
well as Hezbollah’s underground network.
“They built it in 2003-04, coming into
Lebanon disguised as houseboys serving the Iranians. Maybe nobody asked, hey, how come these houseboys are speaking Korean?”
The significance of the tunnels became clear in the 2006 war, as Bechtol explains. “It lowered Hezbollah’s casualty rate. The
Israelis wondered why the air force was not
inflicting more damage and it was because of those tunnels. It was the first time Hezbollah was ever truly protected.”
Last week a U.S. federal judge ruled that
North Korea and Iran were liable for
providing support to Hezbollah during the
2006 war. According to U.S. District Judge
Royce Lamberth, North Korea and Iran
assisted “in building a massive network of
underground military installations, tunnels,
bunkers, depots and storage facilities in
southern Lebanon.” Lamberth noted that one Hezbollah commander who received training in North Korea was Mustafa Badreddine, Mughniyeh’s cousin. And as with North Korea, Hezbollah’s heavily reinforced underground network has also given rise to an offensive doctrine—to invade northern Israel.
“Hassan Nasrallah says Hezbollah has a two- part operational plan,” says Shimon Shapira.
“One is rocket fire on Tel Aviv and two is
conquest of the Galilee. I wondered what he
meant by that—how is Hezbollah going to
invade the Galilee, take hostages, capture
villages, and overrun military installations?
But we’re learning from what is happening
now. Nasrallah means Hezbollah is going to
penetrate Israel through tunnels.”
The difference between Hamas’s
underground network and Hezbollah’s,
explain experts, is the topography. It’s easier to dig tunnels in the Gaza sand than in the rocky pastures and rich soil of the Galilee.
The catch is that the latter are also harder to destroy since they are further fortified by
nature.
Several Israeli journalists are reporting that
“the fiasco of the tunnels,” as Yossi Melman
calls it, might have been avoided. Either
military and security officials were aware of the extent of Hamas’s network and didn’t do enough about it, or they ran up against
bureaucratic roadblocks. Whether the IDF
needs to detail a specific unit to monitor and uproot the tunnels that cross into Israel on its southern and northern borders, one fact is plain: For decades Israel’s traditional
military doctrine has been to fight its
enemies on the other side of the wire.
However, its enemies’ new North Korean-
inspired doctrine is to go under the wire. If
Israel doesn’t deal with first Hamas’s tunnels and then Hezbollah’s, the next war it faces may well be inside Israel itself.
NO SWORD, NO JUSTICE
William Kristol
On Tuesday, President Obama visited the
Dutch embassy in Washington to pay his
respects to the victims of Malaysia Airlines
Flight 17, shot down over Ukraine by forces
armed and backed by Vladimir Putin. Obama wrote in the embassy’s condolence book, “We will not rest until we are certain that justice is done.” Then he rested.
Actually, that’s not fair. Obama didn’t rest.
He flew off to the West Coast on a busy
fundraising trip.
The sad fact is that justice will not be done
with respect to Putin or his executioners.
Justice won’t be done in part because
President Obama won’t lift a finger to do it.
Indeed, a couple of days after the president’s edifying if passive formulation in the condolence book, Obama administration officials weren’t even pretending they had much intention of doing anything significant.
Perhaps that’s what Obama meant when he
promised Putin he’d have more “flexibility”
after his reelection. Flexibility turns out to
mean saying you won’t rest until justice is
done—and then doing nothing. It means
presenting to the world what Leo Strauss
wrote of Weimar Germany, “the sorry
spectacle of justice without a sword or of
justice unable to use the sword.” Under the
Obama administration, we are becoming
Weimar America.
There is, on the other hand, one nation that is presenting to the world the bracing spectacle of justice able and willing to
use the sword: Israel. Israel is fighting a war against Islamic terror. Naturally the
administration isn’t happy about this. As
Obama explained to donors at a Democratic
fundraiser in Seattle several hours after
visiting the Dutch embassy, “Part of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world, the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity.”
Based presumably on that sense of “common humanity,” Secretary of State John Kerry was, as Obama spoke, flying around the Middle East trying to “mediate” between Hamas and Israel. It’s great to be on the side of “common humanity.” It protects you from the charge that in practice you often seem to be on the
side of the terrorists. Such a charge would be unfair. The Obama administration isn’t on the side of the terrorists. It’s just not on the side of those fighting against terror. It’s in the middle, mediating between the forces of terror and the forces of civilization.
It’s unfortunate that America is saddled with a Weimar-type administration. We’ve done it to ourselves. But surely we are not really a Weimar-type country. It’s up to the
Republican party to make this clear and save us from such a fate.
This is above all the task of the next
Republican president. But it’s also the task of Republicans in Congress—especially if the GOP wins control of the Senate this fall. A Republican Congress can stop the free fall in defense spending and military capability. A Republican Congress can make it clear that Congress does not accept an executive-
branch-only agreement with the Islamic
Republic of Iran that allows that terror-
sponsoring regime to retain nuclear weapons capabilities, and that a Republican president in 2017 would not be bound by such an agreement. A Republican Congress can stand with Israel in ways that range from defunding terror-friendly elements of the United Nations to countering pressure on Israel to take damaging steps for the sake of a nonexistent (for now) two-state “solution.”
Above all, Republicans—even before
November—can show they understand the
world we live in. The Conservative
governments of Stephen Harper in Canada
and Tony Abbott in Australia seem to
understand. Benjamin Netanyahu
understands. What they understand was put well by Douglas Murray, writing in the
London Spectator. Murray points out that
Israel is a nation which currently has to do what people in countries like this one . . . used to have to do but seem to have forgotten about:
it has to fight for its survival. Israel is
surrounded by enemies, as we have been for much of our history. But today we like to think that enemies are a thing of the past.
There are no enemies, just phobias we
haven’t been cured of yet.
A gap may well be emerging. But not because Israel has drifted away from the West. Rather because today in much of the West, as we bask in the afterglow of our achievements— eager to enjoy our rights, but unwilling to defend them—it is the West that is, slowly but surely, drifting away from itself.
Today Israel is also distinguished by a deep
sense of its values and ethics as well as a
profound awareness of their source—things
we also used to have. Deep questions of
survival, the tragedy and triumph of the past, present and future remain the stuff of every Israeli house I have ever been to. . . .
[I]t is Israel that remains the truly western
country. It is Israel which takes its history
seriously, thinks deeply about where it is
going and what it exists for. It is Israel which takes western values seriously and fights for the survival of those values. . . . [I]t is Israel that is still truly a western country. Far more than many parts of western Europe now are.
Israel is fighting for its safety and security.
But in fighting terror, Israel also fights for
the West. The example of Israel should be a
reminder to all of us—but especially to the
pro-Israel party, the Republican party—that it is not enough to hope for justice. We need to be ready to fight for justice. And the example of Israel should also remind Americans that we need not acquiesce in the downward drift of the West, a drift that President Obama seems to accept and even welcome, a drift that is as dangerous to America’s future as it is unworthy of America’s past.
On Tuesday, President Obama visited the
Dutch embassy in Washington to pay his
respects to the victims of Malaysia Airlines
Flight 17, shot down over Ukraine by forces
armed and backed by Vladimir Putin. Obama wrote in the embassy’s condolence book, “We will not rest until we are certain that justice is done.” Then he rested.
Actually, that’s not fair. Obama didn’t rest.
He flew off to the West Coast on a busy
fundraising trip.
The sad fact is that justice will not be done
with respect to Putin or his executioners.
Justice won’t be done in part because
President Obama won’t lift a finger to do it.
Indeed, a couple of days after the president’s edifying if passive formulation in the condolence book, Obama administration officials weren’t even pretending they had much intention of doing anything significant.
Perhaps that’s what Obama meant when he
promised Putin he’d have more “flexibility”
after his reelection. Flexibility turns out to
mean saying you won’t rest until justice is
done—and then doing nothing. It means
presenting to the world what Leo Strauss
wrote of Weimar Germany, “the sorry
spectacle of justice without a sword or of
justice unable to use the sword.” Under the
Obama administration, we are becoming
Weimar America.
There is, on the other hand, one nation that is presenting to the world the bracing spectacle of justice able and willing to
use the sword: Israel. Israel is fighting a war against Islamic terror. Naturally the
administration isn’t happy about this. As
Obama explained to donors at a Democratic
fundraiser in Seattle several hours after
visiting the Dutch embassy, “Part of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world, the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity.”
Based presumably on that sense of “common humanity,” Secretary of State John Kerry was, as Obama spoke, flying around the Middle East trying to “mediate” between Hamas and Israel. It’s great to be on the side of “common humanity.” It protects you from the charge that in practice you often seem to be on the
side of the terrorists. Such a charge would be unfair. The Obama administration isn’t on the side of the terrorists. It’s just not on the side of those fighting against terror. It’s in the middle, mediating between the forces of terror and the forces of civilization.
It’s unfortunate that America is saddled with a Weimar-type administration. We’ve done it to ourselves. But surely we are not really a Weimar-type country. It’s up to the
Republican party to make this clear and save us from such a fate.
This is above all the task of the next
Republican president. But it’s also the task of Republicans in Congress—especially if the GOP wins control of the Senate this fall. A Republican Congress can stop the free fall in defense spending and military capability. A Republican Congress can make it clear that Congress does not accept an executive-
branch-only agreement with the Islamic
Republic of Iran that allows that terror-
sponsoring regime to retain nuclear weapons capabilities, and that a Republican president in 2017 would not be bound by such an agreement. A Republican Congress can stand with Israel in ways that range from defunding terror-friendly elements of the United Nations to countering pressure on Israel to take damaging steps for the sake of a nonexistent (for now) two-state “solution.”
Above all, Republicans—even before
November—can show they understand the
world we live in. The Conservative
governments of Stephen Harper in Canada
and Tony Abbott in Australia seem to
understand. Benjamin Netanyahu
understands. What they understand was put well by Douglas Murray, writing in the
London Spectator. Murray points out that
Israel is a nation which currently has to do what people in countries like this one . . . used to have to do but seem to have forgotten about:
it has to fight for its survival. Israel is
surrounded by enemies, as we have been for much of our history. But today we like to think that enemies are a thing of the past.
There are no enemies, just phobias we
haven’t been cured of yet.
A gap may well be emerging. But not because Israel has drifted away from the West. Rather because today in much of the West, as we bask in the afterglow of our achievements— eager to enjoy our rights, but unwilling to defend them—it is the West that is, slowly but surely, drifting away from itself.
Today Israel is also distinguished by a deep
sense of its values and ethics as well as a
profound awareness of their source—things
we also used to have. Deep questions of
survival, the tragedy and triumph of the past, present and future remain the stuff of every Israeli house I have ever been to. . . .
[I]t is Israel that remains the truly western
country. It is Israel which takes its history
seriously, thinks deeply about where it is
going and what it exists for. It is Israel which takes western values seriously and fights for the survival of those values. . . . [I]t is Israel that is still truly a western country. Far more than many parts of western Europe now are.
Israel is fighting for its safety and security.
But in fighting terror, Israel also fights for
the West. The example of Israel should be a
reminder to all of us—but especially to the
pro-Israel party, the Republican party—that it is not enough to hope for justice. We need to be ready to fight for justice. And the example of Israel should also remind Americans that we need not acquiesce in the downward drift of the West, a drift that President Obama seems to accept and even welcome, a drift that is as dangerous to America’s future as it is unworthy of America’s past.
IMPEACHMENT
Rich Galen
There is a growing battle between the
Republican-controlled House of
Representatives and the Democrat-controlled White House.
President Barack Obama is signing what are
known as "Executive Orders" to (in the minds of House Republicans) either create laws that don't exist, or ignore laws that do exist.
This is a classic fight between what, in Our
Nation's Capital is known as the Article I
Branch of Government vs. the Article II
Branch. Those are the Legislative and
Executive Branches and which Article of the U.S. Constitution describes their duties and prerogatives.
Article I, Section 1 states:
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives."
Article II, Section 1 states:
"The executive power shall be vested in a
President of the United States of America."
Just to keep the conversation going,
ArticleIII, Section 1 begins:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Those are the starting lineups: The
Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial
Branches.
As we learned in grammar school, the
Congress passes laws that the President is
supposed to enforce. The Supreme Court
decides on whether or not those laws are
Constitutional.
A couple of years ago, you may remember,
the Supreme Court ruled that, in the main,
Obamacare was Constitutional. Not all of it,
but enough of it to have given people like me something to talk about on TV and write
about in Mullings on a regular basis.
That's the way the system is supposed to
work.
If the President and/or Congress does
something that is extra-Constitutional, then
an aggrieved party can file a lawsuit and, if it is deemed sufficiently important, it will get to the Supreme Court and it will rule.
In 1974 President Richard Nixon claimed
Executive Privilege in refusing to turn over
the all the audio tapes that had been made
during his Presidency. Chief Justice Warren
Burger wrote, for the unanimous Court, (from Streetlaw.org):
"Absent a claim of need to protect military,
diplomatic, or sensitive national security
secrets, we find it difficult to accept the . . .
[absolute] confidentiality of presidential
communications."
More recently, the Supreme Court ruled that President Obama's claim that (essentially) anytime the Senate was not in session it was, by definition in recess and therefore he could invoke his Constitutional right to make "recess appointments" in this case to the National Labor Relations Board.
The Supreme Court, again, unanimously ruled he had overstepped his bounds with Mr. Justice Breyer writing (according to the
Washington Post coverage),
"The Senate is in session when it says it is."
The point is, Presidents can overstep their
authority without having committed an
impeachable offense which is loosely defined in Article II, Section 4 as:
"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors."
This somewhat tedious discussion is necessary because the "I" word is being thrown around in Washington again.
In 1998 the House Impeached President Bill
Clinton although he was not convicted by the Senate. The House has impeachment
authority (think, indictment) but the Senate
must convict (think jury trial).
1998 happened to have been the year of the
mid-term election in President Clinton's
second term. We know about second term
mid-term elections: They generally are
dreadful for the party of the President.
The GOP's entire strategy was to make the
1998 elections a referendum on Clinton and
Monica Lewinsky.
Republicans chose badly. As Time Magazine
put it:
"[T]he the election that was supposed to be
another G.O.P. blowout ended with a gain of five House seats for the Democrats, no change in the Senate and the morning-after spectacle of dumbstruck Republicans."
The Democrats succeeded in making the
campaign a battle between Clinton and
Gingrich. They drove off-year turnout for the party of the President up dramatically which caught Republicans flat-footed.
That is why the White House let slip the dogs of impeachment last week saying the
Republicans might impeach President Obama over his plans to go it alone on immigration.
The Administration is trying to gin up the
Democratic base with 100 days to go before a mid-term election that might well cost them control of the Senate.
The Republicans may - in fact, probably will - sue the President for overstepping his
executive authority, but they won't institute
impeachment proceedings against him.
There is a growing battle between the
Republican-controlled House of
Representatives and the Democrat-controlled White House.
President Barack Obama is signing what are
known as "Executive Orders" to (in the minds of House Republicans) either create laws that don't exist, or ignore laws that do exist.
This is a classic fight between what, in Our
Nation's Capital is known as the Article I
Branch of Government vs. the Article II
Branch. Those are the Legislative and
Executive Branches and which Article of the U.S. Constitution describes their duties and prerogatives.
Article I, Section 1 states:
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives."
Article II, Section 1 states:
"The executive power shall be vested in a
President of the United States of America."
Just to keep the conversation going,
ArticleIII, Section 1 begins:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Those are the starting lineups: The
Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial
Branches.
As we learned in grammar school, the
Congress passes laws that the President is
supposed to enforce. The Supreme Court
decides on whether or not those laws are
Constitutional.
A couple of years ago, you may remember,
the Supreme Court ruled that, in the main,
Obamacare was Constitutional. Not all of it,
but enough of it to have given people like me something to talk about on TV and write
about in Mullings on a regular basis.
That's the way the system is supposed to
work.
If the President and/or Congress does
something that is extra-Constitutional, then
an aggrieved party can file a lawsuit and, if it is deemed sufficiently important, it will get to the Supreme Court and it will rule.
In 1974 President Richard Nixon claimed
Executive Privilege in refusing to turn over
the all the audio tapes that had been made
during his Presidency. Chief Justice Warren
Burger wrote, for the unanimous Court, (from Streetlaw.org):
"Absent a claim of need to protect military,
diplomatic, or sensitive national security
secrets, we find it difficult to accept the . . .
[absolute] confidentiality of presidential
communications."
More recently, the Supreme Court ruled that President Obama's claim that (essentially) anytime the Senate was not in session it was, by definition in recess and therefore he could invoke his Constitutional right to make "recess appointments" in this case to the National Labor Relations Board.
The Supreme Court, again, unanimously ruled he had overstepped his bounds with Mr. Justice Breyer writing (according to the
Washington Post coverage),
"The Senate is in session when it says it is."
The point is, Presidents can overstep their
authority without having committed an
impeachable offense which is loosely defined in Article II, Section 4 as:
"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors."
This somewhat tedious discussion is necessary because the "I" word is being thrown around in Washington again.
In 1998 the House Impeached President Bill
Clinton although he was not convicted by the Senate. The House has impeachment
authority (think, indictment) but the Senate
must convict (think jury trial).
1998 happened to have been the year of the
mid-term election in President Clinton's
second term. We know about second term
mid-term elections: They generally are
dreadful for the party of the President.
The GOP's entire strategy was to make the
1998 elections a referendum on Clinton and
Monica Lewinsky.
Republicans chose badly. As Time Magazine
put it:
"[T]he the election that was supposed to be
another G.O.P. blowout ended with a gain of five House seats for the Democrats, no change in the Senate and the morning-after spectacle of dumbstruck Republicans."
The Democrats succeeded in making the
campaign a battle between Clinton and
Gingrich. They drove off-year turnout for the party of the President up dramatically which caught Republicans flat-footed.
That is why the White House let slip the dogs of impeachment last week saying the
Republicans might impeach President Obama over his plans to go it alone on immigration.
The Administration is trying to gin up the
Democratic base with 100 days to go before a mid-term election that might well cost them control of the Senate.
The Republicans may - in fact, probably will - sue the President for overstepping his
executive authority, but they won't institute
impeachment proceedings against him.
THE INDONESIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION EXPLAINED
Shankari Sundararaman
Indonesia’s presidential election has heralded a change in the old guard, with Joko Widodo emerging as the winner of the mandate that took place on 9 July. The
election, that took place 16 years after Indonesia’s transition to democracy and the overthrow of the Suharto regime, indicates the consolidation of the democratic structures within this nascent democracy.
Interestingly in this election, Jokowi, as he is popularly known, represents a change from the older leadership in Indonesia – that has often been associated with political families and the military leadership. In that
context, he is a newcomer on the national political scene – with his earlier avatar in politics as the governor of Jakarta and as the mayor of Solo.
What is significant about his victory is that his opponent was Prabowo Subianto – Suharto’s son-in-law, and has been implicated for human rights violations. This is also indicative of the degree of discomfort the linkages to the past regime brings among the population, despite Prabowo Subianto being likely to allege the results to be fraudulent.
This has been an election year for Indonesia. In the May 2014 elections to the Indonesian parliament, , citizens cast their votes for four councils. Additionally, elections to local councils – created as a result of the decentralisation process that is critical to Indonesia’s democratic consolidation – too were held. The
Provincial and Regency elections too were held, on 9 April. The Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (PDI- P) or the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, the opposition party in the last government, won the elections with 18.95 per cent of the vote. This was followed by the Golongan Karya (Golkar), the is former party of the military functional groups that secured
14.75 per cent of the votes. The third largest party, the Great Indonesian Movement Party (Gerinda) that was led by Prabowo Subianto, won 11.81 per cent of the
votes.
While the aforementioned groups emerged as the leading parties in the legislative elections, neither could qualify to nominate a candidate for the presidential elections on their own. Therefore, in order to nominate a candidate, the parties had to secure coalitions with other parties in the DPR to propose a presidential candidate for direct presidential elections – that Indonesia has been following since 2004. According to
the laws governing the Presidential elections, a political party must officially secure a minimum of 25 per cent of the popular vote or 20 per cent of seats in the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR), the lower house of the parliament, to be eligible to nominate a presidential candidate.
Following the legislative elections in April 2014, the need for coalitions to secure the necessary percentage of seats and votes prompted Jokowi to request the former
Vice President of Indonesia, Jusuf Kalla, to be his running mate. This combination was critical to Jokowi’s victory because Kalla is a former Chairman of the Golkar party that came in second in the legislative election. The tie-up with Kalla was potentially the trump card for Jokowi as this was seen as a critical factor in splitting the Golkar votes – given Kalla’s considerable influence
among supporters. Interestingly Aburizal Bakrie, the current Chairman of the Golkar, had, during one of the Party’s national meetings, stated that that the party
actually backed the combination of Prabowo Subianto and his running mate, Hatta Rajasa. In fact, a split in
the Golkar was a clear sign that Prabowo Subianto may not be acceptable to many due to his views on Indonesian nationalism and the human rights violations that he has been associated with under the Suharto
regime.
In the finally tally, the Jokowi-Kalla combination won 53.16 per cent of the votes while the Prabowo-Rajasa
combination won 46.48 per cent of the votes in what emerged as the most closely contested elections since Indonesia’s transition. With the victory of the Jokowi-
Kalla group, Golkar may throw its full weight behind the new team, wanting to be on the right side of the political fault-line.
Of the electoral promises Jokowi made, the creation of ten million new jobs and continued economic reforms are the most significant challenges. Jusuf Kalla brings
with him the experience in economic reforms, which also needs to translate into the much promised subsidies to assist in poverty alleviation. Agrarian land reforms need to be addressed, as does the crucial question of environmental conservation policies – that have to be implemented to counter detrimental effects of
deforestation Indonesia has been facing. Rampant corruption and nepotism are critical factors that undermine the democratic consolidation in Indonesia.
These are also crucial challenges which the new president and his team will have to tackle.
Indonesia’s presidential election has heralded a change in the old guard, with Joko Widodo emerging as the winner of the mandate that took place on 9 July. The
election, that took place 16 years after Indonesia’s transition to democracy and the overthrow of the Suharto regime, indicates the consolidation of the democratic structures within this nascent democracy.
Interestingly in this election, Jokowi, as he is popularly known, represents a change from the older leadership in Indonesia – that has often been associated with political families and the military leadership. In that
context, he is a newcomer on the national political scene – with his earlier avatar in politics as the governor of Jakarta and as the mayor of Solo.
What is significant about his victory is that his opponent was Prabowo Subianto – Suharto’s son-in-law, and has been implicated for human rights violations. This is also indicative of the degree of discomfort the linkages to the past regime brings among the population, despite Prabowo Subianto being likely to allege the results to be fraudulent.
This has been an election year for Indonesia. In the May 2014 elections to the Indonesian parliament, , citizens cast their votes for four councils. Additionally, elections to local councils – created as a result of the decentralisation process that is critical to Indonesia’s democratic consolidation – too were held. The
Provincial and Regency elections too were held, on 9 April. The Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (PDI- P) or the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, the opposition party in the last government, won the elections with 18.95 per cent of the vote. This was followed by the Golongan Karya (Golkar), the is former party of the military functional groups that secured
14.75 per cent of the votes. The third largest party, the Great Indonesian Movement Party (Gerinda) that was led by Prabowo Subianto, won 11.81 per cent of the
votes.
While the aforementioned groups emerged as the leading parties in the legislative elections, neither could qualify to nominate a candidate for the presidential elections on their own. Therefore, in order to nominate a candidate, the parties had to secure coalitions with other parties in the DPR to propose a presidential candidate for direct presidential elections – that Indonesia has been following since 2004. According to
the laws governing the Presidential elections, a political party must officially secure a minimum of 25 per cent of the popular vote or 20 per cent of seats in the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR), the lower house of the parliament, to be eligible to nominate a presidential candidate.
Following the legislative elections in April 2014, the need for coalitions to secure the necessary percentage of seats and votes prompted Jokowi to request the former
Vice President of Indonesia, Jusuf Kalla, to be his running mate. This combination was critical to Jokowi’s victory because Kalla is a former Chairman of the Golkar party that came in second in the legislative election. The tie-up with Kalla was potentially the trump card for Jokowi as this was seen as a critical factor in splitting the Golkar votes – given Kalla’s considerable influence
among supporters. Interestingly Aburizal Bakrie, the current Chairman of the Golkar, had, during one of the Party’s national meetings, stated that that the party
actually backed the combination of Prabowo Subianto and his running mate, Hatta Rajasa. In fact, a split in
the Golkar was a clear sign that Prabowo Subianto may not be acceptable to many due to his views on Indonesian nationalism and the human rights violations that he has been associated with under the Suharto
regime.
In the finally tally, the Jokowi-Kalla combination won 53.16 per cent of the votes while the Prabowo-Rajasa
combination won 46.48 per cent of the votes in what emerged as the most closely contested elections since Indonesia’s transition. With the victory of the Jokowi-
Kalla group, Golkar may throw its full weight behind the new team, wanting to be on the right side of the political fault-line.
Of the electoral promises Jokowi made, the creation of ten million new jobs and continued economic reforms are the most significant challenges. Jusuf Kalla brings
with him the experience in economic reforms, which also needs to translate into the much promised subsidies to assist in poverty alleviation. Agrarian land reforms need to be addressed, as does the crucial question of environmental conservation policies – that have to be implemented to counter detrimental effects of
deforestation Indonesia has been facing. Rampant corruption and nepotism are critical factors that undermine the democratic consolidation in Indonesia.
These are also crucial challenges which the new president and his team will have to tackle.
27 Jul 2014
IS OBAMA TO BLAME FOR THE WORLD'S CRISES?
Steve Chapman
The world is a hot mess. Pro-Russian
separatists shot down a passenger jet over
Ukraine. Iraq is under siege from Islamic
radicals, the Taliban is rebounding in
Afghanistan and civil war grinds on in Syria.
Israel is fighting in Gaza. Negotiations on
Iran's nuclear program have come up empty.
China is bullying its neighbors.
When trouble flares up around the world,
U.S. presidents get blamed. The latest polls
show that only about 36 percent of Americans
approve of Barack Obama's handling of
foreign affairs -- down from 51 percent in
May, 2011, after the death of Osama bin
Laden.
Republicans have not been reluctant to place
responsibility on him. "Obama has presided
over a recent string of disasters that make
even (Jimmy) Carter look competent," wrote
Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for
George W. Bush. "The world is on fire -- and
Obama's foreign policy legacy is in tatters."
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
charged that "his policies are failing across
the globe."
The indictment implies that had the
administration been tougher or smarter,
Ukraine would be intact, Syria's dictator
would be gone, Iraq would be stable, Hamas
would surrender, China would be a gentle
lamb and Iran would give up its nukes.
Conservatives say Obama thinks he's king.
But they seem to confuse him with God.
It's easy to forget that planet Earth has
always been a turbulent locale. During the
Reagan administration, often fondly recalled
as a golden age, there was endless strife
hither and yon: civil wars in Central
America; Americans taken hostage in
Lebanon; a U.S. military barracks blown up
in Beirut; and Libyan terrorists bombing a
Pan Am plane.
The Soviets shot down a South Korean
passenger jet. South Africa's minority white
government tried to suppress a black revolt.
Reagan may get credit for causing the collapse
of the Soviet Union, but tranquility didn't
follow. It wasn't long before Iraq invaded
Kuwait, Yugoslavia erupted into bloody
ethnic conflict, civil war broke out in one
African country after another, famine
ravaged Somalia, Palestinians rose up against
Israeli rule, and Pakistan and India fought a
war after acquiring nuclear weapons.
And the 21st century? It did not turn the
world into a serene oasis where America
consistently got its way. The 9/11 attacks, the
war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan are
still fresh in our minds. The Russian invasion
of Georgia, al-Qaida's migration into
Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, Israel's war in
Lebanon, the civil war in Sudan -- those are
easy to forget.
North Korea cheated on a nuclear deal under
Bush. Iran took major strides in its own
nuclear quest. Vladimir Putin gutted Russian
democracy. China tried to intimidate its
neighbors.
When was this era of harmony that Obama
has somehow forfeited? It never happened.
And it's not likely to emerge under his
successor. Even at the height of our post-Cold
War power and influence, nasty events
happened all the time, and we couldn't stop
them.
The Cold War era was a bit more controlled,
because so many governments were
dependent for their security on either the
U.S. or the Soviet Union, who could often
keep them in line. But there was still plenty
of bloodshed in plenty of places -- from
Vietnam to the Indian subcontinent to
Lebanon to El Salvador. Often, neither
Washington nor Moscow got what it wanted.
Nor is it obvious Obama could have achieved much with more assertive tactics against the Russian government or the Syrian government: His options were few and unpromising. Nothing short of a NATO
military response -- which even the hawks
didn't propose -- would have stopped Putin
from seizing Crimea.
Arming the Syrian rebels could have meant
giving aid to the militants marching on our
ally in Baghdad. Staying in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as many Republicans advised,
was a formula for wasting American lives to merely delay the inevitable.
Yet the belief persists that the difference
between a bad outcome and a good outcome is a willingness by the U.S. government to exercise leadership or show toughness or otherwise get involved. In practice, our interventions often exact a terribly high price for a dismal result. If there are two ways to get a dismal result, maybe we should choose the one that doesn't cost us thousands of lives
or billions of dollars.
We like to think we can easily shape the
world to suit our preferences. But as the 19th- century historian Henry Adams pointed out, chaos is the law of nature, and order is the dream of man.
The world is a hot mess. Pro-Russian
separatists shot down a passenger jet over
Ukraine. Iraq is under siege from Islamic
radicals, the Taliban is rebounding in
Afghanistan and civil war grinds on in Syria.
Israel is fighting in Gaza. Negotiations on
Iran's nuclear program have come up empty.
China is bullying its neighbors.
When trouble flares up around the world,
U.S. presidents get blamed. The latest polls
show that only about 36 percent of Americans
approve of Barack Obama's handling of
foreign affairs -- down from 51 percent in
May, 2011, after the death of Osama bin
Laden.
Republicans have not been reluctant to place
responsibility on him. "Obama has presided
over a recent string of disasters that make
even (Jimmy) Carter look competent," wrote
Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for
George W. Bush. "The world is on fire -- and
Obama's foreign policy legacy is in tatters."
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
charged that "his policies are failing across
the globe."
The indictment implies that had the
administration been tougher or smarter,
Ukraine would be intact, Syria's dictator
would be gone, Iraq would be stable, Hamas
would surrender, China would be a gentle
lamb and Iran would give up its nukes.
Conservatives say Obama thinks he's king.
But they seem to confuse him with God.
It's easy to forget that planet Earth has
always been a turbulent locale. During the
Reagan administration, often fondly recalled
as a golden age, there was endless strife
hither and yon: civil wars in Central
America; Americans taken hostage in
Lebanon; a U.S. military barracks blown up
in Beirut; and Libyan terrorists bombing a
Pan Am plane.
The Soviets shot down a South Korean
passenger jet. South Africa's minority white
government tried to suppress a black revolt.
Reagan may get credit for causing the collapse
of the Soviet Union, but tranquility didn't
follow. It wasn't long before Iraq invaded
Kuwait, Yugoslavia erupted into bloody
ethnic conflict, civil war broke out in one
African country after another, famine
ravaged Somalia, Palestinians rose up against
Israeli rule, and Pakistan and India fought a
war after acquiring nuclear weapons.
And the 21st century? It did not turn the
world into a serene oasis where America
consistently got its way. The 9/11 attacks, the
war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan are
still fresh in our minds. The Russian invasion
of Georgia, al-Qaida's migration into
Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, Israel's war in
Lebanon, the civil war in Sudan -- those are
easy to forget.
North Korea cheated on a nuclear deal under
Bush. Iran took major strides in its own
nuclear quest. Vladimir Putin gutted Russian
democracy. China tried to intimidate its
neighbors.
When was this era of harmony that Obama
has somehow forfeited? It never happened.
And it's not likely to emerge under his
successor. Even at the height of our post-Cold
War power and influence, nasty events
happened all the time, and we couldn't stop
them.
The Cold War era was a bit more controlled,
because so many governments were
dependent for their security on either the
U.S. or the Soviet Union, who could often
keep them in line. But there was still plenty
of bloodshed in plenty of places -- from
Vietnam to the Indian subcontinent to
Lebanon to El Salvador. Often, neither
Washington nor Moscow got what it wanted.
Nor is it obvious Obama could have achieved much with more assertive tactics against the Russian government or the Syrian government: His options were few and unpromising. Nothing short of a NATO
military response -- which even the hawks
didn't propose -- would have stopped Putin
from seizing Crimea.
Arming the Syrian rebels could have meant
giving aid to the militants marching on our
ally in Baghdad. Staying in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as many Republicans advised,
was a formula for wasting American lives to merely delay the inevitable.
Yet the belief persists that the difference
between a bad outcome and a good outcome is a willingness by the U.S. government to exercise leadership or show toughness or otherwise get involved. In practice, our interventions often exact a terribly high price for a dismal result. If there are two ways to get a dismal result, maybe we should choose the one that doesn't cost us thousands of lives
or billions of dollars.
We like to think we can easily shape the
world to suit our preferences. But as the 19th- century historian Henry Adams pointed out, chaos is the law of nature, and order is the dream of man.
GREAT MOMENTS IN GOVERNMENT
Daniel Mitchell
You won’t know whether to laugh or cry after perusing these stories that will be added to our “ great moments in government” collection.
For instance, did you realize that American
taxpayers were saddled with the
responsibility to micro-manage agriculture in Afghanistan? You’re probably surprised the answer is yes.
But I bet you’re not surprised that the money was flushed down a toilet. Here are some excerpts from a report on how $34 million was wasted.
American agricultural experts who
consider soybeans a superfood…have
invested tens of millions of U.S. taxpayer
dollars to try to change the way Afghans
eat. The effort, aimed at making soy a
dietary staple, has largely been a flop,
marked by mismanagement, poor
government oversight and financial waste,
according to interviews and government
audit documents obtained by the Center
for Public Integrity. Warnings by
agronomists that the effort was unwise
were ignored. The country’s climate turns
out to be inappropriate for soy cultivation
and its farming culture is ill-prepared for
large-scale soybean production. Soybeans
are now no more a viable commercial crop
in Afghanistan than they were in 2010,
when the $34 million program got
started… The ambitious effort also appears
to have been undone by a simple fact,
which might have been foreseen but was
evidently ignored: Afghans don’t like the
taste of the soy processed foods.
Sadly, this $34 million boondoggle is just the
tip of the iceberg. It’s been said that
Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.
Well, it’s also the graveyard of tax dollars.
…the project’s problems model the larger
shortcomings of the estimated $120 billion
U.S. reconstruction effort in Afghanistan,
including what many experts depict as
ignorance of Afghan traditions,
mismanagement and poor spending
controls. No one has calculated precisely
how much the United States wasted or
misspent in Afghanistan, but a…special
auditor appointed by President Obama the
following year said he discovered nearly
$7 billion worth of Afghanistan-related
waste in just his first year on the job.
I’m guessing that most of the $120 billion was
squandered using traditional definitions of
waste.
But using a libertarian definition of waste
(i.e., money that the federal government
should not spend), we can easily calculate that
the entire $120 billion was squandered.
Let’s now discuss another example of
American taxpayer money being wasted in
other nations. I’ve written previously about
the squalid corruption at the Export-Import
Bank, but Veronique de Rugy of Mercatus is
the go-to expert on this issue, and she has a
new article at National Review about “a
project in Brazil that, if it goes bust and the
Brazilians can’t pay the American contractor,
your tax dollars will end up paying for.”
And what is this project?
…an Export-Import Bank–backed deal to
build the largest aquarium in South
America…the taxpayer exposure is
$150,000 per job “supported.” Some
people in Brazil are rightly upset about
this. The Ex-Im loan may have lower
interest rates and better terms than a
regular loan, but this is probably money
the indebted and poor Brazilian
government can’t afford. …a real problem
with the Ex-Im Bank: On one hand, it gives
cheap money to large companies who
would have access to capital markets even
in its absence. But on the other hand, it
encourages middle-income or poor
countries to take on debt that they
probably can’t afford, whether the
products purchased are “made in
America” or not.
Gee, aren’t we happy that some bureaucrats
and politicians have decided to put us on the
hook for a Brazilian aquarium.
But let’s try to make the best of a bad
situation. Here’s a depiction of what you’re
subsidizing. Enjoy.
Subsidized by American taxpayers
I hope you got your money’s worth from the
image.
Perhaps I’m being American-centric by
focusing on examples of bad policies from the
crowd in Washington.
So let’s look at an example of government
foolishness from Germany. It doesn’t involve
tax money being wasted (at least not
directly), but I can’t resist sharing this story
because it’s such a perfect illustration of
government in action.
Check out these excerpts from a British news
report on over-zealous enforcement by
German cops.
A one-armed man in Germany has
received a full apology and refund from
the police after an overzealous officer
fined him for cycling using only one arm.
Bogdan Ionescu, a theatre box office
worker from Cologne, gets around the
usually cycle-friendly city using a modified
bicycle that allows him to operate both
brakes – one with his foot. But on 25
March he was pulled over by a police
officer who, he says, told him he was
breaking the law. Under German road
safety rules, bicycles are required to have
to have two handlebar brakes. After a long
argument at the roadside, the officer
insisted that Mr Ionescu’s bike was not
roadworthy and issued him with a €25
(£20) fine.
At least this story had a happy ending, at
least if you overlook the time and aggravation
for Mr. Ionescu.
Our last (but certainly not least) example of
foolish government comes from Nebraska,
though the culprit is the federal government.
But maybe “disconcerting” would be a better word than “foolish.”
It seems that our friends on the left no longer think that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” In a very troubling display of thuggery, the Justice Department dispatched a bureaucrat to “investigate” a satirical parade float.
Here’s some of what was reported by the
Washington Times.
The U.S. Department of Justice has sent a
member of its Community Relations
Service team to investigate a Nebraska
parade float that criticized President
Obama. A Fourth of July parade
floatfeatured at the annual Independence
Day parade in Norfolk sparked criticism
when it depicted a zombie-like figure
resembling Mr. Obama standing outside
an outhouse, which was labeled the
“Obama Presidential Library.” The
Nebraska Democratic Party called the float
one of the “worst shows of racism and
disrespect for the office of the presidency
that Nebraska has ever seen.” The Omaha
World-Herald reported Friday that the
Department of Justice sent a CRSmember
who handles discrimination disputes to a
Thursday meeting about the issue. …The
float’s creator, Dale Remmich, has said the
mannequin depicted himself, not President
Obama. He said he is upset with the
president’s handling of the Veterans
Affairs Department, the World-Herald
reported. “Looking at the float, that
message absolutely did not come through,”
said NAACP chapter president Betty C.
Andrews.
If you look at the picture (and other pictures
that can be seen with an online search), I see
plenty of disrespect for the current president,
but why is that something that requires an
investigation?
There was plenty of disrespect for the
previous president. And there as also
disrespect for the president before that. And
before that. And before…well, you get the
idea.
Disrespect for politicians is called political
speech, and it’s (supposedly) protected by the
First Amendment of the Constitution.
That’s even true if the float’s creator had
unseemly motives such as racism. He would
deserve scorn if that was the case, and
parade organizers would (or at least should)
have the right to exclude him on that basis.
But you don’t lose your general right to free
speech just because you have unpopular and/
or reprehensible opinions. And the federal
government shouldn’t be doing anything that
can be construed as suppressing or
intimidating Americans who want to
“disrespect” the political class.
P.S. Since we’re on the topic of politicized
bureaucracy, we have an update to a recent
column about sleazy behavior at the IRS.
According to the Daily Caller , there’s more
and more evidence of a big fire behind all the
smoke at the IRS.
Ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s computer
hard drive was “scratched” and the data
on it was still recoverable. But the IRS did
not try to recover the data from Lerner’s
hard drive, despite recommendations from
in-house IRS IT experts to outsource the
recovery project. The hard drive was then
“shredded,” according to a court filing the
IRS made to House Ways and Means
Committee investigators.
Gee, how convenient.
I used to dislike the IRS because of the tax
code. Now I have an additional reason to
view the bureaucrats with disdain.
P.P.S. One last comment on the controversy
surrounding the parade float. Racism is an
evil example of collectivist thinking. But it is also reprehensible for folks on the left to
make accusations of racism simply because
they disagree with someone.
You won’t know whether to laugh or cry after perusing these stories that will be added to our “ great moments in government” collection.
For instance, did you realize that American
taxpayers were saddled with the
responsibility to micro-manage agriculture in Afghanistan? You’re probably surprised the answer is yes.
But I bet you’re not surprised that the money was flushed down a toilet. Here are some excerpts from a report on how $34 million was wasted.
American agricultural experts who
consider soybeans a superfood…have
invested tens of millions of U.S. taxpayer
dollars to try to change the way Afghans
eat. The effort, aimed at making soy a
dietary staple, has largely been a flop,
marked by mismanagement, poor
government oversight and financial waste,
according to interviews and government
audit documents obtained by the Center
for Public Integrity. Warnings by
agronomists that the effort was unwise
were ignored. The country’s climate turns
out to be inappropriate for soy cultivation
and its farming culture is ill-prepared for
large-scale soybean production. Soybeans
are now no more a viable commercial crop
in Afghanistan than they were in 2010,
when the $34 million program got
started… The ambitious effort also appears
to have been undone by a simple fact,
which might have been foreseen but was
evidently ignored: Afghans don’t like the
taste of the soy processed foods.
Sadly, this $34 million boondoggle is just the
tip of the iceberg. It’s been said that
Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.
Well, it’s also the graveyard of tax dollars.
…the project’s problems model the larger
shortcomings of the estimated $120 billion
U.S. reconstruction effort in Afghanistan,
including what many experts depict as
ignorance of Afghan traditions,
mismanagement and poor spending
controls. No one has calculated precisely
how much the United States wasted or
misspent in Afghanistan, but a…special
auditor appointed by President Obama the
following year said he discovered nearly
$7 billion worth of Afghanistan-related
waste in just his first year on the job.
I’m guessing that most of the $120 billion was
squandered using traditional definitions of
waste.
But using a libertarian definition of waste
(i.e., money that the federal government
should not spend), we can easily calculate that
the entire $120 billion was squandered.
Let’s now discuss another example of
American taxpayer money being wasted in
other nations. I’ve written previously about
the squalid corruption at the Export-Import
Bank, but Veronique de Rugy of Mercatus is
the go-to expert on this issue, and she has a
new article at National Review about “a
project in Brazil that, if it goes bust and the
Brazilians can’t pay the American contractor,
your tax dollars will end up paying for.”
And what is this project?
…an Export-Import Bank–backed deal to
build the largest aquarium in South
America…the taxpayer exposure is
$150,000 per job “supported.” Some
people in Brazil are rightly upset about
this. The Ex-Im loan may have lower
interest rates and better terms than a
regular loan, but this is probably money
the indebted and poor Brazilian
government can’t afford. …a real problem
with the Ex-Im Bank: On one hand, it gives
cheap money to large companies who
would have access to capital markets even
in its absence. But on the other hand, it
encourages middle-income or poor
countries to take on debt that they
probably can’t afford, whether the
products purchased are “made in
America” or not.
Gee, aren’t we happy that some bureaucrats
and politicians have decided to put us on the
hook for a Brazilian aquarium.
But let’s try to make the best of a bad
situation. Here’s a depiction of what you’re
subsidizing. Enjoy.
Subsidized by American taxpayers
I hope you got your money’s worth from the
image.
Perhaps I’m being American-centric by
focusing on examples of bad policies from the
crowd in Washington.
So let’s look at an example of government
foolishness from Germany. It doesn’t involve
tax money being wasted (at least not
directly), but I can’t resist sharing this story
because it’s such a perfect illustration of
government in action.
Check out these excerpts from a British news
report on over-zealous enforcement by
German cops.
A one-armed man in Germany has
received a full apology and refund from
the police after an overzealous officer
fined him for cycling using only one arm.
Bogdan Ionescu, a theatre box office
worker from Cologne, gets around the
usually cycle-friendly city using a modified
bicycle that allows him to operate both
brakes – one with his foot. But on 25
March he was pulled over by a police
officer who, he says, told him he was
breaking the law. Under German road
safety rules, bicycles are required to have
to have two handlebar brakes. After a long
argument at the roadside, the officer
insisted that Mr Ionescu’s bike was not
roadworthy and issued him with a €25
(£20) fine.
At least this story had a happy ending, at
least if you overlook the time and aggravation
for Mr. Ionescu.
Our last (but certainly not least) example of
foolish government comes from Nebraska,
though the culprit is the federal government.
But maybe “disconcerting” would be a better word than “foolish.”
It seems that our friends on the left no longer think that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” In a very troubling display of thuggery, the Justice Department dispatched a bureaucrat to “investigate” a satirical parade float.
Here’s some of what was reported by the
Washington Times.
The U.S. Department of Justice has sent a
member of its Community Relations
Service team to investigate a Nebraska
parade float that criticized President
Obama. A Fourth of July parade
floatfeatured at the annual Independence
Day parade in Norfolk sparked criticism
when it depicted a zombie-like figure
resembling Mr. Obama standing outside
an outhouse, which was labeled the
“Obama Presidential Library.” The
Nebraska Democratic Party called the float
one of the “worst shows of racism and
disrespect for the office of the presidency
that Nebraska has ever seen.” The Omaha
World-Herald reported Friday that the
Department of Justice sent a CRSmember
who handles discrimination disputes to a
Thursday meeting about the issue. …The
float’s creator, Dale Remmich, has said the
mannequin depicted himself, not President
Obama. He said he is upset with the
president’s handling of the Veterans
Affairs Department, the World-Herald
reported. “Looking at the float, that
message absolutely did not come through,”
said NAACP chapter president Betty C.
Andrews.
If you look at the picture (and other pictures
that can be seen with an online search), I see
plenty of disrespect for the current president,
but why is that something that requires an
investigation?
There was plenty of disrespect for the
previous president. And there as also
disrespect for the president before that. And
before that. And before…well, you get the
idea.
Disrespect for politicians is called political
speech, and it’s (supposedly) protected by the
First Amendment of the Constitution.
That’s even true if the float’s creator had
unseemly motives such as racism. He would
deserve scorn if that was the case, and
parade organizers would (or at least should)
have the right to exclude him on that basis.
But you don’t lose your general right to free
speech just because you have unpopular and/
or reprehensible opinions. And the federal
government shouldn’t be doing anything that
can be construed as suppressing or
intimidating Americans who want to
“disrespect” the political class.
P.S. Since we’re on the topic of politicized
bureaucracy, we have an update to a recent
column about sleazy behavior at the IRS.
According to the Daily Caller , there’s more
and more evidence of a big fire behind all the
smoke at the IRS.
Ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s computer
hard drive was “scratched” and the data
on it was still recoverable. But the IRS did
not try to recover the data from Lerner’s
hard drive, despite recommendations from
in-house IRS IT experts to outsource the
recovery project. The hard drive was then
“shredded,” according to a court filing the
IRS made to House Ways and Means
Committee investigators.
Gee, how convenient.
I used to dislike the IRS because of the tax
code. Now I have an additional reason to
view the bureaucrats with disdain.
P.P.S. One last comment on the controversy
surrounding the parade float. Racism is an
evil example of collectivist thinking. But it is also reprehensible for folks on the left to
make accusations of racism simply because
they disagree with someone.
US-CHINA STRATEGIC AND ECONOMIC DIALOGUE: LESSONS FOR INDIA
Teshu Singh
The Sixth US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) was held in Beijing from 9-10 July 2014, amid growing tension between the US and China over the maritime disputes of the South China and the East
China Seas. This commentary highlights the major outcomes of the 2014 dialogue and delves into the lessons that can be learnt for the Sino-Indian SED.
Major Outcomes of the Dialogue
More than 300 areas of cooperation were agreed; 116 from the strategic track and 90 from the economic track. With increasing stakes in the bilateral relations, the areas of cooperation between the two countries
have risen from 91 to 116. The list covered almost all the major areas of cooperation. Of the 116 (divided into 8 areas), the outstanding ones were the developments
in the Asia Pacific, the China Garden, health, and climate change.
• Developments in the SCS have brought US-China relations to a standstill. With the increasing US role in the SCS region there is a growing notion of containing China in the region. To dispel this notion from growing
further, China was invited to the RIMPAC exercises this year. Coupled with this was the development in the Asia Pacific; ADIZ in the ECS and the developments in the
Korean Peninsula. All these issues were addressed at length during the dialogue.
• To enhance bilateral relations and to give a boost to people-to-people contact, the idea of China Garden was taken forward and it was agreed that the construction would start by 2016.
• The ten year Framework on Energy and Environment was reviewed and a joint report with sections on “Building the Foundation for Continued Partnership” and
Looking Ahead” was issued to review the progress for five years. The US department of Energy and National Energy Administration (NEA) of China held their first meeting. The fourth Advanced Bio Fuels Forum was agreed to be held in 2015.
• Disagreement between the US and China over many climate issues represent the biggest threat to climate change. Early this year, the US and China agreed to devote efforts and resources to climate change through the S&ED. China is the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide and the US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
China expects the US to start the process of cutting down on emission first. To take the initiative of the US- China Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) established during the fifth round of the S&ED forward,
discussions were held on the issue of hydroflurocarbon (HFCs). In addition, discussions were held on the regional air quality management, control of fine material, and ozone.
On the economic track, the dialogue took the Bilateral Investment treaty (BIT) a step ahead; it was agreed to identify a ‘negative list’ for negotiations by 2015. This would open up China’s markets to foreign investments and create opportunities for US firms to participate in China.
Lessons Drawn
During the Xi-Obama meeting, it was agreed to come up with a ‘ new type of relationship’. To take this initiative
forward, a lot of positive terms such as ‘common interest’, ‘cooperation’ and ‘constructive’ were used.
The S&ED has shown to the world that two countries with different cultural and social system can cooperate. The dialogue mechanism is a unique platform to
promote understanding, expand consensus, manage differences, improve mutual trust and increase cooperation. It is the most intensive and expansive forum ever between both governments, bringing together dozens of agencies from both sides to discuss the most pressing bilateral issues, from security to energy to human rights. It illustrates the facts that even relations
as complex as US-China can be cooperative if a platform is provided. This is evident from the exhaustive list that has been drawn by expanding consensus and
narrowing their differences. Thus, a dialogue of this nature is important to address the widening mistrust in any bilateral relations and to identify future trends. It has proved that despite problems on the strategic track there can be progress on the economic front, thereby avoiding any kind of deadlock.
There are lessons to be drawn from the present S&ED for the Sino-Indian SED. The US-China S&ED was initially started as a SED and eventually a strategic track was added in 2011. The addition of the strategic
track has broadened the agenda of the dialogue and created an alternate platform to discuss issues that are irresolvable on one track. On similar lines, perhaps a
strategic track can also be considered for the the Sino Indian SED so that security and economic issue scan be linked in a strategic way . It will help in solving the impending issues in bilateral relations, which will further help in preventing the deterioration of bilateral relations.
The Sixth US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) was held in Beijing from 9-10 July 2014, amid growing tension between the US and China over the maritime disputes of the South China and the East
China Seas. This commentary highlights the major outcomes of the 2014 dialogue and delves into the lessons that can be learnt for the Sino-Indian SED.
Major Outcomes of the Dialogue
More than 300 areas of cooperation were agreed; 116 from the strategic track and 90 from the economic track. With increasing stakes in the bilateral relations, the areas of cooperation between the two countries
have risen from 91 to 116. The list covered almost all the major areas of cooperation. Of the 116 (divided into 8 areas), the outstanding ones were the developments
in the Asia Pacific, the China Garden, health, and climate change.
• Developments in the SCS have brought US-China relations to a standstill. With the increasing US role in the SCS region there is a growing notion of containing China in the region. To dispel this notion from growing
further, China was invited to the RIMPAC exercises this year. Coupled with this was the development in the Asia Pacific; ADIZ in the ECS and the developments in the
Korean Peninsula. All these issues were addressed at length during the dialogue.
• To enhance bilateral relations and to give a boost to people-to-people contact, the idea of China Garden was taken forward and it was agreed that the construction would start by 2016.
• The ten year Framework on Energy and Environment was reviewed and a joint report with sections on “Building the Foundation for Continued Partnership” and
Looking Ahead” was issued to review the progress for five years. The US department of Energy and National Energy Administration (NEA) of China held their first meeting. The fourth Advanced Bio Fuels Forum was agreed to be held in 2015.
• Disagreement between the US and China over many climate issues represent the biggest threat to climate change. Early this year, the US and China agreed to devote efforts and resources to climate change through the S&ED. China is the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide and the US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
China expects the US to start the process of cutting down on emission first. To take the initiative of the US- China Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) established during the fifth round of the S&ED forward,
discussions were held on the issue of hydroflurocarbon (HFCs). In addition, discussions were held on the regional air quality management, control of fine material, and ozone.
On the economic track, the dialogue took the Bilateral Investment treaty (BIT) a step ahead; it was agreed to identify a ‘negative list’ for negotiations by 2015. This would open up China’s markets to foreign investments and create opportunities for US firms to participate in China.
Lessons Drawn
During the Xi-Obama meeting, it was agreed to come up with a ‘ new type of relationship’. To take this initiative
forward, a lot of positive terms such as ‘common interest’, ‘cooperation’ and ‘constructive’ were used.
The S&ED has shown to the world that two countries with different cultural and social system can cooperate. The dialogue mechanism is a unique platform to
promote understanding, expand consensus, manage differences, improve mutual trust and increase cooperation. It is the most intensive and expansive forum ever between both governments, bringing together dozens of agencies from both sides to discuss the most pressing bilateral issues, from security to energy to human rights. It illustrates the facts that even relations
as complex as US-China can be cooperative if a platform is provided. This is evident from the exhaustive list that has been drawn by expanding consensus and
narrowing their differences. Thus, a dialogue of this nature is important to address the widening mistrust in any bilateral relations and to identify future trends. It has proved that despite problems on the strategic track there can be progress on the economic front, thereby avoiding any kind of deadlock.
There are lessons to be drawn from the present S&ED for the Sino-Indian SED. The US-China S&ED was initially started as a SED and eventually a strategic track was added in 2011. The addition of the strategic
track has broadened the agenda of the dialogue and created an alternate platform to discuss issues that are irresolvable on one track. On similar lines, perhaps a
strategic track can also be considered for the the Sino Indian SED so that security and economic issue scan be linked in a strategic way . It will help in solving the impending issues in bilateral relations, which will further help in preventing the deterioration of bilateral relations.
25 Jul 2014
ISRAEL'S MANIFEST DESTINY
John Nantz
You’re either with Israel or you’re for the
Islamo-Nazi. This unqualified statement is
true simply because the nation of Israel is
fighting for survival, battling against
fanatical Islamists who are backed by Iran’s
army of insurgency, Hamas. And, the stated
purpose of Hamas and Iran is to accomplish
the total destruction of the Jewish people and Israel as a nation. It doesn’t get more black and white than that. It's the very definition of anti-semitism.
This should be a no-brainer for our ivy
league educated plutocrats, a real soft ball
foreign policy issue, but it’s not. The Obama
administration is perpetually befuddled by
reality butting in and altering their fairytale
narrative. The Islamists in Gaza and in Iran
aren't impressed by Obama's middle name
nor do they regard mere lip service to their
primitive religion. If you don't subscribe to
their brutal jihad and its genocidal objective, then you're a mortal enemy too. Still, the Obama administration's enlightened aristocrats puzzle at why their dalliance with Islamophilia hasn’t resulted in peace in the Middle East. The answer isn’t as technical as administration wonks would like you to think.
Millennia ago in Canaan, modern day Israel, an Egyptian woman named Hagar gave birth to a son of Abram (Abraham). This child's name was Ishmael. And, with the child came an ancient prophecy, "And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."
Ishmael grew and was blessed and lived in
the ancient region of Param, which is now
Arabia. Abraham had another son Isaac, the
father of Israel. The antipathy between Israel and the peoples of the Levant runs through ancient bloodlines and represents the opposing forces battling for survival (Israel) and dominance (the Palestinians backed by the ancient Persians (Iran)) in the Middle East. This isn't just ancient history, it is the basis for conflict in the Middle East and is readily acknowledged by both sides of the struggle.
However, Israel occupies Palestine by right,
Isaac was the son of promise, and has yet to
fulfill its manifest destiny. Indeed, much of
the constant conflict is the result of Israel's
failure to fulfill its Divinely appointed
manifest destiny. The specific dimensions of the Promised Land have varied in relation to Israel’s obedience to God but the Gaza strip and the West Bank fall within territory that is indisputably Israeli. The territory occupied during the time of King David and King Solomon represents, more or less, Israel's proper boundaries as described in the book of Numbers, chapter 34.
Aside from strictly Biblical arguments, Israel lays claim to Palestine by precedence. Based on secular historical sources, Joshua began his campaign to occupy Palestine in the 13th century B.C., predating the Arab incursion by millennia. Qur’anic literature mentions Joshua as a God fearing man.
Today, Israel's struggle is purely one of self-
defense. Israel responds to a mortal threat
from an immoral and radical element as any individual or as any other nation would.
America's response to Islamist terrorist
attacks was swift and overwhelming,
prosecuted by force of arms where diplomacy was less than useless. Israel faces the same evil that America did on 9/11 and is engaging terrorist elements supported by a not so clandestine Iran.
It is beyond question that Hamas initiated
this latest round of atrocities by lobbing the
Syrian made M-302 and crude, locally made
rockets. Rocket payloads vary depending on
the type of rocket but may, thus far, contain
as much as 350 pounds of explosive.
The Obama administration's hostility toward Israel and lack of positive action is rooted in the administration's sympathy for the Muslim world. Obama has demonstrated an affinity for things Muslim by making statements such as, " The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim
call to prayer ." Obama’s formative years
were spent under the tutelage of his Muslim
father. Furthermore, Obama’s religion was
listed as “Muslim”on his enrollment
documents at Santo Fransiskus Assisis, an
Indonesian Catholic school situated in a
predominantly Muslim country. Despite
Obama's lame attempt at trivializing his
middle name, there is no escaping the
assumption that his allegiances, theologically, are questionable.
Not coincidentally, Obama's closest advisor,
Valerie Jarrett, was born and raised in Iran.
Perhaps, what is most revealing is the
intimate relationship of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) with the
Obama administration. CAIR is a front
organization with documented ties to Hamas. Considering the foregoing with Obama’s loathsome effrontery directed toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and it becomes obvious that Obama is deliberately posturing American foreign policy Islamocentrically.
The liberal mind finds an affinity with the
totalitarianism inherent in Islam. At first
glance, it seems contradictory that liberalism and Islam should find common ground. But, war often makes strange bed-fellows. Here, the old saw, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" holds true. Both liberalism and Islam are at war with Christianity, both on doctrinal grounds. Liberalism is a complex of disjointed maxims adhered by the fanaticism
of self-indulgence. It's an intellectual mask
for lasciviousness, noting more. Its mortal
enemy is Christianity. Islam is fueled by the
doctrine of Jihad and is advanced
intellectually or by force depending on the
degree of orthodoxy. Though Christians are
considered to be "people of the Book,"
ultimately, Christians are infidels that must
be brought to heel.
It's the combination of the Obama
administration's Islamophilia and Obama's
own conviction regarding America's
imperialism that has resulted in the wholesale withdrawal of American influence in the Middle East and in the administration's seeming ambivalence toward the assault on Israel.
Israel occupies territory granted to it by
Divine proclamation. And, no amount of
radical liberal dithering changes that
controlling fact. Hamas is a criminal,
terrorist entity that wages an unjust war on a peaceful people and anything less than full support of Israel in its struggle is a betrayal of justice and an affront to God's Word. It is Israel's destiny, by right, to occupy Palestine and Israel is right to pursue this objective and to defend its people from death and mayhem.
The Obama administration may side with the wicked, but the Bible records an ominous warning for those who do, "And I will bless them that bless thee (Israel), and curse him that curseth thee..." (Genesis 12:3) On this issue, God is on Israel's side and the Obama administration is on the other.
You’re either with Israel or you’re for the
Islamo-Nazi. This unqualified statement is
true simply because the nation of Israel is
fighting for survival, battling against
fanatical Islamists who are backed by Iran’s
army of insurgency, Hamas. And, the stated
purpose of Hamas and Iran is to accomplish
the total destruction of the Jewish people and Israel as a nation. It doesn’t get more black and white than that. It's the very definition of anti-semitism.
This should be a no-brainer for our ivy
league educated plutocrats, a real soft ball
foreign policy issue, but it’s not. The Obama
administration is perpetually befuddled by
reality butting in and altering their fairytale
narrative. The Islamists in Gaza and in Iran
aren't impressed by Obama's middle name
nor do they regard mere lip service to their
primitive religion. If you don't subscribe to
their brutal jihad and its genocidal objective, then you're a mortal enemy too. Still, the Obama administration's enlightened aristocrats puzzle at why their dalliance with Islamophilia hasn’t resulted in peace in the Middle East. The answer isn’t as technical as administration wonks would like you to think.
Millennia ago in Canaan, modern day Israel, an Egyptian woman named Hagar gave birth to a son of Abram (Abraham). This child's name was Ishmael. And, with the child came an ancient prophecy, "And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."
Ishmael grew and was blessed and lived in
the ancient region of Param, which is now
Arabia. Abraham had another son Isaac, the
father of Israel. The antipathy between Israel and the peoples of the Levant runs through ancient bloodlines and represents the opposing forces battling for survival (Israel) and dominance (the Palestinians backed by the ancient Persians (Iran)) in the Middle East. This isn't just ancient history, it is the basis for conflict in the Middle East and is readily acknowledged by both sides of the struggle.
However, Israel occupies Palestine by right,
Isaac was the son of promise, and has yet to
fulfill its manifest destiny. Indeed, much of
the constant conflict is the result of Israel's
failure to fulfill its Divinely appointed
manifest destiny. The specific dimensions of the Promised Land have varied in relation to Israel’s obedience to God but the Gaza strip and the West Bank fall within territory that is indisputably Israeli. The territory occupied during the time of King David and King Solomon represents, more or less, Israel's proper boundaries as described in the book of Numbers, chapter 34.
Aside from strictly Biblical arguments, Israel lays claim to Palestine by precedence. Based on secular historical sources, Joshua began his campaign to occupy Palestine in the 13th century B.C., predating the Arab incursion by millennia. Qur’anic literature mentions Joshua as a God fearing man.
Today, Israel's struggle is purely one of self-
defense. Israel responds to a mortal threat
from an immoral and radical element as any individual or as any other nation would.
America's response to Islamist terrorist
attacks was swift and overwhelming,
prosecuted by force of arms where diplomacy was less than useless. Israel faces the same evil that America did on 9/11 and is engaging terrorist elements supported by a not so clandestine Iran.
It is beyond question that Hamas initiated
this latest round of atrocities by lobbing the
Syrian made M-302 and crude, locally made
rockets. Rocket payloads vary depending on
the type of rocket but may, thus far, contain
as much as 350 pounds of explosive.
The Obama administration's hostility toward Israel and lack of positive action is rooted in the administration's sympathy for the Muslim world. Obama has demonstrated an affinity for things Muslim by making statements such as, " The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim
call to prayer ." Obama’s formative years
were spent under the tutelage of his Muslim
father. Furthermore, Obama’s religion was
listed as “Muslim”on his enrollment
documents at Santo Fransiskus Assisis, an
Indonesian Catholic school situated in a
predominantly Muslim country. Despite
Obama's lame attempt at trivializing his
middle name, there is no escaping the
assumption that his allegiances, theologically, are questionable.
Not coincidentally, Obama's closest advisor,
Valerie Jarrett, was born and raised in Iran.
Perhaps, what is most revealing is the
intimate relationship of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) with the
Obama administration. CAIR is a front
organization with documented ties to Hamas. Considering the foregoing with Obama’s loathsome effrontery directed toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and it becomes obvious that Obama is deliberately posturing American foreign policy Islamocentrically.
The liberal mind finds an affinity with the
totalitarianism inherent in Islam. At first
glance, it seems contradictory that liberalism and Islam should find common ground. But, war often makes strange bed-fellows. Here, the old saw, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" holds true. Both liberalism and Islam are at war with Christianity, both on doctrinal grounds. Liberalism is a complex of disjointed maxims adhered by the fanaticism
of self-indulgence. It's an intellectual mask
for lasciviousness, noting more. Its mortal
enemy is Christianity. Islam is fueled by the
doctrine of Jihad and is advanced
intellectually or by force depending on the
degree of orthodoxy. Though Christians are
considered to be "people of the Book,"
ultimately, Christians are infidels that must
be brought to heel.
It's the combination of the Obama
administration's Islamophilia and Obama's
own conviction regarding America's
imperialism that has resulted in the wholesale withdrawal of American influence in the Middle East and in the administration's seeming ambivalence toward the assault on Israel.
Israel occupies territory granted to it by
Divine proclamation. And, no amount of
radical liberal dithering changes that
controlling fact. Hamas is a criminal,
terrorist entity that wages an unjust war on a peaceful people and anything less than full support of Israel in its struggle is a betrayal of justice and an affront to God's Word. It is Israel's destiny, by right, to occupy Palestine and Israel is right to pursue this objective and to defend its people from death and mayhem.
The Obama administration may side with the wicked, but the Bible records an ominous warning for those who do, "And I will bless them that bless thee (Israel), and curse him that curseth thee..." (Genesis 12:3) On this issue, God is on Israel's side and the Obama administration is on the other.
IS PUTIN WORSE THAN STALIN
Pat Buchanan
In 1933, the Holodomor was playing out in
Ukraine. After the "kulaks," the independent farmers, had been liquidated in the forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture, a genocidal famine was imposed on Ukraine through seizure of her food production.
Estimates of the dead range from two to nine million souls. Walter Duranty of the New York Times, who called reports of the famine "malignant propaganda," won a Pulitzer for his mendacity.
In November 1933, during the Holodomor,
the greatest liberal of them all, FDR, invited
Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov to receive
official U.S. recognition of his master Stalin's murderous regime.
On August 1, 1991, just four months before
Ukraine declared its independence of Russia, George H. W. Bush warned Kiev's legislature:
"Americans will not support those who seek
independence in order to replace a far-off
tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."
In short, Ukraine's independence was never
part of America's agenda. From 1933 to 1991, it was never a U.S. vital interest. Bush I was against it.
When then did this issue of whose flag flies
over Donetsk or Crimea become so crucial
that we would arm Ukrainians to fight
Russian-backed rebels and consider giving a NATO war guarantee to Kiev, potentially
bringing us to war with a nuclear-armed
Russia?
From FDR on, U.S. presidents have felt that
America could not remain isolated from the
rulers of the world's largest nation.
Ike invited Khrushchev to tour the USA after he had drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood. After Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba, JFK was soon calling for a new detente at American University.
Within weeks of Warsaw Pact armies
crushing the Prague Spring in August 1968,
LBJ was seeking a summit with Premier
Alexei Kosygin.
After excoriating Moscow for the downing of KAL 007 in 1983, that old Cold Warrior
Ronald Reagan was fishing for a summit
meeting. The point: Every president from FDR through George H. W. Bush, even after collisions with Moscow far more serious than this clash over Ukraine, sought to re-engage the men in the Kremlin.
Whatever we thought of the Soviet dictators
who blockaded Berlin, enslaved Eastern
Europe, put rockets in Cuba and armed Arabs to attack Israel, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 all sought to engage Russia's rulers.
Avoidance of a catastrophic war demanded
engagement. How then can we explain the clamor of today's U.S. foreign policy elite to confront, isolate, and cripple Russia, and make of Putin a moral and political leper with whom honorable statesmen can never deal?
What has Putin done to rival the forced
famine in Ukraine that starved to death
millions, the slaughter of the Hungarian
rebels or the Warsaw Pact's crushing of
Czechoslovakia?
In Ukraine, Putin responded to a U.S. backed coup, which ousted a democratically elected political ally of Russia, with a bloodless seizure of the pro-Russian Crimea where Moscow has berthed its Black Sea fleet since the 18th century. This is routine Big Power geopolitics.
And though Putin put an army on Ukraine's
border, he did not order it to invade or
occupy Luhansk or Donetsk. Does this really look like a drive to reassemble either the Russian Empire of the Romanovs or the Soviet Empire of Stalin that reached to the Elbe?
As for the downing of the Malaysian airliner, Putin did not order that. Sen. John Cornyn says U.S. intelligence has not yet provided any "smoking gun" that ties the missile-firing to Russia.
Intel intercepts seem to indicate that
Ukrainian rebels thought they had hit an
Antonov military transport plane.
Yet, today, the leading foreign policy voice of the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain, calls Obama's White House "cowardly" for not arming the Ukrainians to fight the Russian- backed separatists.
But suppose Putin responded to the arrival of U.S. weapons in Kiev by occupying Eastern Ukraine. What would we do then?
John Bolton has the answer: Bring Ukraine
into NATO.
Translation: The U.S. and NATO should go to war with Russia, if necessary, over Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea, though no U.S. president has ever thought Ukraine itself was worth a war with Russia.
What motivates Putin seems simple and
understandable. He wants the respect due a
world power. He sees himself as protector of the Russians left behind in his "near abroad."
He relishes playing Big Power politics.
History is full of such men. He allows U.S. overflights to Afghanistan, cooperates in the P5+1 on Iran, helped us rid Syria of chemical weapons, launches our
astronauts into orbit, collaborates in the war on terror and disagrees on Crimea and Syria. But what motivates those on our side who seek every opportunity to restart the Cold War?
Is it not a desperate desire to appear once
again Churchillian, once again heroic, once
again relevant, as they saw themselves in the Cold War that ended so long ago?
Who is the real problem here?
In 1933, the Holodomor was playing out in
Ukraine. After the "kulaks," the independent farmers, had been liquidated in the forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture, a genocidal famine was imposed on Ukraine through seizure of her food production.
Estimates of the dead range from two to nine million souls. Walter Duranty of the New York Times, who called reports of the famine "malignant propaganda," won a Pulitzer for his mendacity.
In November 1933, during the Holodomor,
the greatest liberal of them all, FDR, invited
Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov to receive
official U.S. recognition of his master Stalin's murderous regime.
On August 1, 1991, just four months before
Ukraine declared its independence of Russia, George H. W. Bush warned Kiev's legislature:
"Americans will not support those who seek
independence in order to replace a far-off
tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."
In short, Ukraine's independence was never
part of America's agenda. From 1933 to 1991, it was never a U.S. vital interest. Bush I was against it.
When then did this issue of whose flag flies
over Donetsk or Crimea become so crucial
that we would arm Ukrainians to fight
Russian-backed rebels and consider giving a NATO war guarantee to Kiev, potentially
bringing us to war with a nuclear-armed
Russia?
From FDR on, U.S. presidents have felt that
America could not remain isolated from the
rulers of the world's largest nation.
Ike invited Khrushchev to tour the USA after he had drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood. After Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba, JFK was soon calling for a new detente at American University.
Within weeks of Warsaw Pact armies
crushing the Prague Spring in August 1968,
LBJ was seeking a summit with Premier
Alexei Kosygin.
After excoriating Moscow for the downing of KAL 007 in 1983, that old Cold Warrior
Ronald Reagan was fishing for a summit
meeting. The point: Every president from FDR through George H. W. Bush, even after collisions with Moscow far more serious than this clash over Ukraine, sought to re-engage the men in the Kremlin.
Whatever we thought of the Soviet dictators
who blockaded Berlin, enslaved Eastern
Europe, put rockets in Cuba and armed Arabs to attack Israel, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 all sought to engage Russia's rulers.
Avoidance of a catastrophic war demanded
engagement. How then can we explain the clamor of today's U.S. foreign policy elite to confront, isolate, and cripple Russia, and make of Putin a moral and political leper with whom honorable statesmen can never deal?
What has Putin done to rival the forced
famine in Ukraine that starved to death
millions, the slaughter of the Hungarian
rebels or the Warsaw Pact's crushing of
Czechoslovakia?
In Ukraine, Putin responded to a U.S. backed coup, which ousted a democratically elected political ally of Russia, with a bloodless seizure of the pro-Russian Crimea where Moscow has berthed its Black Sea fleet since the 18th century. This is routine Big Power geopolitics.
And though Putin put an army on Ukraine's
border, he did not order it to invade or
occupy Luhansk or Donetsk. Does this really look like a drive to reassemble either the Russian Empire of the Romanovs or the Soviet Empire of Stalin that reached to the Elbe?
As for the downing of the Malaysian airliner, Putin did not order that. Sen. John Cornyn says U.S. intelligence has not yet provided any "smoking gun" that ties the missile-firing to Russia.
Intel intercepts seem to indicate that
Ukrainian rebels thought they had hit an
Antonov military transport plane.
Yet, today, the leading foreign policy voice of the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain, calls Obama's White House "cowardly" for not arming the Ukrainians to fight the Russian- backed separatists.
But suppose Putin responded to the arrival of U.S. weapons in Kiev by occupying Eastern Ukraine. What would we do then?
John Bolton has the answer: Bring Ukraine
into NATO.
Translation: The U.S. and NATO should go to war with Russia, if necessary, over Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea, though no U.S. president has ever thought Ukraine itself was worth a war with Russia.
What motivates Putin seems simple and
understandable. He wants the respect due a
world power. He sees himself as protector of the Russians left behind in his "near abroad."
He relishes playing Big Power politics.
History is full of such men. He allows U.S. overflights to Afghanistan, cooperates in the P5+1 on Iran, helped us rid Syria of chemical weapons, launches our
astronauts into orbit, collaborates in the war on terror and disagrees on Crimea and Syria. But what motivates those on our side who seek every opportunity to restart the Cold War?
Is it not a desperate desire to appear once
again Churchillian, once again heroic, once
again relevant, as they saw themselves in the Cold War that ended so long ago?
Who is the real problem here?
HAMAS' TRIUMPH
Mona Charen
Hamas, with perhaps unwitting help from
President Barack Obama, is achieving its war aim: to legitimize Islamic supremacism and Jew-hatred, and take it global. Jews are no longer safe in Europe or even in some places in the U.S.
Who now recalls that when Hamas was
elected, the world responded with disgust?
Hamas was on everyone's terrorist list.
Flailing, the European Union, Russia, the
United Nations and United States asked
Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce terror
and agree to live by previous agreements
between Israel and the Palestinian National
Authority. Hamas refused. Nevertheless, its
image is much improved.
Hamas enjoys killing Israelis and Jews -- "By
God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine,"
one of its leaders, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, told
Al Jazeera -- but thanks to Israel's self-
defense, opportunities for that pleasure are
limited. Hamas has successfully terrorized
southern Israel -- and more recently, central
Israel -- with its deliberate missile attacks on civilians, and they take satisfaction in that.
But their chief aim and greatest victory is in
forcing Israelis to kill Palestinians. It's almost a matter of indifference to Hamas whether a dead child is an Israeli killed by a Hamas rocket deliberately aimed at a village or a Palestinian child killed because Israel returned fire and the launcher was located in a kindergarten. If it's the latter, the child's image becomes part of the psychological war on Israel.
This script has been followed year after year. Elite world opinion seems incapable of seeing the truth -- that every dead Palestinian civilian (and, of course, every Israeli) is a victim of Hamas. Maybe it's just too pleasurable to indulge in guilt-free anti-
Semitism. Notice that attacks in Europe have targeted synagogues, not Israeli embassies.
Hamas has been successful at libeling Israel
and stirring anti-Semitism globally. Obama
ought to speak for our values and forcefully
push back against this dark, spreading stain, but he doesn't. He hasn't spoken up for Christians persecuted throughout the world, either.
Rather than denouncing Hamas' depravity, he has issued tepid endorsements of Israel's
right to self-defense (undermined by
privately delivered warnings). Canada's
Stephen Harper, who has lately seemed, by
default, the leader of the free world, was
stalwart. "It is evident that Hamas is
deliberately using human shields to further
terror in the region." In light of that, "Canada calls on its allies and partners to recognize that these terrorist acts are unacceptable and that solidarity with Israel is the best way of stopping the conflict."
Obama, by contrast, has slid into the role
Hamas practically scripted for him, calling
the Israeli prime minister twice in three days to express his "serious concern about the growing number of casualties."
No country on Earth takes more care to
minimize civilian casualties than Israel. It
sends text messages, phone calls and even
"taps on the roof" (small firecrackers) to
warn residents. And no government on Earth does more to ensure that civilians will be casualties than Hamas. "They have nowhere to go!" reported a U.N. official from Gaza on PBS television. That's because rather than building bomb shelters, schools or homes with the 800,000 tons of concrete at its disposal, Hamas has built miles of highly sophisticated, reinforced tunnels to infiltrate Israel. The world's tallest skyscraper in Dubai, Tablet Magazine notes, used only 110,000 tons of concrete.
Israel has taken precautions about civilians,
despite being under ceaseless rocket and
terror infiltration attack from Hamas for
years. Obama understands the need to fight terror.
He has conducted a drone war against
suspected terrorists throughout his term. The Long War Journal estimates that U.S. drones have killed 2,555 leaders and activists in terrorist groups as well as 153 civilians in Pakistan alone. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that drones have killed between 2,528 and 3,648 individuals, including as many as 948 civilians.
The U.S. has not experienced a large-scale
terror attack since 2001. Obama has
dispatched drones not in retaliation for
attacks but on suspicion that the targets were terrorists plotting future attacks. "Turns out I'm really good at killing people," Obama boasted to a journalist. "Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine."
In May of 2013, the president defended his
actions at the National Defense University:
"Let us remember that the terrorists we are
after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes."
Benjamin Netanyahu might quote those
words back to him, when he next phones.
Hamas, with perhaps unwitting help from
President Barack Obama, is achieving its war aim: to legitimize Islamic supremacism and Jew-hatred, and take it global. Jews are no longer safe in Europe or even in some places in the U.S.
Who now recalls that when Hamas was
elected, the world responded with disgust?
Hamas was on everyone's terrorist list.
Flailing, the European Union, Russia, the
United Nations and United States asked
Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce terror
and agree to live by previous agreements
between Israel and the Palestinian National
Authority. Hamas refused. Nevertheless, its
image is much improved.
Hamas enjoys killing Israelis and Jews -- "By
God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine,"
one of its leaders, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, told
Al Jazeera -- but thanks to Israel's self-
defense, opportunities for that pleasure are
limited. Hamas has successfully terrorized
southern Israel -- and more recently, central
Israel -- with its deliberate missile attacks on civilians, and they take satisfaction in that.
But their chief aim and greatest victory is in
forcing Israelis to kill Palestinians. It's almost a matter of indifference to Hamas whether a dead child is an Israeli killed by a Hamas rocket deliberately aimed at a village or a Palestinian child killed because Israel returned fire and the launcher was located in a kindergarten. If it's the latter, the child's image becomes part of the psychological war on Israel.
This script has been followed year after year. Elite world opinion seems incapable of seeing the truth -- that every dead Palestinian civilian (and, of course, every Israeli) is a victim of Hamas. Maybe it's just too pleasurable to indulge in guilt-free anti-
Semitism. Notice that attacks in Europe have targeted synagogues, not Israeli embassies.
Hamas has been successful at libeling Israel
and stirring anti-Semitism globally. Obama
ought to speak for our values and forcefully
push back against this dark, spreading stain, but he doesn't. He hasn't spoken up for Christians persecuted throughout the world, either.
Rather than denouncing Hamas' depravity, he has issued tepid endorsements of Israel's
right to self-defense (undermined by
privately delivered warnings). Canada's
Stephen Harper, who has lately seemed, by
default, the leader of the free world, was
stalwart. "It is evident that Hamas is
deliberately using human shields to further
terror in the region." In light of that, "Canada calls on its allies and partners to recognize that these terrorist acts are unacceptable and that solidarity with Israel is the best way of stopping the conflict."
Obama, by contrast, has slid into the role
Hamas practically scripted for him, calling
the Israeli prime minister twice in three days to express his "serious concern about the growing number of casualties."
No country on Earth takes more care to
minimize civilian casualties than Israel. It
sends text messages, phone calls and even
"taps on the roof" (small firecrackers) to
warn residents. And no government on Earth does more to ensure that civilians will be casualties than Hamas. "They have nowhere to go!" reported a U.N. official from Gaza on PBS television. That's because rather than building bomb shelters, schools or homes with the 800,000 tons of concrete at its disposal, Hamas has built miles of highly sophisticated, reinforced tunnels to infiltrate Israel. The world's tallest skyscraper in Dubai, Tablet Magazine notes, used only 110,000 tons of concrete.
Israel has taken precautions about civilians,
despite being under ceaseless rocket and
terror infiltration attack from Hamas for
years. Obama understands the need to fight terror.
He has conducted a drone war against
suspected terrorists throughout his term. The Long War Journal estimates that U.S. drones have killed 2,555 leaders and activists in terrorist groups as well as 153 civilians in Pakistan alone. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that drones have killed between 2,528 and 3,648 individuals, including as many as 948 civilians.
The U.S. has not experienced a large-scale
terror attack since 2001. Obama has
dispatched drones not in retaliation for
attacks but on suspicion that the targets were terrorists plotting future attacks. "Turns out I'm really good at killing people," Obama boasted to a journalist. "Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine."
In May of 2013, the president defended his
actions at the National Defense University:
"Let us remember that the terrorists we are
after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes."
Benjamin Netanyahu might quote those
words back to him, when he next phones.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR: THE NEW BATTLE
Shujaat Bukhari
With Congress and National Conference deciding to go alone in the forthcoming Assembly elections, the electoral battle in Jammu and Kashmir is poised for an
interesting contest. In both the Kashmir and Jammu divisions a triangular contest could throw up some surprises. The ruling coalition partners are, however, making some “thought provoking” statements as to why they parted ways. The NC holds the view that it was not possible to transfer the votes of their respective cadres but Congress has made some interesting points.
Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC) chief Saifuddin Soz blamed the government inefficiency and corruption for the debacle both the parties had to taste in the recent
parliamentary elections.
Generally the coalition parties should have been highlighting the joint achievements and even if they had to fight elections on their own, the reasons could be different. But this is perhaps the only coalition in India that is parting ways on the basis of misgovernance. Soz blames the government, of which his party is a part, as
corrupt. That means whole lot is indulging in corruption.
But if NC leaders are to be believed they maintain that Congress ministers were more corrupt. One thing is clear that both NC and Congress have vindicated the
people’s verdict they gave in recent elections. It reversed all the decisions it had taken in past five years proving that it had no competence to comprehend what was good for state. Coalition government’s failure to tackle the corruption was main reason for misgovernance and that is why the people rejected them in Lok Sabha elections. In normal circumstances it
would have been ideal for both parties to join hands and go to polls with the “achievements” of six years but they are instead blaming each other for the failures.
Now that the scene is clear all the parties have their knives out to realize the dream of governing the state until 2020. The magic number of “44” is lurking in the minds of these political parties and some of them claim they will achieve it on their own. What is surprising is that the right wing Bharatiya Janata Party has been talking more about “44” given the fact that the results of recently held parliament elections bolstered its confidence. The opposition People’s Democratic Party, though not publicly, is also counting the same figure
and is confident to repeat the performance it showed in the parliamentary elections.
But Congress and NC are two parties, which are yet to make a tall claim of reaching the magic number.
Demoralized with the rout they faced in the elections, they even changed the language generally used to nail the opponents. Whatever way the campaign goes but
one thing is clear that the dynamics of the electoral politics has certainly changed in the state. With people making a beeline to join PDP, it has become clear that
the results of the parliamentary elections are being taken seriously and the party is rather expected to repeat the performance in the Assembly elections.
It is very difficult to predict any clear situation as the previous elections were fought for parliamentary seats and the forthcoming one is meant for Assembly.
Though not much difference is expected, it largely is the election, which has lot to do with the local candidate, whether from NC, PDP, Congress or BJP. If the reports are to be believed, one of the strongest candidates of Congress in Jammu shut his eyes for people voting for BJP candidate in parliament elections thus giving a
stunning lead of over 50,000 to Jugal Kishore in this particular segment. But when it comes to his own election it may be different even as it will be difficult for
him to reverse the trend to which he contributed himself.
If the claims of BJP and the independent assessments are taken into consideration, Modi wave still exists in Jammu and in case the BJP’s plan of sending 22 Union Ministers and the Prime Minister for campaigning
materializes it surely will have its own impact. BJP is trying its best to appease its vote bank by continuously talking about the rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pandits, refugees and the other contentious issues to lure the
voters ahead of the Assembly elections. It may not be in a position to fulfill its wish list but it surely will gain and that will be at the cost of Congress and to some extent the NC. It has also started roping in some new
faces in Valley to make inroads. It’s working on an arithmetic that may suit it in view of boycott, particularly in Srinagar city. Riding on the goodwill the party has among KPs it is concentrating on a few seats in Srinagar so that the bulk of KPs would vote for its
candidates who could sail through in view of near total boycott.
In case the trend that had been set after 2002 in Jammu and Kashmir gets reversed, Congress will no longer be in a position of being the “King Maker” in state politics. Since 2002 the state has seen the coalition politics thriving and smaller parties and even individuals emerging as potential gainers. Congress with substantial numbers played the role of having the key to
formation of governments. It did pave way for Mufti Mohammad Sayeed to become Chief Minister in 2002 despite his party PDP having only 16 members against Congress’s 20. And in 2008 it joined hands with NC to
form the government. In both these tenures Congress used, rather misused, its position to get the maximum.
First by running away with important and “lucrative” portfolios and then “black mailing” the chief ministers of PDP and NC on almost every issue. This time, however, Congress seems to be on the back foot as the rout the party faced at national level and in
the six parliamentary constituencies of J&K has given a severe jolt to its morale. Political pundits are not predicting immediate revival in its fortunes. If that
would be the case then a new dynamic will be thrown up in the state. But it depends a lot on how NC will fare in the assembly elections. If it goes down drastically on its existing number of 28, that would be
advantage PDP.
The concern rather a threat that will emerge in case voters do not prefer both NC and Congress is that BJP will have an edge in deciding the future coalition. The
coalitions even with Congress, presumably the secular party, have turned out to be very unfriendly for Kashmir.
If one would go to the extent of saying that Congress ministers have proved to be more communal than BJP it would be fair. In their 12 years of rule, Congress ministers, mostly from Jammu have not allowed any
Muslim to hold an important position such as that of a head of a department or equivalent in Jammu region.
There are many more examples like that. But in case a single party from Kashmir does not get a comfortable majority on its own, then it will be at the mercy of BJP
and other forces who are essentially nurturing anti- Kashmir feeling in Jammu.
Imagine BJP winning nearly 20 seats and a party from Kashmir left with no choice but to join hands with them to form a government. BJP is eyeing 44 seats, which is
very difficult to comprehend at this stage. Since NC conceded its whole space in Jammu to Congress, the voters both Muslims and those who don’t support BJP’s
agenda were left with no choice but to go with them.
Congress’s misrule and its failure to replace a regional party like NC in Jammu paved way more for BJP than for another regional party PDP, which has surely improved its vote bank in the region. In both Kashmir
and Jammu it is going to be a triangular contest with BJP, Congress and NC fighting a tough battle in Jammu along with PDP in certain areas, in Kashmir the battle is
mainly between NC and PDP with Congress having strong base in few constituencies.
While all the prophecies about the results are premature at this stage, 44 and 2020 are important figurative signs for the health of Jammu and Kashmir for next six years.
With Congress and National Conference deciding to go alone in the forthcoming Assembly elections, the electoral battle in Jammu and Kashmir is poised for an
interesting contest. In both the Kashmir and Jammu divisions a triangular contest could throw up some surprises. The ruling coalition partners are, however, making some “thought provoking” statements as to why they parted ways. The NC holds the view that it was not possible to transfer the votes of their respective cadres but Congress has made some interesting points.
Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC) chief Saifuddin Soz blamed the government inefficiency and corruption for the debacle both the parties had to taste in the recent
parliamentary elections.
Generally the coalition parties should have been highlighting the joint achievements and even if they had to fight elections on their own, the reasons could be different. But this is perhaps the only coalition in India that is parting ways on the basis of misgovernance. Soz blames the government, of which his party is a part, as
corrupt. That means whole lot is indulging in corruption.
But if NC leaders are to be believed they maintain that Congress ministers were more corrupt. One thing is clear that both NC and Congress have vindicated the
people’s verdict they gave in recent elections. It reversed all the decisions it had taken in past five years proving that it had no competence to comprehend what was good for state. Coalition government’s failure to tackle the corruption was main reason for misgovernance and that is why the people rejected them in Lok Sabha elections. In normal circumstances it
would have been ideal for both parties to join hands and go to polls with the “achievements” of six years but they are instead blaming each other for the failures.
Now that the scene is clear all the parties have their knives out to realize the dream of governing the state until 2020. The magic number of “44” is lurking in the minds of these political parties and some of them claim they will achieve it on their own. What is surprising is that the right wing Bharatiya Janata Party has been talking more about “44” given the fact that the results of recently held parliament elections bolstered its confidence. The opposition People’s Democratic Party, though not publicly, is also counting the same figure
and is confident to repeat the performance it showed in the parliamentary elections.
But Congress and NC are two parties, which are yet to make a tall claim of reaching the magic number.
Demoralized with the rout they faced in the elections, they even changed the language generally used to nail the opponents. Whatever way the campaign goes but
one thing is clear that the dynamics of the electoral politics has certainly changed in the state. With people making a beeline to join PDP, it has become clear that
the results of the parliamentary elections are being taken seriously and the party is rather expected to repeat the performance in the Assembly elections.
It is very difficult to predict any clear situation as the previous elections were fought for parliamentary seats and the forthcoming one is meant for Assembly.
Though not much difference is expected, it largely is the election, which has lot to do with the local candidate, whether from NC, PDP, Congress or BJP. If the reports are to be believed, one of the strongest candidates of Congress in Jammu shut his eyes for people voting for BJP candidate in parliament elections thus giving a
stunning lead of over 50,000 to Jugal Kishore in this particular segment. But when it comes to his own election it may be different even as it will be difficult for
him to reverse the trend to which he contributed himself.
If the claims of BJP and the independent assessments are taken into consideration, Modi wave still exists in Jammu and in case the BJP’s plan of sending 22 Union Ministers and the Prime Minister for campaigning
materializes it surely will have its own impact. BJP is trying its best to appease its vote bank by continuously talking about the rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pandits, refugees and the other contentious issues to lure the
voters ahead of the Assembly elections. It may not be in a position to fulfill its wish list but it surely will gain and that will be at the cost of Congress and to some extent the NC. It has also started roping in some new
faces in Valley to make inroads. It’s working on an arithmetic that may suit it in view of boycott, particularly in Srinagar city. Riding on the goodwill the party has among KPs it is concentrating on a few seats in Srinagar so that the bulk of KPs would vote for its
candidates who could sail through in view of near total boycott.
In case the trend that had been set after 2002 in Jammu and Kashmir gets reversed, Congress will no longer be in a position of being the “King Maker” in state politics. Since 2002 the state has seen the coalition politics thriving and smaller parties and even individuals emerging as potential gainers. Congress with substantial numbers played the role of having the key to
formation of governments. It did pave way for Mufti Mohammad Sayeed to become Chief Minister in 2002 despite his party PDP having only 16 members against Congress’s 20. And in 2008 it joined hands with NC to
form the government. In both these tenures Congress used, rather misused, its position to get the maximum.
First by running away with important and “lucrative” portfolios and then “black mailing” the chief ministers of PDP and NC on almost every issue. This time, however, Congress seems to be on the back foot as the rout the party faced at national level and in
the six parliamentary constituencies of J&K has given a severe jolt to its morale. Political pundits are not predicting immediate revival in its fortunes. If that
would be the case then a new dynamic will be thrown up in the state. But it depends a lot on how NC will fare in the assembly elections. If it goes down drastically on its existing number of 28, that would be
advantage PDP.
The concern rather a threat that will emerge in case voters do not prefer both NC and Congress is that BJP will have an edge in deciding the future coalition. The
coalitions even with Congress, presumably the secular party, have turned out to be very unfriendly for Kashmir.
If one would go to the extent of saying that Congress ministers have proved to be more communal than BJP it would be fair. In their 12 years of rule, Congress ministers, mostly from Jammu have not allowed any
Muslim to hold an important position such as that of a head of a department or equivalent in Jammu region.
There are many more examples like that. But in case a single party from Kashmir does not get a comfortable majority on its own, then it will be at the mercy of BJP
and other forces who are essentially nurturing anti- Kashmir feeling in Jammu.
Imagine BJP winning nearly 20 seats and a party from Kashmir left with no choice but to join hands with them to form a government. BJP is eyeing 44 seats, which is
very difficult to comprehend at this stage. Since NC conceded its whole space in Jammu to Congress, the voters both Muslims and those who don’t support BJP’s
agenda were left with no choice but to go with them.
Congress’s misrule and its failure to replace a regional party like NC in Jammu paved way more for BJP than for another regional party PDP, which has surely improved its vote bank in the region. In both Kashmir
and Jammu it is going to be a triangular contest with BJP, Congress and NC fighting a tough battle in Jammu along with PDP in certain areas, in Kashmir the battle is
mainly between NC and PDP with Congress having strong base in few constituencies.
While all the prophecies about the results are premature at this stage, 44 and 2020 are important figurative signs for the health of Jammu and Kashmir for next six years.
RISE OF DEMOCRATIC ANARCHISTS
D Suba Chandran
Democratic anarchists? How can anyone be a democrat, and yet be an anarchist? How else can one explain what Imran Khan is attempting to impose in Pakistan, one
year after accepting the election results? How else can one explain what Tahirul Qadri is attempting to pursue as an option against the status quo? In India, after a
successful elections to the State Legislative Assembly in New Delhi, Kejriwal attempted something similar, but as a Chief Minister, he proudly called himself in public as
an anarchist. A similar example could be cited in Afghanistan as well, as Abdulah Abdullah attempted to form a parallel government when he came to know that
the election commission results were not in favour of his claim.
Why do our leaders, who earn the trust of many of us (as could be seen from the votes polled in Pakistan for Imran Khan, and for Kejriwal in Delhi) suddenly want to upset the system through which they came up? Though Imran Khan and his party – the PTI have been contesting elections for the last two decades, never before he and his party received so many votes in the elections, and also so many seats at the National Assembly and the provincial assembly of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa. In fact his party’s performance was sufficient enough to form a government in the KP.
Similarly, Kejriwal’s performance in Delhi legislative assembly elections was sufficient enough to form the government. But then, they were not satisfied with what they got. An un-corrupt system, good and clean
electoral structure, and an inclusive political process – undoubtedly are good ends, and everyone deserves to reach that goal.
But at what costs and through what means? Through revolutions, million marches and anarchist methodologies? If the end goal is an establishment of a system with inclusive politics, such an objective should be pursued through an evolutionary process, with adequate consultations with everyone. More importantly, the process should be positive and acceptable to everyone. Any system achieved through non-democratic,
extortion and nihilist means is unlikely to remain stable.
Ends will never justify the means here.
In Pakistan, Imran Khan has to be read along with another self proclaimed reformer – Tahirul Qadri, a cleric who wants electoral reforms to change the
present system in Pakistan, which he considers as corrupt and moth-eaten. He wants to organise million men marches and bring a revolution.
Are they being immature? Or are they being impatient? Perhaps they see a clear picture, which appears convoluted and complicated for the rest of us. What do they want? And what do they intend to achieve?
One explanation could be – perhaps there is an over confidence about their perceived role in reforming the political system and establish a true democracy. Unfortunately such leaders fail to understand that the
human history has witnessed numerous such political messiahs, who presumed that they are the ultimate choice of destiny and history. To their dismay, the history has withstood such claims and silently buried
them and bulldozed their reputation under its feet.
Second explanation could be impatience. These leaders just do not have the patience to achieve what they want. Or maybe they consider a particular momentum
as the most opportune, which should not be allowed to pass by. Remember the timing of Tahirual Qadri and Imran Khan; Qadri’s earlier attempt to change the system came just before the elections, with Zardari and
the PPP at their weakest moment.
Today, perhaps Qadri and Imran Khan consider that the political situation as the most opportune, with growing dis-satisfaction against Nawaz Sharif, and more
importantly the nature of civil-military relations at this juncture. The military and its ISI are certainly upset with the Musharraf trial. Though there is a strong anti- Musharraf sentiment within the civil society, media and even amongst the legal community, the military is unlikely to remain a mute spectator and watch its
former Chief being harassed and hounded in the courts and in the media. The Establishment was also unhappy with the political dialogue vis-a-vis Pakistani Taliban.
Both these issues did affect the civil-military relations. For Qadri and Imran Khan, this was an opportunity to strike. So why not? The calculations are perhaps, that the military and intelligence agencies may even silently support such a political onslaught. Obviously, all in the name of revolution and protection of democracy. A last and final reason could be – that these leaders are
playing to a script, already written by the Establishment.
For the reasons mentioned above, the military and intelligence agencies are unhappy with Nawaz Sharif. Worse was the public confrontation that one of the
leading news groups – the Jang picked up, targeting the serving ISI, after one of its lead anchor and senior journalist – Hamid Mir was attacked. Both Mir and his
employers were convinced it was carried out by the intelligence agencies and started a public campaign against the ISI. Never before in the history of Pakistan, was the ISI hounded by the media and civilians in
public. The intelligence agencies went into a damage control mode. Suddenly, a section within the media and in the civil society started talking about the virtues of the
military and the ISI, and their services to the nation.
Nawaz Sharif was seen as soft towards the Jang group, and perhaps the Establishment considered him as a part of the anti-ISI campaign. The announcements of Imran
Khan and Tahirul Qadri came precisely during this period. It appears that both are being used as a trump by the military to get back at Sharif. Though such “revolutions” and “million men marches” with 50,000 people may not end up overthrowing Sharif
government, it may very well create political instability.
Such a development may even suit the military. In the long run, such a confrontational approach would neither
benefit the democratic process, nor those how are planning to pursue it such as Qadri and Khan. It was after a long chequered history, Pakistan today is witnessing a process of democracy. For the first time in
its history, an elected government completed its term, organised elections and handed it over the next government. The process is not complete and democracy in Pakistan is still work in progress.
Instead of strengthening the process, Qadri and Khan may end up derailing it. In the long run, ironically, such an outcome would not be helping these two leaders as well. They should look at Kejriwal and what happened to him, when he decided to be an anarchist and wreck the system that had elected him. If there is an election again, the AAP may not get that kind response from the people. In Pakistan’s case, Qadri and Khan have an additional disadvantage; the Establishment, which seems to be silently backing their onslaught, will not blink twice to overthrow them. Not long ago, Nawaz
Sharif was considered as their man! Instead of organising revolutions and million men marches, the leaders should help the process to continue. Such a process is bound to bring them up.
Democratic anarchists? How can anyone be a democrat, and yet be an anarchist? How else can one explain what Imran Khan is attempting to impose in Pakistan, one
year after accepting the election results? How else can one explain what Tahirul Qadri is attempting to pursue as an option against the status quo? In India, after a
successful elections to the State Legislative Assembly in New Delhi, Kejriwal attempted something similar, but as a Chief Minister, he proudly called himself in public as
an anarchist. A similar example could be cited in Afghanistan as well, as Abdulah Abdullah attempted to form a parallel government when he came to know that
the election commission results were not in favour of his claim.
Why do our leaders, who earn the trust of many of us (as could be seen from the votes polled in Pakistan for Imran Khan, and for Kejriwal in Delhi) suddenly want to upset the system through which they came up? Though Imran Khan and his party – the PTI have been contesting elections for the last two decades, never before he and his party received so many votes in the elections, and also so many seats at the National Assembly and the provincial assembly of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa. In fact his party’s performance was sufficient enough to form a government in the KP.
Similarly, Kejriwal’s performance in Delhi legislative assembly elections was sufficient enough to form the government. But then, they were not satisfied with what they got. An un-corrupt system, good and clean
electoral structure, and an inclusive political process – undoubtedly are good ends, and everyone deserves to reach that goal.
But at what costs and through what means? Through revolutions, million marches and anarchist methodologies? If the end goal is an establishment of a system with inclusive politics, such an objective should be pursued through an evolutionary process, with adequate consultations with everyone. More importantly, the process should be positive and acceptable to everyone. Any system achieved through non-democratic,
extortion and nihilist means is unlikely to remain stable.
Ends will never justify the means here.
In Pakistan, Imran Khan has to be read along with another self proclaimed reformer – Tahirul Qadri, a cleric who wants electoral reforms to change the
present system in Pakistan, which he considers as corrupt and moth-eaten. He wants to organise million men marches and bring a revolution.
Are they being immature? Or are they being impatient? Perhaps they see a clear picture, which appears convoluted and complicated for the rest of us. What do they want? And what do they intend to achieve?
One explanation could be – perhaps there is an over confidence about their perceived role in reforming the political system and establish a true democracy. Unfortunately such leaders fail to understand that the
human history has witnessed numerous such political messiahs, who presumed that they are the ultimate choice of destiny and history. To their dismay, the history has withstood such claims and silently buried
them and bulldozed their reputation under its feet.
Second explanation could be impatience. These leaders just do not have the patience to achieve what they want. Or maybe they consider a particular momentum
as the most opportune, which should not be allowed to pass by. Remember the timing of Tahirual Qadri and Imran Khan; Qadri’s earlier attempt to change the system came just before the elections, with Zardari and
the PPP at their weakest moment.
Today, perhaps Qadri and Imran Khan consider that the political situation as the most opportune, with growing dis-satisfaction against Nawaz Sharif, and more
importantly the nature of civil-military relations at this juncture. The military and its ISI are certainly upset with the Musharraf trial. Though there is a strong anti- Musharraf sentiment within the civil society, media and even amongst the legal community, the military is unlikely to remain a mute spectator and watch its
former Chief being harassed and hounded in the courts and in the media. The Establishment was also unhappy with the political dialogue vis-a-vis Pakistani Taliban.
Both these issues did affect the civil-military relations. For Qadri and Imran Khan, this was an opportunity to strike. So why not? The calculations are perhaps, that the military and intelligence agencies may even silently support such a political onslaught. Obviously, all in the name of revolution and protection of democracy. A last and final reason could be – that these leaders are
playing to a script, already written by the Establishment.
For the reasons mentioned above, the military and intelligence agencies are unhappy with Nawaz Sharif. Worse was the public confrontation that one of the
leading news groups – the Jang picked up, targeting the serving ISI, after one of its lead anchor and senior journalist – Hamid Mir was attacked. Both Mir and his
employers were convinced it was carried out by the intelligence agencies and started a public campaign against the ISI. Never before in the history of Pakistan, was the ISI hounded by the media and civilians in
public. The intelligence agencies went into a damage control mode. Suddenly, a section within the media and in the civil society started talking about the virtues of the
military and the ISI, and their services to the nation.
Nawaz Sharif was seen as soft towards the Jang group, and perhaps the Establishment considered him as a part of the anti-ISI campaign. The announcements of Imran
Khan and Tahirul Qadri came precisely during this period. It appears that both are being used as a trump by the military to get back at Sharif. Though such “revolutions” and “million men marches” with 50,000 people may not end up overthrowing Sharif
government, it may very well create political instability.
Such a development may even suit the military. In the long run, such a confrontational approach would neither
benefit the democratic process, nor those how are planning to pursue it such as Qadri and Khan. It was after a long chequered history, Pakistan today is witnessing a process of democracy. For the first time in
its history, an elected government completed its term, organised elections and handed it over the next government. The process is not complete and democracy in Pakistan is still work in progress.
Instead of strengthening the process, Qadri and Khan may end up derailing it. In the long run, ironically, such an outcome would not be helping these two leaders as well. They should look at Kejriwal and what happened to him, when he decided to be an anarchist and wreck the system that had elected him. If there is an election again, the AAP may not get that kind response from the people. In Pakistan’s case, Qadri and Khan have an additional disadvantage; the Establishment, which seems to be silently backing their onslaught, will not blink twice to overthrow them. Not long ago, Nawaz
Sharif was considered as their man! Instead of organising revolutions and million men marches, the leaders should help the process to continue. Such a process is bound to bring them up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)