Shujaat Bukhari
What Israel has been doing in Gaza for past about a month has put humanity to shame. It has also exposed the double standards of world powers and brought to the fore the fact how insensitive and incapacitated the
Muslim nations are. Whatever the fate of hapless Palestinians, the situation has, however, thrown up more lessons for Muslims world over. The offensive may have a dangerous consequence of pushing more Muslims towards radicalism thus opening new doors of destruction. During the past one month the disturbing situation in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Africa has
raised more questions about why trouble is taking place in Muslim countries only. More than 6000 people were killed by the ISIS led by the self-styled “Caliph” Al Baghdadi, thereby putting the words “human rights
violations” to shame. Muslims killing Muslims is the biggest challenge, which Islam, second largest and the fastest growing religion in world is facing now.
Out of many leafs of those lessons, the one which is relevant to Kashmir is that the separatists have given up their hope on the Muslim world through their “representative” bodies such as Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) and Arab League. Time and again the OIC has been passing resolutions and sending out
invitations to the separatist leaders who proudly publish them in the local media to impress the people with their “popularity” at the world level. Kashmiri leaders, with
the blessings of Pakistan, had been given the Observer status in OIC and many of them have attended the conferences and enjoyed their hospitality. The outcome
has been one odd resolution condemning the human rights violations by India and a line to urge them to resolve the Kashmir issue.
With unending bloodshed shaking the conscience of every conscientious citizen, except those who believe in not annoying the Americans and their cohorts, the
separatists in Kashmir also started realizing that it was useless to pin hopes on OIC or Arab League. For the first time, in many years, the separatists of various factions and colours have spoken in one voice. From
Syed Ali Shah Geelani to Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik, they have criticized the OIC and the Arab world for maintaining a criminal silence over
genocide in Gaza. They have also asserted that to rely on them for intervention in resolution of Kashmir issue was not pragmatic.
In the past the noise by OIC or Arab League has been purely an exercise orchestrated by Pakistan to make India restless. That is why the separatists had fallen in this trap of a “false hope”. Moderate Hurriyat leader
Mirwaiz Umar Farooq was seen as the last one to rely on them and given them (OIC) legitimacy in the overall process of resolution of Kashmir. But the fact remains
that the resolutions passed by OIC had no impact on India like many other reports. The Arabs countries traditionally have had good relations with India. Once the OIC would pass the resolutions, the Arab leaders would convey (in private) to the Indian governments that they actually did not know what the resolution was and they were not party to it. It may sound funny but
the argument, according to insiders in External Affairs Ministry, they would make was that only Pakistan and Turkish Foreign Ministers would know English and
whatever resolutions they draft they get passed through a consensus. But in practice also the Arab countries would not do anything to side with Kashmir and support
the political cause. For few years, Kashmir would be part of special dua (prayers) on Friday in Makkah and Madinah but that also has disappeared now.
Iran was considered to be vocal among Muslim nations to talk about political rights subjugated by various countries. In case of Palestine the voice was louder and continues to be so. But on Kashmir, it too could not afford to annoy India and helped it out in the worst crisis. When situation in Kashmir in early 90s was a flash point in world, India was on back foot and it had
become difficult for New Delhi to seek defense at the International level. Though focus shifted to Gulf War in 1991, it continued to invite attention at the world
forums. In 1994, sanctions were almost imposed against India when a resolution in the United Nations was withdrawn at the last moment by then Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhuttoo after Iran’s
intervention. The resolution, if passed, would have put India in dock. But the efforts by Iran prevailed upon Bhuttoo, coupled with the work done by a highly erudite Indian delegation led by former Prime Minister A B Vajpayee with Farooq Abdullah as its deputy leader and then Minister for External Affairs Salman Khurshid as the member, thus saving New Delhi from the biggest ever diplomatic crisis.
Otherwise also the interest of world powers in seeing Kashmir as the flashpoint has decreased to a great level and that also is reflected in how New Delhi sees the
situation. Not acknowledging the transition from violence to nonviolence as a space to resolve the issue also has a lot to do with this changing global discourse. Many experts believe that non-resolution of Kashmir issue would continue to threaten the peace in the region.
In the given circumstances a third party intervention of Kashmir seems impossible. Pakistan becoming internally weak and losing ground at the diplomatic level after the 9/11 has caused more harm to Kashmir, as it has been linked to “International terror network” and “Global Jehad”. It is only the people of Kashmir who have to
find ways and means to find a solution and of course the onus lies on India and Pakistan to facilitate that course. Whether the powers could play any role or not,
veteran CIA official Bruce Reidel in his latest book “Avoiding Armageddon: America, India and Pakistan to the Brink and Back”, argues that resolving Kashmir is
not only important for preventing a nuclear conflict between two countries but also for prosperity of both India and Pakistan. Even as he believes that “history has shown that American actions can make a bad situation worse, and it has shown only limited evidence that they can make things fundamentally better”, but at the same time makes a case for non-formal initiative to
make the two countries amenable to a resolution. In this backdrop, the statements by separatist leaders vis-a-vis the OIC and Arab League or largely about the Arab world are significant and have thrown up an opportunity to think out of box to deal with the stand off on its own. The realization has come late but nevertheless welcome.
21 Aug 2014
A STRATEGIC REVIEW FOR INDIA
Manpreet Sethi
All major nuclear weapon states periodically issue official statements in the form of a Review or a White Paper to provide a peep into their threat assessments and response priorities. The US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is well known. Russia too periodically announces
a military doctrine and has used it to signal change in the circumstances of the use of nuclear weapons. Since 1998, China has been bringing out a White Paper on
National Defence (WPND) mostly every two years to indicate how it conceptualises its national defence, threat perceptions and security goals, including in the nuclear domain. So do the UK and France.
Most such documents provide general indications on the nation’s assessment of its threat environment and the kind of capability that it wishes to build. For instance, the US NPR of 2010 identified nuclear terrorism and proliferation as the topmost threats facing the country.
Accordingly, Washington put its focus on global efforts aimed at securing nuclear materials. It also articulated that countries found guilty of sponsoring terrorists could
face US military strikes. Since the threat from near nuclear peers was found of a second order, the US downgraded its nuclear readiness posture by removing
its nuclear bombers from 24 hour alert and also de- MIRVing its missiles.
Similarly, the Chinese WPND explains the country’s threat perceptions and national security goals. It provides generic references to the growing advancements in national ability to conduct joint operations with precision, informationised strikes etc.
Over the last three White Papers, China has devoted complete sub-sections to explaining the role and capabilities of its nuclear force or the Second Artillery Corps (SAC). While the 2008 Paper had called upon the SAC to “build a streamlined and effective strategic force by raising the informationaisation of its weaponry and equipment systems, build an agile and efficient operational command and control and increase capabilities of land-based strategic nuclear counter-
strikes and precision strikes with conventional missiles,” the 2010 Paper stressed modernisation of “capabilities
in rapid reaction, penetration, precision strike, damage infliction, protection and survivability.”
Given that the SAC has the responsibility for both conventional and nuclear missiles, the Paper also reveals how China continues to “improve the conditions of on-base, simulated and networked training” including in conduct of “trans-regional manoeuvres” and in “complex electromagnetic environments.” Such
disclosures on posture are meant to buttress deterrence.
Crafted along similar lines, an Indian Strategic Review - ISR (or whatever else it may be called: Strategic Policy Review, or a White Paper) - would be particularly helpful in addressing some of the concerns that have been raised in recent times on the credibility of the Indian nuclear deterrent. Of course, the ISR would traverse a range of security issues. But in the nuclear dimension, besides a reiteration of the basic doctrinal attributes of India’s nuclear deterrence, it could highlight some specific issues. Two examples by way of an illustration could be mentioned.
The first could be an articulation of the role of ballistic missile defence (BMD) in India’s nuclear strategy. Going by the recent technological developments, India seems
to be surely and steadily moving towards the development and eventual deployment of some kind of a BMD capability. However, if India is to ensure that this capability does not destabilise nuclear deterrence equations with Pakistan and China, it is imperative that certain clarity be brought to the nature and type of BMD that India plans to have. It is evident that perceiving it
as eroding its deterrence, Islamabad has begun investing in cruise missiles and other counter-measures to defeat an Indian BMD. In case India is to escape being pulled into an offence-defence spiral, it is necessary that the logic and scope of the Indian BMD is explained as a measure for enhancing survivability of its retaliatory capability (warheads, delivery systems and C2) in view of India’s no first use (NFU). Given India’s missile threat environment, it is virtually impossible to protect its cities unless the BMD is technologically of a
very high order and that obviously means expending large amounts of money. But, by explaining the rationale of the BMD for protecting India’s counter-strike capability, its destabilising effects can be arrested. And, the ISR could be one means of such communication.
Yet another issue that could do with some clarity is India’s response to an act of nuclear terrorism. Given India’s experience of Pak-sponsored terrorism, this is a threat that looms large. It would be worthwhile for New Delhi to express its assessment of such a threat and its likely responses. This would showcase resolve that no such act would go unpunished. Doing so through the
ISR would enhance deterrence. Opacity and ambiguity in nuclear numbers and postures
has been an attribute of the Indian nuclear strategy.
However, an ISR can perform the crucial task of clearing misperceptions through a certain amount of transparency without going into specifics of the arsenal. This is critical given that misperceptions and
miscalculations can result in an inadvertent nuclear escalation especially between nuclear neighbours that share border disputes and are prone to border skirmishes. Such a document would actually be of immense value for two reasons. One, it would aid strategy formulation and action prioritisation within the country while providing assurance to the domestic public. Simultaneously, it would communicate with the adversary, and its content and tenor could create the
atmospherics to help stabilise nuclear equations.
All major nuclear weapon states periodically issue official statements in the form of a Review or a White Paper to provide a peep into their threat assessments and response priorities. The US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is well known. Russia too periodically announces
a military doctrine and has used it to signal change in the circumstances of the use of nuclear weapons. Since 1998, China has been bringing out a White Paper on
National Defence (WPND) mostly every two years to indicate how it conceptualises its national defence, threat perceptions and security goals, including in the nuclear domain. So do the UK and France.
Most such documents provide general indications on the nation’s assessment of its threat environment and the kind of capability that it wishes to build. For instance, the US NPR of 2010 identified nuclear terrorism and proliferation as the topmost threats facing the country.
Accordingly, Washington put its focus on global efforts aimed at securing nuclear materials. It also articulated that countries found guilty of sponsoring terrorists could
face US military strikes. Since the threat from near nuclear peers was found of a second order, the US downgraded its nuclear readiness posture by removing
its nuclear bombers from 24 hour alert and also de- MIRVing its missiles.
Similarly, the Chinese WPND explains the country’s threat perceptions and national security goals. It provides generic references to the growing advancements in national ability to conduct joint operations with precision, informationised strikes etc.
Over the last three White Papers, China has devoted complete sub-sections to explaining the role and capabilities of its nuclear force or the Second Artillery Corps (SAC). While the 2008 Paper had called upon the SAC to “build a streamlined and effective strategic force by raising the informationaisation of its weaponry and equipment systems, build an agile and efficient operational command and control and increase capabilities of land-based strategic nuclear counter-
strikes and precision strikes with conventional missiles,” the 2010 Paper stressed modernisation of “capabilities
in rapid reaction, penetration, precision strike, damage infliction, protection and survivability.”
Given that the SAC has the responsibility for both conventional and nuclear missiles, the Paper also reveals how China continues to “improve the conditions of on-base, simulated and networked training” including in conduct of “trans-regional manoeuvres” and in “complex electromagnetic environments.” Such
disclosures on posture are meant to buttress deterrence.
Crafted along similar lines, an Indian Strategic Review - ISR (or whatever else it may be called: Strategic Policy Review, or a White Paper) - would be particularly helpful in addressing some of the concerns that have been raised in recent times on the credibility of the Indian nuclear deterrent. Of course, the ISR would traverse a range of security issues. But in the nuclear dimension, besides a reiteration of the basic doctrinal attributes of India’s nuclear deterrence, it could highlight some specific issues. Two examples by way of an illustration could be mentioned.
The first could be an articulation of the role of ballistic missile defence (BMD) in India’s nuclear strategy. Going by the recent technological developments, India seems
to be surely and steadily moving towards the development and eventual deployment of some kind of a BMD capability. However, if India is to ensure that this capability does not destabilise nuclear deterrence equations with Pakistan and China, it is imperative that certain clarity be brought to the nature and type of BMD that India plans to have. It is evident that perceiving it
as eroding its deterrence, Islamabad has begun investing in cruise missiles and other counter-measures to defeat an Indian BMD. In case India is to escape being pulled into an offence-defence spiral, it is necessary that the logic and scope of the Indian BMD is explained as a measure for enhancing survivability of its retaliatory capability (warheads, delivery systems and C2) in view of India’s no first use (NFU). Given India’s missile threat environment, it is virtually impossible to protect its cities unless the BMD is technologically of a
very high order and that obviously means expending large amounts of money. But, by explaining the rationale of the BMD for protecting India’s counter-strike capability, its destabilising effects can be arrested. And, the ISR could be one means of such communication.
Yet another issue that could do with some clarity is India’s response to an act of nuclear terrorism. Given India’s experience of Pak-sponsored terrorism, this is a threat that looms large. It would be worthwhile for New Delhi to express its assessment of such a threat and its likely responses. This would showcase resolve that no such act would go unpunished. Doing so through the
ISR would enhance deterrence. Opacity and ambiguity in nuclear numbers and postures
has been an attribute of the Indian nuclear strategy.
However, an ISR can perform the crucial task of clearing misperceptions through a certain amount of transparency without going into specifics of the arsenal. This is critical given that misperceptions and
miscalculations can result in an inadvertent nuclear escalation especially between nuclear neighbours that share border disputes and are prone to border skirmishes. Such a document would actually be of immense value for two reasons. One, it would aid strategy formulation and action prioritisation within the country while providing assurance to the domestic public. Simultaneously, it would communicate with the adversary, and its content and tenor could create the
atmospherics to help stabilise nuclear equations.
PAKISTAN: DEGRADED DEMOCRACY
Sushant Sareen
At the time this comment is being penned, the Imran Khan’s ‘ Azadi ’ March and Tahirul Qadri’s ‘Inquilab’ (revolution) March are besieging Islamabad.
The former is demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif; accountability of all people involved in rigging the 2013 election in favour of the
current ruling dispensation; electoral reforms; and a government of non-political persons to conduct fresh elections. The latter wants a complete overhaul of the
current political system – hence revolution, though in a legal and constitutional way without resorting to violence, which is in itself a contradiction.
Even though the turnout of these two marches is nowhere close to the million or more that was being spoken about, Pakistan’s capital city is on the
tenterhooks. The fear is that if the crowds go out of control and large-scale violence erupts, it could well lead to the collapse of the government. Needless to say, such disturbances will bring neither Azadi nor
Revolution. Quite to the contrary, it will stifle ‘ Azadi ’ and usher in a counter-revolution by that most reactionary of all forces in Pakistan – the Pakistan Army.
Perhaps when the Pakistan Army put Khan and Qadri to the job of destabilising Nawaz Sharif’s government and bringing it under such immense pressure that it buckles and accepts its subservience to the military
establishment, they never thought things would reach a point where they might have to step in and take over directly. But a series of administrative mishandlings and
political miscalculations by the governments in Islamabad and Lahore, coupled with ever rising stridency in the positions of Khan and Qadri, have
brought the situation to a point where an honourable exit for any of the main protagonists seems next to impossible.
This means while all the protagonists are going for broke – they believe they will either worst their adversary or suffer grievous and maybe even irrecoverable damage to their politics – none of them is
going to emerge from this battle unscathed. The only winner will be the cat (read Pakistan Army) which made the monkeys (read Pakistan's political class) fight over
the spoils of power. After all, Pakistan is a unique case where even the courts have upheld the legitimacy of military coups by calling them a revolution! Clearly, neither Imran Khan nor Tahirul Qadri have
thought through the logic of what they are demanding. This is hardly surprising considering that someone else has been doing the thinking for them. The dialectics of their demands is that unless Nawaz Sharif is ready to roll over and play dead – which is extremely unlikely – the only way they can get what they want is through an
extra-constitutional takeover. Bizarrely, even as they both emphatically stand against any military intervention, they are pushing things in a direction where the political logjam can only be broken by such
an intervention.
For his part, Nawaz Sharif is showing remarkable and uncharacteristic composure, and even a spirit of
accommodation towards Khan’s and Qadri’s clearly illegitimate, illogical and illegal demands. But sooner or later, Sharif will dig in his heels. Already, some of his
advisors are reported to be telling him that any big compromise on the demands of the agitationists will irretrievably damage the government and render it a virtual lame-duck in practically all important aspects of
national policy making. If that happens, Sharif might continue to enjoy the title of prime minister but will wield as much power as the head of a municipality. The
trouble for the ruling party is that this is precisely what the army wants if Nawaz Sharif is to continue in office.
While the army has fixed Sharif nice and proper, and it is quite apparent by now that Sharif can only survive if he accepts subservience to the military, it is still unclear if the military has a plan to de-escalate the political crisis. Will Khan accept the military’s diktat? What will
be the quid pro quo which helps him keep his face among his supporters whom he has charged to an unsustainable level? Will the sop offered to Imran Khan be acceptable to Sharif, especially if it involves anything
beyond electoral reforms? And if Khan refuses to back down, will the army force Sharif out of office? For the army, to cut Khan and Qadri down to size at this stage
means losing a potent political tool to keep Sharif under pressure – something they would be averse to doing.
But deposing Sharif will also not solve the problem because that would set in motion the destabilising politics of the 1990s. Worse, even if Nawaz Sharif eats the humble pie and Khan backs down this time, the government will remain in crisis mode for the rest of its term, something that will seriously distract it from its ambitious economic agenda. Most importantly, if this
round of the political slugfest ends in a draw, it will only set the stage for the next round of an even worse civil- military confrontation, which won’t be long in coming. What this means is that all those singing hosannas for democracy having finally stuck roots in Pakistan need to
start singing dirges.
At the time this comment is being penned, the Imran Khan’s ‘ Azadi ’ March and Tahirul Qadri’s ‘Inquilab’ (revolution) March are besieging Islamabad.
The former is demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif; accountability of all people involved in rigging the 2013 election in favour of the
current ruling dispensation; electoral reforms; and a government of non-political persons to conduct fresh elections. The latter wants a complete overhaul of the
current political system – hence revolution, though in a legal and constitutional way without resorting to violence, which is in itself a contradiction.
Even though the turnout of these two marches is nowhere close to the million or more that was being spoken about, Pakistan’s capital city is on the
tenterhooks. The fear is that if the crowds go out of control and large-scale violence erupts, it could well lead to the collapse of the government. Needless to say, such disturbances will bring neither Azadi nor
Revolution. Quite to the contrary, it will stifle ‘ Azadi ’ and usher in a counter-revolution by that most reactionary of all forces in Pakistan – the Pakistan Army.
Perhaps when the Pakistan Army put Khan and Qadri to the job of destabilising Nawaz Sharif’s government and bringing it under such immense pressure that it buckles and accepts its subservience to the military
establishment, they never thought things would reach a point where they might have to step in and take over directly. But a series of administrative mishandlings and
political miscalculations by the governments in Islamabad and Lahore, coupled with ever rising stridency in the positions of Khan and Qadri, have
brought the situation to a point where an honourable exit for any of the main protagonists seems next to impossible.
This means while all the protagonists are going for broke – they believe they will either worst their adversary or suffer grievous and maybe even irrecoverable damage to their politics – none of them is
going to emerge from this battle unscathed. The only winner will be the cat (read Pakistan Army) which made the monkeys (read Pakistan's political class) fight over
the spoils of power. After all, Pakistan is a unique case where even the courts have upheld the legitimacy of military coups by calling them a revolution! Clearly, neither Imran Khan nor Tahirul Qadri have
thought through the logic of what they are demanding. This is hardly surprising considering that someone else has been doing the thinking for them. The dialectics of their demands is that unless Nawaz Sharif is ready to roll over and play dead – which is extremely unlikely – the only way they can get what they want is through an
extra-constitutional takeover. Bizarrely, even as they both emphatically stand against any military intervention, they are pushing things in a direction where the political logjam can only be broken by such
an intervention.
For his part, Nawaz Sharif is showing remarkable and uncharacteristic composure, and even a spirit of
accommodation towards Khan’s and Qadri’s clearly illegitimate, illogical and illegal demands. But sooner or later, Sharif will dig in his heels. Already, some of his
advisors are reported to be telling him that any big compromise on the demands of the agitationists will irretrievably damage the government and render it a virtual lame-duck in practically all important aspects of
national policy making. If that happens, Sharif might continue to enjoy the title of prime minister but will wield as much power as the head of a municipality. The
trouble for the ruling party is that this is precisely what the army wants if Nawaz Sharif is to continue in office.
While the army has fixed Sharif nice and proper, and it is quite apparent by now that Sharif can only survive if he accepts subservience to the military, it is still unclear if the military has a plan to de-escalate the political crisis. Will Khan accept the military’s diktat? What will
be the quid pro quo which helps him keep his face among his supporters whom he has charged to an unsustainable level? Will the sop offered to Imran Khan be acceptable to Sharif, especially if it involves anything
beyond electoral reforms? And if Khan refuses to back down, will the army force Sharif out of office? For the army, to cut Khan and Qadri down to size at this stage
means losing a potent political tool to keep Sharif under pressure – something they would be averse to doing.
But deposing Sharif will also not solve the problem because that would set in motion the destabilising politics of the 1990s. Worse, even if Nawaz Sharif eats the humble pie and Khan backs down this time, the government will remain in crisis mode for the rest of its term, something that will seriously distract it from its ambitious economic agenda. Most importantly, if this
round of the political slugfest ends in a draw, it will only set the stage for the next round of an even worse civil- military confrontation, which won’t be long in coming. What this means is that all those singing hosannas for democracy having finally stuck roots in Pakistan need to
start singing dirges.
17 Aug 2014
EBOLA: CONCERNS FOR INDIA
N Manoharan
Should India be worried about the outbreak of Ebola virus in Western Africa that is more than 9000 km away? Is the situation so alarming? What it Ebola all about? What are the counter-measures required?
In an increasingly globalised world, no distance is far away. It is a matter of few hours by direct flight. The virus has been spreading fast. Thankfully, it is not an
airborne disease. It is however communicable. Since the first case of outbreak reported in February 2014 in
Guinea, the disease has spread to Sierra Leone, Liberia and recently to Nigeria, all along the West African coast. The main vector is the traveller, both within and outside the continent. Saudi Arabia has reported a case of an infected person, a returnee from Sierra Leone. The US has airlifted two of its infected citizens; Spain had flown an affected priest who has since passed. Usually an inland phenomenon, it is intriguing why the Ebola virus is spreading along the coast this time. The current
outbreak has so far claimed over 900 lives, in addition to 2000 infected; more deadly than all the hitherto Ebola outbreaks. The cause for worry is the fact that the Ebola disease has neither a vaccine nor curative
medicine; once infected there is only a 10 per cent chance of survival.
The disease took its name from the Ebola River, the site of the first outbreak in 1976 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (then Zaire). Genus Ebolavirus is one of three
members of the filovirus family (the other two being Marburg Virus and Cueva Virus). Interestingly, Ebola Virus comprises five distinct species: Bundibugyo ebolavirus (BDBV), Zaire ebolavirus (EBOV), Sudan
ebolavirus (SUDV), Reston ebolavirus (RESTV) and Taï Forest ebolavirus (TAFV). The present outbreak is EBOV, considered the most dangerous of all. The incubation
period is 21 days.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), symptoms of the disease include the sudden onset of fever, intense weakness, muscle pain, headache and sore throat followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, rash,
impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding. Patients report low white blood cell and platelet counts and elevated liver
enzymes. These symptoms are broadly similar to one or the other diseases like malaria, typhoid fever, shigellosis, cholera, leptospirosis, plague, rickettsiosis,relapsing fever, meningitis, hepatitis and other viral
haemorrhagic fevers. This makes diagnosis all the more difficult.
Ebola is a zoonotic disease transmitted to people by wild animals or by other infected patients. Fruit bats are considered Ebola’s ‘reservoir host’, in which a pathogen or virus lives inconspicuously without causing
symptoms. That means the geographic distribution of inhabitation of fruit bats is prone to Ebola. Ebola is introduced into the human population through close contact with the blood, secretions, organs or other
bodily fluids of infected animals. Ebola then spreads in the community through human-to-human transmission, with infection resulting from direct contact (through
broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and indirect contact with environments contaminated with such fluids. Burial ceremonies in
which mourners have direct contact with the body of the deceased person can also play a role in the transmission of Ebola.
The outbreak is more concerning for India because of its increasing footprints in Africa. Nearly 50,000 Indian citizens are working in the affected West African
countries alone. They range from businessmen, labourers, professionals and peacekeepers who travel back home frequently. India-Africa trade is about USD
35 billion. Oil is an important component of the trade, especially from Nigeria, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire and Sudan, which are Ebola-prone countries.
India has stepped up preventive measures like screening and tracking of passengers originating or transiting from the region and travel advisory to defer non-essential
travel to Africa, and rightly so. But this is not enough.
All transit destinations like Dubai need to be alerted; flights and passengers from these transits should be screened. Maldives has already issued similar health alerts. Sri Lanka needs to follow as Colombo airport is
a major travel hub. Oil-tankers and other merchant vessels have to be sanitised adequately. It is also important to raise awareness among the common man
on the risk factors. Thorough cooking of animal products like milk and meat is advisable. Then, there are protective measures that require to be adopted by
people closer to the patients like avoiding close physical contacts, wearing gloves and appropriate personal protective equipment when taking care of ill patients at home, regular hand washing with disinfectant after visiting patients, and prompt and safe cremation of those died of the disease. If ignored, consequences can be catastrophic in terms of lives, socio-economic
disruption and spread to other countries. The longer the outbreak in West Africa persists, the more the chances for the Ebola virus to mutate and adapt. That is the
main worry in the long-run.
Should India be worried about the outbreak of Ebola virus in Western Africa that is more than 9000 km away? Is the situation so alarming? What it Ebola all about? What are the counter-measures required?
In an increasingly globalised world, no distance is far away. It is a matter of few hours by direct flight. The virus has been spreading fast. Thankfully, it is not an
airborne disease. It is however communicable. Since the first case of outbreak reported in February 2014 in
Guinea, the disease has spread to Sierra Leone, Liberia and recently to Nigeria, all along the West African coast. The main vector is the traveller, both within and outside the continent. Saudi Arabia has reported a case of an infected person, a returnee from Sierra Leone. The US has airlifted two of its infected citizens; Spain had flown an affected priest who has since passed. Usually an inland phenomenon, it is intriguing why the Ebola virus is spreading along the coast this time. The current
outbreak has so far claimed over 900 lives, in addition to 2000 infected; more deadly than all the hitherto Ebola outbreaks. The cause for worry is the fact that the Ebola disease has neither a vaccine nor curative
medicine; once infected there is only a 10 per cent chance of survival.
The disease took its name from the Ebola River, the site of the first outbreak in 1976 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (then Zaire). Genus Ebolavirus is one of three
members of the filovirus family (the other two being Marburg Virus and Cueva Virus). Interestingly, Ebola Virus comprises five distinct species: Bundibugyo ebolavirus (BDBV), Zaire ebolavirus (EBOV), Sudan
ebolavirus (SUDV), Reston ebolavirus (RESTV) and Taï Forest ebolavirus (TAFV). The present outbreak is EBOV, considered the most dangerous of all. The incubation
period is 21 days.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), symptoms of the disease include the sudden onset of fever, intense weakness, muscle pain, headache and sore throat followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, rash,
impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding. Patients report low white blood cell and platelet counts and elevated liver
enzymes. These symptoms are broadly similar to one or the other diseases like malaria, typhoid fever, shigellosis, cholera, leptospirosis, plague, rickettsiosis,relapsing fever, meningitis, hepatitis and other viral
haemorrhagic fevers. This makes diagnosis all the more difficult.
Ebola is a zoonotic disease transmitted to people by wild animals or by other infected patients. Fruit bats are considered Ebola’s ‘reservoir host’, in which a pathogen or virus lives inconspicuously without causing
symptoms. That means the geographic distribution of inhabitation of fruit bats is prone to Ebola. Ebola is introduced into the human population through close contact with the blood, secretions, organs or other
bodily fluids of infected animals. Ebola then spreads in the community through human-to-human transmission, with infection resulting from direct contact (through
broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected people, and indirect contact with environments contaminated with such fluids. Burial ceremonies in
which mourners have direct contact with the body of the deceased person can also play a role in the transmission of Ebola.
The outbreak is more concerning for India because of its increasing footprints in Africa. Nearly 50,000 Indian citizens are working in the affected West African
countries alone. They range from businessmen, labourers, professionals and peacekeepers who travel back home frequently. India-Africa trade is about USD
35 billion. Oil is an important component of the trade, especially from Nigeria, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire and Sudan, which are Ebola-prone countries.
India has stepped up preventive measures like screening and tracking of passengers originating or transiting from the region and travel advisory to defer non-essential
travel to Africa, and rightly so. But this is not enough.
All transit destinations like Dubai need to be alerted; flights and passengers from these transits should be screened. Maldives has already issued similar health alerts. Sri Lanka needs to follow as Colombo airport is
a major travel hub. Oil-tankers and other merchant vessels have to be sanitised adequately. It is also important to raise awareness among the common man
on the risk factors. Thorough cooking of animal products like milk and meat is advisable. Then, there are protective measures that require to be adopted by
people closer to the patients like avoiding close physical contacts, wearing gloves and appropriate personal protective equipment when taking care of ill patients at home, regular hand washing with disinfectant after visiting patients, and prompt and safe cremation of those died of the disease. If ignored, consequences can be catastrophic in terms of lives, socio-economic
disruption and spread to other countries. The longer the outbreak in West Africa persists, the more the chances for the Ebola virus to mutate and adapt. That is the
main worry in the long-run.
13 Aug 2014
OBAMA'S RUSSIAN DILEMMA
Amit Gupta
Has the shooting down of MH-17 heralded the start of a new Cold War? Observers in the west have likened the situation in Europe to 1914 and the hawks in Western
Europe and North America have been calling for tougher sanctions against Russia. Caught in the middle of all this is President Obama who would prefer that Russia and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin just went away.
From an American perspective, Vladimir Putin has become an irritant for while not posing an existential threat to the US and Western Europe, he does create enough waves to require some form of international action. After the annexation of Crimea, President Obama declared Russia to be a regional power and said that he was more concerned about a dirty bomb going off in New York. The American president was doing his best to minimise the American reaction to the events in
Ukraine given his domestic political compulsions. First, the US is recovering from two wars the long term costs of which are over US$3 trillion. Second, despite all the hype from Wall Street and the stock market, the economy remains fragile and cannot be pushed off the cliff by another conflict. Third, Americans have war fatigue as witnessed by the reluctance to get involved in Syria, and lastly, no one, except perhaps John Simon McCain, wants to get into a shooting war with the Russians.
Nor, in actual fact, do the Europeans, despite their protestations, want to do much about Russia. They depend on Russia for 30 per cent of their energy supplies and in an age of globalisation, Russian capital has penetrated the financial and real estate markets of the European continent. More importantly, the Europeans took the peace dividend from the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and drastically slashed their militaries. Despite events in Ukraine, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy - the big four - are not seriously discussing raising defense expenditures. Nor can they. Their aging populations and generous social welfare programmes require shifting money from guns to butter and not the other way around. So the question then
arises, what to do about Russia?
Both the US and Europe are implementing harder sanctions that no doubt will hurt the Russian oligarchy. There may also be a possible push from Europe to have the 2018 World Cup taken away from Moscow. It that were to happen it would be a huge propaganda defeat for Putin since he used the Sochi Olympics to boost his international image. Having said that, there is a genuine danger that this will blow up in the face of the west because the Russians will turn the energy screws on Ukraine, and while the EU was very keen on having
Ukraine move out from under the Russian umbrella, it is unlikely to foot the large bill for Ukraine’s economic problems and its energy supplies. Further, the Russians have the option of looking east although this is something that goes against the recent
history and cultural mindset. Historically, the Russians have sought to be a western nation with the earthy Nikita Khrushchev telling them to be western and not perch on their toilet seats like eagles. Under Yeltsin and Putin the drive to become western has continued with the Russians being openly dismissive of the BRICS in public forums and claiming that they are a western nation. Yet, in the current climate of growing sanctions, it is the BRICs, particularly China, that can save Vladimir Putin’s regime - the recent US$40 billion
energy deal with Beijing being a case in point. China, in fact, can be the driver for greater economic growth for Russia through the building of pipelines and
infrastructure but Moscow must worry at the same time that this will make it economically dependent on its eastern neighbour.
What is likely to happen, now that tighter sanctions have been implemented, is that after a decent waiting period the west can cool down the rhetoric about Russia
while Moscow itself will be able to work around the sanctions. And given how every week a new issue catches the attention of the US media, Ukraine will be consigned to the back pages where it was before the
shootdown of MH-17 put it back in the news as a crisis. Neither Europe nor the US is likely to push for military actions since it the one scenario that no one in Europe wants.
Ironically, the real winners in this may be China and India. The Chinese have been worried about the US pivot to Asia and events in Ukraine take the heat off Beijing as it solves to deal with the Senakaku-Diaoyu islands and tensions in the South China Sea. India too can be a winner if it is able to use the Ukraine crisis to better engage Russia on issues of energy supply and arms sales because Russia desperately needs friends right now. India-Russia trade is pledged to cross the US $9 billion mark but it is a far cry from a figure comparable to India-China trade. This could be easier
to do because Russia’s limited options in light of the sanctions force it to look east and to strike potentially lucrative deals with the very countries it once rejected
as eastern and backward.
Has the shooting down of MH-17 heralded the start of a new Cold War? Observers in the west have likened the situation in Europe to 1914 and the hawks in Western
Europe and North America have been calling for tougher sanctions against Russia. Caught in the middle of all this is President Obama who would prefer that Russia and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin just went away.
From an American perspective, Vladimir Putin has become an irritant for while not posing an existential threat to the US and Western Europe, he does create enough waves to require some form of international action. After the annexation of Crimea, President Obama declared Russia to be a regional power and said that he was more concerned about a dirty bomb going off in New York. The American president was doing his best to minimise the American reaction to the events in
Ukraine given his domestic political compulsions. First, the US is recovering from two wars the long term costs of which are over US$3 trillion. Second, despite all the hype from Wall Street and the stock market, the economy remains fragile and cannot be pushed off the cliff by another conflict. Third, Americans have war fatigue as witnessed by the reluctance to get involved in Syria, and lastly, no one, except perhaps John Simon McCain, wants to get into a shooting war with the Russians.
Nor, in actual fact, do the Europeans, despite their protestations, want to do much about Russia. They depend on Russia for 30 per cent of their energy supplies and in an age of globalisation, Russian capital has penetrated the financial and real estate markets of the European continent. More importantly, the Europeans took the peace dividend from the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and drastically slashed their militaries. Despite events in Ukraine, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy - the big four - are not seriously discussing raising defense expenditures. Nor can they. Their aging populations and generous social welfare programmes require shifting money from guns to butter and not the other way around. So the question then
arises, what to do about Russia?
Both the US and Europe are implementing harder sanctions that no doubt will hurt the Russian oligarchy. There may also be a possible push from Europe to have the 2018 World Cup taken away from Moscow. It that were to happen it would be a huge propaganda defeat for Putin since he used the Sochi Olympics to boost his international image. Having said that, there is a genuine danger that this will blow up in the face of the west because the Russians will turn the energy screws on Ukraine, and while the EU was very keen on having
Ukraine move out from under the Russian umbrella, it is unlikely to foot the large bill for Ukraine’s economic problems and its energy supplies. Further, the Russians have the option of looking east although this is something that goes against the recent
history and cultural mindset. Historically, the Russians have sought to be a western nation with the earthy Nikita Khrushchev telling them to be western and not perch on their toilet seats like eagles. Under Yeltsin and Putin the drive to become western has continued with the Russians being openly dismissive of the BRICS in public forums and claiming that they are a western nation. Yet, in the current climate of growing sanctions, it is the BRICs, particularly China, that can save Vladimir Putin’s regime - the recent US$40 billion
energy deal with Beijing being a case in point. China, in fact, can be the driver for greater economic growth for Russia through the building of pipelines and
infrastructure but Moscow must worry at the same time that this will make it economically dependent on its eastern neighbour.
What is likely to happen, now that tighter sanctions have been implemented, is that after a decent waiting period the west can cool down the rhetoric about Russia
while Moscow itself will be able to work around the sanctions. And given how every week a new issue catches the attention of the US media, Ukraine will be consigned to the back pages where it was before the
shootdown of MH-17 put it back in the news as a crisis. Neither Europe nor the US is likely to push for military actions since it the one scenario that no one in Europe wants.
Ironically, the real winners in this may be China and India. The Chinese have been worried about the US pivot to Asia and events in Ukraine take the heat off Beijing as it solves to deal with the Senakaku-Diaoyu islands and tensions in the South China Sea. India too can be a winner if it is able to use the Ukraine crisis to better engage Russia on issues of energy supply and arms sales because Russia desperately needs friends right now. India-Russia trade is pledged to cross the US $9 billion mark but it is a far cry from a figure comparable to India-China trade. This could be easier
to do because Russia’s limited options in light of the sanctions force it to look east and to strike potentially lucrative deals with the very countries it once rejected
as eastern and backward.
PAKISTAN: OF MESSIAHS AND MARCHES
Salma Malik
It is both tragic and funny how the poor Pakistanis take anyone and everyone for the political messiah. All this proverbial messiah needs to do is say the right things
with passion and fervour. Interestingly, the way Pakistani decision-makers run the country’s daily affairs and take their subjects for fools, makes the messiahs’
work easier and convenient. Whether these messiahs deliver what they promised is a matter of great debate.
The latest in this series are the not-so-new Imran Khan, and Tahir ul-Qadri. Both promise to bring revolution by leading long marches into the capital city to the added discomfort and misery of the general public – who are quite done with long marches,
cordoned cities, road blocks, cellular services shut for days and the recent addition: gas stations running out of supplies. It is essentially like being in a state of emergency, with everyone anticipating the worse and wishing for stability. But there is always a segment of the population that is willing to march along.
In a way, this is all about democracy – people voicing their sentiment in a country that has not been famous for democratic traditions. The previous military rule
paved way for a democratic government, albeit hinged on extremely fragile foundations. However, despite the inherent fragility, the Pakistan People’s Party-led (PPP) government not only survived the promised five years but also instituted constitutional reforms that would, in the long run, strengthen the country’s democratic foundations, and successfully concluded its tenure via a smooth and near-peaceful political transition. This happened despite the existence of a strong, belligerent
opposition and a hyper active judiciary. However, the messiahs and marches haunted the PPP just as much, primarily because of the fact that they failed to perform on the governance meter – with a ready excuse that there was no space for them to perform.
For the current government led by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, however, this excuse cannot work. Voted into power with control of the most powerful province in
the country, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N) strength has been its strong team of technocrats, its investor-friendly vision and unlike the PPP, that was often considered the rich and corrupt boys’ club and passionately disliked by the kingmakers, the former has friends and protectors in the right places and enjoys a sizeable clout. Acting as a messiah
themselves, the Sharifs and their team used the right language to a roaring success in the 2013 election; and followed closely by la capitain – Imran Khan – who was considered the best thing to happen to Pakistan in a long time. The PML-N voters were a steady traditional vote base who invariably cast their fate in their party’s
favour. The captain’s voters were the first-timers, young, vibrant, and holding onto the promise that their vote really matters, and they infused energy into skeptics to cast their votes as well.
Easily distinguishable from their youthful looks and sparkling eyes as if they were revolutionaries and not part of an evolutionary process. But this is the latest
fad led by Uncle Sam, where the discourse on revolution has been reinvented and reinterpreted. So the TV- anglesite Tahir ul-Qadri landed from Canada and marched into Islamabad after making strong
“revolutionary” declarations at mammoth rallies across Punjab, with a large number of followers in January 2013. After a three-day sit-in seeking the end of injustice committed by the incumbent government in harsh weather, he went home in the comfort of his trailer with all promises frozen, making a mockery of
everything. Then, as now, Imran Khan was the other revolutionary torch-bearer, but not joining hands with Qadri. Once again, they will find blind followers, similar in their passion, but different in their outlook, carrying the same sentiment with which a majority of them went to vote: transforming the country into the promise these messiahs throw at them. Yet, these innocents fail to realise that these messiahs are independent in neither their thoughts nor actions. Indulging in conspiracy theories – that is a South Asian norm – their handlers have a different agenda to play. While the incumbent government’s mega transportation schemes will not change the lot and effect positive change in the lives of
ordinary citizens suffering the daily brunt on gross mis- governance, these empty histrionics will too will not lead us to the promised land the public endlessly seeks.
At a time when the country is undergoing a tremendous security transformation and is faces massive internal governance issues, the need is not for the rulers to act with paranoia and convert the country into a battlefield – which may, owing to their mishandling of the issue, push the country into civil unrest – but to show wisdom
and insight and handle the problem at hand, manage the political crises that are much their own creation; and once settled, introspectively try and be democratic
and govern the country in a manner befitting democrats; happily bid farewell to the Maulana to prepare for another march; and allow the public to lead our daily
lives.
It is both tragic and funny how the poor Pakistanis take anyone and everyone for the political messiah. All this proverbial messiah needs to do is say the right things
with passion and fervour. Interestingly, the way Pakistani decision-makers run the country’s daily affairs and take their subjects for fools, makes the messiahs’
work easier and convenient. Whether these messiahs deliver what they promised is a matter of great debate.
The latest in this series are the not-so-new Imran Khan, and Tahir ul-Qadri. Both promise to bring revolution by leading long marches into the capital city to the added discomfort and misery of the general public – who are quite done with long marches,
cordoned cities, road blocks, cellular services shut for days and the recent addition: gas stations running out of supplies. It is essentially like being in a state of emergency, with everyone anticipating the worse and wishing for stability. But there is always a segment of the population that is willing to march along.
In a way, this is all about democracy – people voicing their sentiment in a country that has not been famous for democratic traditions. The previous military rule
paved way for a democratic government, albeit hinged on extremely fragile foundations. However, despite the inherent fragility, the Pakistan People’s Party-led (PPP) government not only survived the promised five years but also instituted constitutional reforms that would, in the long run, strengthen the country’s democratic foundations, and successfully concluded its tenure via a smooth and near-peaceful political transition. This happened despite the existence of a strong, belligerent
opposition and a hyper active judiciary. However, the messiahs and marches haunted the PPP just as much, primarily because of the fact that they failed to perform on the governance meter – with a ready excuse that there was no space for them to perform.
For the current government led by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, however, this excuse cannot work. Voted into power with control of the most powerful province in
the country, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N) strength has been its strong team of technocrats, its investor-friendly vision and unlike the PPP, that was often considered the rich and corrupt boys’ club and passionately disliked by the kingmakers, the former has friends and protectors in the right places and enjoys a sizeable clout. Acting as a messiah
themselves, the Sharifs and their team used the right language to a roaring success in the 2013 election; and followed closely by la capitain – Imran Khan – who was considered the best thing to happen to Pakistan in a long time. The PML-N voters were a steady traditional vote base who invariably cast their fate in their party’s
favour. The captain’s voters were the first-timers, young, vibrant, and holding onto the promise that their vote really matters, and they infused energy into skeptics to cast their votes as well.
Easily distinguishable from their youthful looks and sparkling eyes as if they were revolutionaries and not part of an evolutionary process. But this is the latest
fad led by Uncle Sam, where the discourse on revolution has been reinvented and reinterpreted. So the TV- anglesite Tahir ul-Qadri landed from Canada and marched into Islamabad after making strong
“revolutionary” declarations at mammoth rallies across Punjab, with a large number of followers in January 2013. After a three-day sit-in seeking the end of injustice committed by the incumbent government in harsh weather, he went home in the comfort of his trailer with all promises frozen, making a mockery of
everything. Then, as now, Imran Khan was the other revolutionary torch-bearer, but not joining hands with Qadri. Once again, they will find blind followers, similar in their passion, but different in their outlook, carrying the same sentiment with which a majority of them went to vote: transforming the country into the promise these messiahs throw at them. Yet, these innocents fail to realise that these messiahs are independent in neither their thoughts nor actions. Indulging in conspiracy theories – that is a South Asian norm – their handlers have a different agenda to play. While the incumbent government’s mega transportation schemes will not change the lot and effect positive change in the lives of
ordinary citizens suffering the daily brunt on gross mis- governance, these empty histrionics will too will not lead us to the promised land the public endlessly seeks.
At a time when the country is undergoing a tremendous security transformation and is faces massive internal governance issues, the need is not for the rulers to act with paranoia and convert the country into a battlefield – which may, owing to their mishandling of the issue, push the country into civil unrest – but to show wisdom
and insight and handle the problem at hand, manage the political crises that are much their own creation; and once settled, introspectively try and be democratic
and govern the country in a manner befitting democrats; happily bid farewell to the Maulana to prepare for another march; and allow the public to lead our daily
lives.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: RE-ENGAGING INDIA
Chintamani Mahapatra
After months of downgrading its engagement with the Indian government, US President Barack Obama’s
administration has woken up to the new reality of a transformed political profile in New Delhi, and has managed to alter its diplomatic course.
The Devyani Khobragade episode had cast a shadow over the much-trumpeted US-India strategic partnership. It was followed by disturbing headlines on the bilateral, when the May 2014 national election catapulted Narendra Modi and his party, the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP), to the centre-stage of Indian politics. The massive popular mandate to the BJP has meant a stable central government for next five years in
India that effectively replaces decades-long coalition politics and a recent tendency towards federalisation of Indian foreign policy making.
The difficulty for the US was to begin dialoguing with the new Indian strongman who was, for years, denied a US visa. There is no parallel in the US history to the denial of a visa to a three-time chief minister of a
democratic country. However, the US’ pragmatism has always been legendary. Soon after it was clear that Narendra Modi
would lead the next government in India, Obama dialled ‘M’ for Modi, congratulated him and invited him to visit Washington at an agreeable time. Modi’s pragmatism
has been equally legendary and he promptly concurred.
Modi, nonetheless, gave no impression whatsoever that he was too eager to make a trip to a country that refused him access for an alleged violation of human rights that had been cleared by the Supreme Court of
India. His decision to invite the SAARC heads of states to his inauguration; choosing Bhutan for his first foreign
visit; postpone a planned visit to Tokyo; but miss no chance to meet with the Chinese and Russian leaders at the BRICS summit; and to ask his External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to choose Bangladesh for her first foreign visit; signalled that Modi would maintain relationships with the US, and its allies on his own terms.
The Obama Administration, on the other hand, did not take things lying down. The US’ persistence is reflected in the fact that thirteen officials from Washington have
already visited New Delhi to establish contacts with their counterparts at various levels. Three cabinet level officers, the US Secretary of State, the US Commerce
Secretary and the US Secretary of Defense visited India and met Prime Minister Modi, along with others, to kick- start the momentum in the bilateral relations.
Next month, Modi will head to Washington for his first summit with Obama. While the US cabinet level officials visited Delhi to prepare for the Obama-Modi summit in
September, surprisingly, none at the cabinet level from India has visited Washington yet. It appears that more than New Delhi, it is Washington that is keen to bury the past and move ahead to repair
the relationship and build further. Significantly, US Secretary of State John Kerry stated during his visit that he would not like to dig the past and that, in any case,
Modi was denied visa by the previous Republican Administration. In fact, a post on Twitter mentioned that President Obama was unaware of the denial of visa to Modi.
Similarly, one could make the point that the US-India differences over airline security, pharmaceutical business, solar panel manufacturing, Indian steel and several other issues that constituted headline news
should not be allowed to affect Indo-US ties in other areas.
In fact, Kerry came to India like a diplomatic sales- executive to promote cooperation in the energy sector;
Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker came to impress upon India the importance of signing the Trade Facilitation Act (TFA) at the World Trade Organisation and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, during his visit,
sought to discuss defence deals worth billions of dollars.
Clearly, India’s civil nuclear liability act is a road block to fulfil Secretary Kerry’s desire for full-fledged energy cooperation and the Modi government’s firm decision to not sacrifice India’s food security policy at the TFA’s altar is a disappointment for Secretary Penny.
While the Kerry-Penny visit to India coincided with the vote on the FTA at the WTO, and India’s refusal to lend its support overshadowed their visit, Hagel’s visit to
India pumped some positive energy into the bilateral relationship. Compared to the India-US economic and diplomatic ties, defence ties between the two countries
appear more cooperative and less controversial. Despite differences over pricing, technology transfer, the
Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement, and end-user agreement, India was the largest market for US weapons last year, and has already purchased $10 billion worth of defence equipment over the past decade.
Unlike the recent US initiatives towards India, the Modi government’s plans and proposals to better ties with Washington still has a veil of secrecy. The government
is still in its infancy, though. Nonetheless, one expects clarity of Modi’s moves towards the US during his September summit with Obama.
After months of downgrading its engagement with the Indian government, US President Barack Obama’s
administration has woken up to the new reality of a transformed political profile in New Delhi, and has managed to alter its diplomatic course.
The Devyani Khobragade episode had cast a shadow over the much-trumpeted US-India strategic partnership. It was followed by disturbing headlines on the bilateral, when the May 2014 national election catapulted Narendra Modi and his party, the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP), to the centre-stage of Indian politics. The massive popular mandate to the BJP has meant a stable central government for next five years in
India that effectively replaces decades-long coalition politics and a recent tendency towards federalisation of Indian foreign policy making.
The difficulty for the US was to begin dialoguing with the new Indian strongman who was, for years, denied a US visa. There is no parallel in the US history to the denial of a visa to a three-time chief minister of a
democratic country. However, the US’ pragmatism has always been legendary. Soon after it was clear that Narendra Modi
would lead the next government in India, Obama dialled ‘M’ for Modi, congratulated him and invited him to visit Washington at an agreeable time. Modi’s pragmatism
has been equally legendary and he promptly concurred.
Modi, nonetheless, gave no impression whatsoever that he was too eager to make a trip to a country that refused him access for an alleged violation of human rights that had been cleared by the Supreme Court of
India. His decision to invite the SAARC heads of states to his inauguration; choosing Bhutan for his first foreign
visit; postpone a planned visit to Tokyo; but miss no chance to meet with the Chinese and Russian leaders at the BRICS summit; and to ask his External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to choose Bangladesh for her first foreign visit; signalled that Modi would maintain relationships with the US, and its allies on his own terms.
The Obama Administration, on the other hand, did not take things lying down. The US’ persistence is reflected in the fact that thirteen officials from Washington have
already visited New Delhi to establish contacts with their counterparts at various levels. Three cabinet level officers, the US Secretary of State, the US Commerce
Secretary and the US Secretary of Defense visited India and met Prime Minister Modi, along with others, to kick- start the momentum in the bilateral relations.
Next month, Modi will head to Washington for his first summit with Obama. While the US cabinet level officials visited Delhi to prepare for the Obama-Modi summit in
September, surprisingly, none at the cabinet level from India has visited Washington yet. It appears that more than New Delhi, it is Washington that is keen to bury the past and move ahead to repair
the relationship and build further. Significantly, US Secretary of State John Kerry stated during his visit that he would not like to dig the past and that, in any case,
Modi was denied visa by the previous Republican Administration. In fact, a post on Twitter mentioned that President Obama was unaware of the denial of visa to Modi.
Similarly, one could make the point that the US-India differences over airline security, pharmaceutical business, solar panel manufacturing, Indian steel and several other issues that constituted headline news
should not be allowed to affect Indo-US ties in other areas.
In fact, Kerry came to India like a diplomatic sales- executive to promote cooperation in the energy sector;
Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker came to impress upon India the importance of signing the Trade Facilitation Act (TFA) at the World Trade Organisation and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, during his visit,
sought to discuss defence deals worth billions of dollars.
Clearly, India’s civil nuclear liability act is a road block to fulfil Secretary Kerry’s desire for full-fledged energy cooperation and the Modi government’s firm decision to not sacrifice India’s food security policy at the TFA’s altar is a disappointment for Secretary Penny.
While the Kerry-Penny visit to India coincided with the vote on the FTA at the WTO, and India’s refusal to lend its support overshadowed their visit, Hagel’s visit to
India pumped some positive energy into the bilateral relationship. Compared to the India-US economic and diplomatic ties, defence ties between the two countries
appear more cooperative and less controversial. Despite differences over pricing, technology transfer, the
Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement, and end-user agreement, India was the largest market for US weapons last year, and has already purchased $10 billion worth of defence equipment over the past decade.
Unlike the recent US initiatives towards India, the Modi government’s plans and proposals to better ties with Washington still has a veil of secrecy. The government
is still in its infancy, though. Nonetheless, one expects clarity of Modi’s moves towards the US during his September summit with Obama.
THE COVENANT OF SANS SWORD
Vijay Shankar
Power and Self-Preservation
Hobbes underscored the need to establish an aura of awe and visible power in order that men do not degenerate to their natural anarchic passions. He said, “And covenants without the sword are but words and are of no strength to secure a man at all.” Yet, India forges a nuclear ‘Sword’ whose utility lies in its non- use. However, intrinsic to the logic is a three-fold endowment – the Sword’s unprecedented destructive promise, its influence, and its ability to deter conflict beyond the conventional.
Evolution of a Nuclear Doctrine
India’s nuclear programme was driven by a techno- politico-bureaucratic nexus to the exclusion of the military. Whether this strategic orientation was by default or a deep-seated trepidation of the military is
not germane; what it did was to create a muddled approach to the process of operationalising the deterrent. But to its acclaim go the separation of the nuclear from the conventional and distinction between the Controller of nuclear weapons and its Custodian.
Discerning that nuclear multilateralism introduces dynamics that are vastly dissimilar to the two-state confrontation of the past; exceptional faith was placed on a calculus where intentions rather than capability alone, weighed in with greater sway. Convinced that the use of nuclear weapons sets into motion an uncontrollable chain of mass destruction, response-
proportionality and controlled escalation were rejected.
India’s nuclear doctrine is rooted in three principles: no first use (NFU); massive retaliation to a first strike; and credible deterrence. There was a fourth unwritten faith; nuclear weapons would not be conventionalised, a principle that remained divorced from the belief that a nuclear war could be fought and won. The nuclear
doctrine was made public on 04 January 2003. The first part deals with ‘form’; nuclear war avoidance is the leit motif and NFU the canon. The logic of self preservation demanded the arsenal be credible and response-ready.
The second part of the doctrine deals with ‘substance’, operationalising the deterrent and command and control are the main themes.
China: Proliferation Policy
China beginning in the 1970s promoted an aggressive policy of transfer of nuclear weapon technology and missiles to reprobate States using North Korea as a
clearing house. The policy has been continued unrelentingly. Reasons for such profligate leanings are a matter of conjecture. They may have originally reflected balance of power logic. However, proliferation in the Islamic world has implications that are sinister particularly since AQ Khan made known that nuclear
chastity is a fable. Radical Islam perceives nuclear weapons as a means to destroy an order that has wilfully kept the Ummah under subjugation. In this frame of reference the singling out of the US, India and Israel for retribution attains new meaning. It also gives to China a heft up the power ladder.
The Unhinged Tri-Polar Deterrent Relationship
A deterrent relationship is founded on rationality. For the ‘deterree’ there is rationality in the conviction of
disproportionate risks; and for the deterrer rationality in confirming the reality of risks. The exceptional feature is that roles are reversible provided the common interest is
stability.
Unique to the deterrent relationship in the region is the tri-polar nature of linkages and an abiding symptom is Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme. Conceived,
designed and tested by Beijing, the programme has also rapidly created the means to stockpile fissile material.
Under these circumstances any scheme to stabilise the situation must first address the duality of the Sino-Pak programme. Persistent collaboration and a breakneck
build-up of nuclear infrastructure suggests doctrinal co- relation which any deterrent relationship overlooks at its peril.
Making Sense of Pakistan’s Nuclear Strategy: The Nuclear Nightmare
The opacity of Pakistan’s strategic nuclear
underpinnings, descent to tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) and duplicity of policies has made it prickly for India to either understand nuclear thinking in Islamabad
or to find coherence in the mania for parity, the rush for fissile material, and the loosening of controls over nuclear weapons. More puzzling is the strategic notion that the conventional imbalance between the two countries may be offset by “either an assured second- strike capability or, a hair-trigger-arsenal" and as Feroz
Khan’s bizarre argument goes, "TNWs provide another layer of deterrence designed to apply brakes on India’s
conventional superiority” (ala NATO’s discredited formulation). On a perplexing note Khan concludes that likelihood of inadvertence is high, tenability of central
control low, and the probability of Indian pre-emptive conventional attack a near certainty.
No scrutiny of the sub-continental situation can avoid looking at the internals of Pakistan. The country today is in perilous pass caused by the Establishment nurturing terrorist organisations as instruments of their misshapen policies. Pakistan’s radical links makes the status-quo unacceptable for the nuclear nightmare as a hair trigger, opaque deterrent embracing tactical use
under military control steered by an ambiguous doctrine and guided by a military strategy that finds unity with
terrorists is upon us. The unbiased examiner is left bewildered that if
imbalance in the power equation with India is so substantial and internals so anaemic, then why does Pakistan not seek rapprochement as a priority for policies?
Conclusion
In declaring her nuclear doctrine, India struck a covenant not just with her own citizens but with the global community. At its core was the renunciation of the first use of nuclear weapons. On the face of it such
a disavowal defied conventional wisdom. To deliberately temper a sword and then to abjure its first use would appear to contradict sovereign morality, after all if the first duty of the State is to protect its citizens, then to open itself to the first strike would be a failing. And yet if there is belief in the changed nature of warfare that
nuclear weapons have ushered, then humanity’s moral weight would be on the side of the covenant sans sword. Fatefully, till that moral weight finds strategic
expression, it is the destructive promise of the NFU policy backed by pre-emptive conventional capabilities that will rein in a nuclear misadventure.
Power and Self-Preservation
Hobbes underscored the need to establish an aura of awe and visible power in order that men do not degenerate to their natural anarchic passions. He said, “And covenants without the sword are but words and are of no strength to secure a man at all.” Yet, India forges a nuclear ‘Sword’ whose utility lies in its non- use. However, intrinsic to the logic is a three-fold endowment – the Sword’s unprecedented destructive promise, its influence, and its ability to deter conflict beyond the conventional.
Evolution of a Nuclear Doctrine
India’s nuclear programme was driven by a techno- politico-bureaucratic nexus to the exclusion of the military. Whether this strategic orientation was by default or a deep-seated trepidation of the military is
not germane; what it did was to create a muddled approach to the process of operationalising the deterrent. But to its acclaim go the separation of the nuclear from the conventional and distinction between the Controller of nuclear weapons and its Custodian.
Discerning that nuclear multilateralism introduces dynamics that are vastly dissimilar to the two-state confrontation of the past; exceptional faith was placed on a calculus where intentions rather than capability alone, weighed in with greater sway. Convinced that the use of nuclear weapons sets into motion an uncontrollable chain of mass destruction, response-
proportionality and controlled escalation were rejected.
India’s nuclear doctrine is rooted in three principles: no first use (NFU); massive retaliation to a first strike; and credible deterrence. There was a fourth unwritten faith; nuclear weapons would not be conventionalised, a principle that remained divorced from the belief that a nuclear war could be fought and won. The nuclear
doctrine was made public on 04 January 2003. The first part deals with ‘form’; nuclear war avoidance is the leit motif and NFU the canon. The logic of self preservation demanded the arsenal be credible and response-ready.
The second part of the doctrine deals with ‘substance’, operationalising the deterrent and command and control are the main themes.
China: Proliferation Policy
China beginning in the 1970s promoted an aggressive policy of transfer of nuclear weapon technology and missiles to reprobate States using North Korea as a
clearing house. The policy has been continued unrelentingly. Reasons for such profligate leanings are a matter of conjecture. They may have originally reflected balance of power logic. However, proliferation in the Islamic world has implications that are sinister particularly since AQ Khan made known that nuclear
chastity is a fable. Radical Islam perceives nuclear weapons as a means to destroy an order that has wilfully kept the Ummah under subjugation. In this frame of reference the singling out of the US, India and Israel for retribution attains new meaning. It also gives to China a heft up the power ladder.
The Unhinged Tri-Polar Deterrent Relationship
A deterrent relationship is founded on rationality. For the ‘deterree’ there is rationality in the conviction of
disproportionate risks; and for the deterrer rationality in confirming the reality of risks. The exceptional feature is that roles are reversible provided the common interest is
stability.
Unique to the deterrent relationship in the region is the tri-polar nature of linkages and an abiding symptom is Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme. Conceived,
designed and tested by Beijing, the programme has also rapidly created the means to stockpile fissile material.
Under these circumstances any scheme to stabilise the situation must first address the duality of the Sino-Pak programme. Persistent collaboration and a breakneck
build-up of nuclear infrastructure suggests doctrinal co- relation which any deterrent relationship overlooks at its peril.
Making Sense of Pakistan’s Nuclear Strategy: The Nuclear Nightmare
The opacity of Pakistan’s strategic nuclear
underpinnings, descent to tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) and duplicity of policies has made it prickly for India to either understand nuclear thinking in Islamabad
or to find coherence in the mania for parity, the rush for fissile material, and the loosening of controls over nuclear weapons. More puzzling is the strategic notion that the conventional imbalance between the two countries may be offset by “either an assured second- strike capability or, a hair-trigger-arsenal" and as Feroz
Khan’s bizarre argument goes, "TNWs provide another layer of deterrence designed to apply brakes on India’s
conventional superiority” (ala NATO’s discredited formulation). On a perplexing note Khan concludes that likelihood of inadvertence is high, tenability of central
control low, and the probability of Indian pre-emptive conventional attack a near certainty.
No scrutiny of the sub-continental situation can avoid looking at the internals of Pakistan. The country today is in perilous pass caused by the Establishment nurturing terrorist organisations as instruments of their misshapen policies. Pakistan’s radical links makes the status-quo unacceptable for the nuclear nightmare as a hair trigger, opaque deterrent embracing tactical use
under military control steered by an ambiguous doctrine and guided by a military strategy that finds unity with
terrorists is upon us. The unbiased examiner is left bewildered that if
imbalance in the power equation with India is so substantial and internals so anaemic, then why does Pakistan not seek rapprochement as a priority for policies?
Conclusion
In declaring her nuclear doctrine, India struck a covenant not just with her own citizens but with the global community. At its core was the renunciation of the first use of nuclear weapons. On the face of it such
a disavowal defied conventional wisdom. To deliberately temper a sword and then to abjure its first use would appear to contradict sovereign morality, after all if the first duty of the State is to protect its citizens, then to open itself to the first strike would be a failing. And yet if there is belief in the changed nature of warfare that
nuclear weapons have ushered, then humanity’s moral weight would be on the side of the covenant sans sword. Fatefully, till that moral weight finds strategic
expression, it is the destructive promise of the NFU policy backed by pre-emptive conventional capabilities that will rein in a nuclear misadventure.
9 Aug 2014
GENOCIDE IN IRAQ
Travis Weber
The dramatic evidence pointing to the
extermination of Christians and Christian
culture in Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq
and al-Sham’s (ISIS) is impossible to ignore.
This past week, upset Iraqis rallied outside
the White House. A few days ago, an
administration official finally met with Iraqi Christians. But the leader of the free world has yet to forcefully condemn one of the clearest cases of genocide since World War II.
President Obama has previously addressed
humanitarian issues by appealing to the
Responsibility to Protect – a relatively recent doctrine not clearly established or grounded in international law. While its validity can be debated, clearer grounds exist on which to address the plight of Iraq’s Christians – the obligation to prevent genocide contained in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948.
After the horror of the Nazi ideology and
ensuing Holocaust was fully realized, the
nations of the world gathered together,
formed the United Nations, and affirmed they would never let such horrors happen again.
The Genocide Convention laid down into
international law a binding treaty
arrangement in which contracting nations
agreed to “undertake to prevent and to
punish” genocide. While some argue that this “obligation to prevent” genocide is not an independent requirement of the treaty, the clear language and purpose of the treaty
suggest otherwise.
Indeed, the whole point of the treaty was to
prevent horrors like the Holocaust from
happening again. This understanding is
solidified by a decision of the International
Court of Justice holding that the treaty
contains a clear, independent obligation to
prevent genocide According to the Convention, genocide consists of “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” –
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent
births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
ISIS has clearly engaged in multiple of these
acts with the “intent to destroy” a “religious
group” (Iraqi Christians) “in whole.” If the
elements of the crime of genocide are not met in this case, I’m not sure if they ever could be.
The responsibility to prevent contained in the Genocide Convention requires that the United States and other parties to the treaty act to prevent genocide when they recognize it is occurring. It is difficult to deny that genocide of Iraq’s Christians is currently underway.
Sometimes nations have refrained from
calling genocide what it is (such as in the
Darfur region of Sudan several years ago, or in Rwanda in the early 1990s) out of fear of triggering their legal obligation to act to
prevent genocide under the Genocide
Convention. Is this the effect the treaty was
intended to have? It is inconceivable that a
mechanism designed to prevent future
atrocities would be used as a reason to avoid denouncing such massacres as they occur. Yet there is reason to believe nations have and will continue to operate this way.
While governments may try to craft
arguments against their obligation if they do not want to address the issue, that will
become more difficult as more facts come to light. The evidence from Iraq is clear – ISIS’ stated intent is to target Christians, which is a classification based on religion, one of the requirements for genocide. No nation which is a party to the Genocide Convention should be able to escape its requirement to act to prevent what ISIS is now doing to Iraq’s Christians.
Over twenty years ago, President Clinton
hesitated to take decisive action to stop
genocide in Rwanda. He avoided calling it
genocide precisely because of the concerns
expressed here – the United States would be
obligated to do something if genocide was
recognized. As a result, over a million lives
were lost. Several years later, President
Clinton went to Rwanda and admitted his
error.
Yet this is precisely the point of the binding
legal “obligation to prevent” contained in the Genocide Convention – it should not be
manipulated according to the shifting winds of foreign policy. It was always understood that binding obligations were necessary to prevent nations from wavering in the future when memories of the Holocaust started to fade.
The Genocide Convention was designed to
prevent future horrors. Yet the nations of the world now stand by as genocide of Christians occurs before their very eyes in Iraq. All the elements of this crime are met, and we have an obligation to prevent it. What are we waiting for? That same question, which was asked of Nazi appeasers in the 1930s and President Clinton in the 1990s, will someday
be asked of us about Iraq.
The dramatic evidence pointing to the
extermination of Christians and Christian
culture in Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq
and al-Sham’s (ISIS) is impossible to ignore.
This past week, upset Iraqis rallied outside
the White House. A few days ago, an
administration official finally met with Iraqi Christians. But the leader of the free world has yet to forcefully condemn one of the clearest cases of genocide since World War II.
President Obama has previously addressed
humanitarian issues by appealing to the
Responsibility to Protect – a relatively recent doctrine not clearly established or grounded in international law. While its validity can be debated, clearer grounds exist on which to address the plight of Iraq’s Christians – the obligation to prevent genocide contained in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948.
After the horror of the Nazi ideology and
ensuing Holocaust was fully realized, the
nations of the world gathered together,
formed the United Nations, and affirmed they would never let such horrors happen again.
The Genocide Convention laid down into
international law a binding treaty
arrangement in which contracting nations
agreed to “undertake to prevent and to
punish” genocide. While some argue that this “obligation to prevent” genocide is not an independent requirement of the treaty, the clear language and purpose of the treaty
suggest otherwise.
Indeed, the whole point of the treaty was to
prevent horrors like the Holocaust from
happening again. This understanding is
solidified by a decision of the International
Court of Justice holding that the treaty
contains a clear, independent obligation to
prevent genocide According to the Convention, genocide consists of “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” –
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent
births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
ISIS has clearly engaged in multiple of these
acts with the “intent to destroy” a “religious
group” (Iraqi Christians) “in whole.” If the
elements of the crime of genocide are not met in this case, I’m not sure if they ever could be.
The responsibility to prevent contained in the Genocide Convention requires that the United States and other parties to the treaty act to prevent genocide when they recognize it is occurring. It is difficult to deny that genocide of Iraq’s Christians is currently underway.
Sometimes nations have refrained from
calling genocide what it is (such as in the
Darfur region of Sudan several years ago, or in Rwanda in the early 1990s) out of fear of triggering their legal obligation to act to
prevent genocide under the Genocide
Convention. Is this the effect the treaty was
intended to have? It is inconceivable that a
mechanism designed to prevent future
atrocities would be used as a reason to avoid denouncing such massacres as they occur. Yet there is reason to believe nations have and will continue to operate this way.
While governments may try to craft
arguments against their obligation if they do not want to address the issue, that will
become more difficult as more facts come to light. The evidence from Iraq is clear – ISIS’ stated intent is to target Christians, which is a classification based on religion, one of the requirements for genocide. No nation which is a party to the Genocide Convention should be able to escape its requirement to act to prevent what ISIS is now doing to Iraq’s Christians.
Over twenty years ago, President Clinton
hesitated to take decisive action to stop
genocide in Rwanda. He avoided calling it
genocide precisely because of the concerns
expressed here – the United States would be
obligated to do something if genocide was
recognized. As a result, over a million lives
were lost. Several years later, President
Clinton went to Rwanda and admitted his
error.
Yet this is precisely the point of the binding
legal “obligation to prevent” contained in the Genocide Convention – it should not be
manipulated according to the shifting winds of foreign policy. It was always understood that binding obligations were necessary to prevent nations from wavering in the future when memories of the Holocaust started to fade.
The Genocide Convention was designed to
prevent future horrors. Yet the nations of the world now stand by as genocide of Christians occurs before their very eyes in Iraq. All the elements of this crime are met, and we have an obligation to prevent it. What are we waiting for? That same question, which was asked of Nazi appeasers in the 1930s and President Clinton in the 1990s, will someday
be asked of us about Iraq.
FIGHTING WITHOUT SILVER BULLETS
Caroline Glick
Hours before Israel accepted the Egyptian-
brokered cease-fire deal on Monday night,
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu traveled to the south to try to allay the fears of area residents. It’s not at all clear how successful he was. Residents of the communities bordering the Gaza Strip who evacuated their homes are skeptical of the IDF’s claims that it is safe for them to return.
In an interview with NRG website, Yael Paz-
Lahiany, a mother of three young children
from Kibbutz Nahal Oz just across the border from Gaza professed profound confusion and concern.
“I really don’t understand what is happening here and don’t know what to think. Just on Saturday we had 10 red alerts at Nahal Oz and I don’t know what to say. I also don’t understand what the prime minister said [Saturday].
“I just know that I am staying at Kibbutz
Dorot, and here too they are operating on
emergency footing, the nurseries are only
partially open, and no one is going back to
normal. So if 10 kilometers from Gaza they
haven’t returned to their routine, how are we supposed to go back to our lives 800 meters from the wire?”
Israel’s operations in Gaza so far have been
based on the hope that Hamas can be
convinced to stand down. Israel has destroyed its tunnels. The IDF killed hundreds of Hamas terrorists. The IDF
destroyed Hamas’s bases.
Hamas’s missile arsenal is depleted. Its
leaders are safe only so long as they remain
hidden in their illegal bunkers under Shifa
hospital. Hamas remains cash strapped and
without access to resupply from Iran or other allies.
Assuming that Hamas maintains the 72-hour ceasefire that it requested, in negotiations that may ensue for a more detailed cease-fire agreement if the US is unable to coerce Israel and Egypt into agreeing to open the borders and save Hamas, Hamas will be destroyed
through attrition.
If this happens, Israel will have won a great
victory. But if Hamas continues to attack southern communities at any level Israel will have no choice. It will have to send its forces back into Gaza with the mission of retaking control there.
There is only one thing worse than
reasserting Israel’s military control over
Gaza: Losing southern Israel. So long as
residents of the south fear returning to their homes, Israel is losing southern Israel.
This looming prospect of having to retake
Gaza would be bad enough if Israel only had to concern itself with Gaza. But Israel enjoys no such luxury.
Far more dangerous that Hamas is Hezbollah. Whereas Hamas’s missiles are unguided, Hezbollah has guided missiles that are capable of reaching every centimeter of Israeli territory. And their payloads are big enough to destroy high-rise buildings.
Unlike Hamas, Hezbollah has anti-aircraft
missiles and anti-ship missiles capable of
disrupting air and naval operations.
Hezbollah has drones that it has launched
successfully.
And the possibility that Hezbollah has some
level of unconventional weapons cannot be
ruled out.
Hezbollah commanders and fighters have
gained massive experience fighting in Syria
and Iraq. They have sophisticated
intelligence gathering capabilities including
human intelligence and signals intelligence
assets.
They have advanced command and control
systems. And by all accounts, Hamas’s terror tunnels are nothing in comparison to Hezbollah’s extensive network of tunnels that run beneath the border with Israel.
Hezbollah’s announced war plans involve
invading and taking control over
communities in the Upper Galilee.
In the face of Hamas’s repeated aggression in recent years, many Israelis are now looking wistfully at our quiet northern border. It was the massive destruction Israel wreaked on Lebanon during the 2006 war, they say, that is responsible for this tranquility. We deterred Hezbollah.
Unfortunately, this is dangerous nonsense
that bespeaks a fundamental refusal by those that express this view to reconcile themselves with the nature of Hezbollah and its decision making process.
Hezbollah’s decision to go to war in 2006 was made in Tehran, by Hezbollah’s Iranian masters. The decision not to go to war since has also been made by Tehran.
Tehran decided to deploy Hezbollah to Iraq
and Syria.
And Tehran will decide, based on its own
sense of priorities, when Hezbollah and its
massive arsenal of terror should attack Israel.
The only way that Israel’s operations in 2006 have impacted Hezbollah’s future aggression is by enabling it. Israel agreed to a cease-fire that enabled Hezbollah to rearm, reassert control over southern Lebanon and expand its influence over the Lebanese military and state. Had Israel routed Hezbollah in 2006 or refused to accept the pro-Hezbollah cease-fire
terms embodied in UN Security Council
resolution 1701 then the situation would be
different.
This brings us to Iran, the hidden hand
behind the 2006 war, and at least to some
degree behind the present war with Gaza,
and the direct threat that it constitutes for
Israel.
After the deadline for reaching a permanent nuclear deal with Iran ran out last month, US President Barack Obama bought himself and Iran four more months by extending the deadline of the talks.
Iran can continue to develop its nuclear
weapons until after the US midterm election unconstrained by international scrutiny. And Obama can pretend for four more months that he is going to achieve a nuclear deal that will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Israel however, was not given four months.
Without the Iranian nuclear umbrella, Iran’s terror proxies in Gaza were able to develop weapons to attack nearly the entire country.
What will they develop if that nuclear
umbrella is instated? Prime Minister
Netanyahu is correct. Iran’s nuclear weapons program is an existential threat to Israel. And it needs to be wiped out.
Given the threats from Lebanon and Iran, it
is clear that Israel’s decision to try to limit its operations in Gaza was necessary. Israel
cannot afford to tie its forces down
indefinitely. And if Israel is forced to retake
control over Gaza, it will need to deploy its
forces in such a way that it maintains
sufficient reserve capacity to handle Gaza,
Lebanon and Iran simultaneously.
This would be challenging enough under the best of circumstances. Unfortunately, the situation is made all the more complicated by the Obama administration’s strategic aim of appeasing Iran by enabling it to develop nuclear weapons and by siding with Hamas against Israel and the US’s traditional Sunni Arab allies.
The administration’s unswerving devotion to this policy aim was again clarified on
Monday when Palestinian sources at the
Cairo talks told the media that the US had
again joined forces with Hamas-supporting
Qatar to achieve an alternate cease-fire,
undercutting Egyptian efforts and giving
Hamas reason to walk away from the table.
Just last week the US media lambasted
Secretary of State John Kerry for supporting
Hamas against Israel in cease-fire
negotiations. The fact that the Obama
administration continues to act in this
manner suggests that it is completely
committed to this course of action.
Israel can cope with all of these challenges
and surmount them. But it won’t be easy.
In recent days a spate of government
ministers and foreign supporters have
recommended bevy of options that involve
getting someone else to deal with Hamas for
Israel. Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman
said Monday that Gaza should become a UN
mandate.
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and her
colleagues on the Left, joined by former Bush administration deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams say that Fatah can be brought into Gaza to fight Hamas for Israel.
These suggestions are all based on wishful
thinking and an extraordinary capacity to
ignore reality.
The UN is institutionally committed to
delegitimizing and ultimately destroying
Israel.
In the best circumstance, Fatah can only come into Gaza after Hamas has been destroyed completely and driven from leadership by Israel.
Under any other circumstance, Fatah will
collaborate with Hamas against Israel, as it
has always done. And if Hamas is routed and destroyed Fatah would only destabilize the situation.
The time has come for us to recognize that
there are no easy answers for Israel. IDF
operations in Gaza in recent weeks have
dealt a harsh blow to Hamas. Perhaps the
terror commanders have been deterred.
Perhaps not. Whatever the case may be, if Israel and Egypt are able to continue to block US attempts to open the borders for Hamas resupply until Kerry gets swept up in another major crisis, then Hamas can be defeated through attrition.
If not, then Israel will have no choice but to
retake control of Gaza while maintaining
enough forces in reserve to respond to a
second front in the North, and finally end
Iran’s dream of becoming a nuclear power.
There are no silver bullets. The price of
freedom is hard work and vigilance.
Only if we act in full cognizance of the
gravity of the moment and the absence of
easy answers will we navigate the minefield
we find ourselves in successfully and restore the safety of the south, the north, the east and the center of the country.
Hours before Israel accepted the Egyptian-
brokered cease-fire deal on Monday night,
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu traveled to the south to try to allay the fears of area residents. It’s not at all clear how successful he was. Residents of the communities bordering the Gaza Strip who evacuated their homes are skeptical of the IDF’s claims that it is safe for them to return.
In an interview with NRG website, Yael Paz-
Lahiany, a mother of three young children
from Kibbutz Nahal Oz just across the border from Gaza professed profound confusion and concern.
“I really don’t understand what is happening here and don’t know what to think. Just on Saturday we had 10 red alerts at Nahal Oz and I don’t know what to say. I also don’t understand what the prime minister said [Saturday].
“I just know that I am staying at Kibbutz
Dorot, and here too they are operating on
emergency footing, the nurseries are only
partially open, and no one is going back to
normal. So if 10 kilometers from Gaza they
haven’t returned to their routine, how are we supposed to go back to our lives 800 meters from the wire?”
Israel’s operations in Gaza so far have been
based on the hope that Hamas can be
convinced to stand down. Israel has destroyed its tunnels. The IDF killed hundreds of Hamas terrorists. The IDF
destroyed Hamas’s bases.
Hamas’s missile arsenal is depleted. Its
leaders are safe only so long as they remain
hidden in their illegal bunkers under Shifa
hospital. Hamas remains cash strapped and
without access to resupply from Iran or other allies.
Assuming that Hamas maintains the 72-hour ceasefire that it requested, in negotiations that may ensue for a more detailed cease-fire agreement if the US is unable to coerce Israel and Egypt into agreeing to open the borders and save Hamas, Hamas will be destroyed
through attrition.
If this happens, Israel will have won a great
victory. But if Hamas continues to attack southern communities at any level Israel will have no choice. It will have to send its forces back into Gaza with the mission of retaking control there.
There is only one thing worse than
reasserting Israel’s military control over
Gaza: Losing southern Israel. So long as
residents of the south fear returning to their homes, Israel is losing southern Israel.
This looming prospect of having to retake
Gaza would be bad enough if Israel only had to concern itself with Gaza. But Israel enjoys no such luxury.
Far more dangerous that Hamas is Hezbollah. Whereas Hamas’s missiles are unguided, Hezbollah has guided missiles that are capable of reaching every centimeter of Israeli territory. And their payloads are big enough to destroy high-rise buildings.
Unlike Hamas, Hezbollah has anti-aircraft
missiles and anti-ship missiles capable of
disrupting air and naval operations.
Hezbollah has drones that it has launched
successfully.
And the possibility that Hezbollah has some
level of unconventional weapons cannot be
ruled out.
Hezbollah commanders and fighters have
gained massive experience fighting in Syria
and Iraq. They have sophisticated
intelligence gathering capabilities including
human intelligence and signals intelligence
assets.
They have advanced command and control
systems. And by all accounts, Hamas’s terror tunnels are nothing in comparison to Hezbollah’s extensive network of tunnels that run beneath the border with Israel.
Hezbollah’s announced war plans involve
invading and taking control over
communities in the Upper Galilee.
In the face of Hamas’s repeated aggression in recent years, many Israelis are now looking wistfully at our quiet northern border. It was the massive destruction Israel wreaked on Lebanon during the 2006 war, they say, that is responsible for this tranquility. We deterred Hezbollah.
Unfortunately, this is dangerous nonsense
that bespeaks a fundamental refusal by those that express this view to reconcile themselves with the nature of Hezbollah and its decision making process.
Hezbollah’s decision to go to war in 2006 was made in Tehran, by Hezbollah’s Iranian masters. The decision not to go to war since has also been made by Tehran.
Tehran decided to deploy Hezbollah to Iraq
and Syria.
And Tehran will decide, based on its own
sense of priorities, when Hezbollah and its
massive arsenal of terror should attack Israel.
The only way that Israel’s operations in 2006 have impacted Hezbollah’s future aggression is by enabling it. Israel agreed to a cease-fire that enabled Hezbollah to rearm, reassert control over southern Lebanon and expand its influence over the Lebanese military and state. Had Israel routed Hezbollah in 2006 or refused to accept the pro-Hezbollah cease-fire
terms embodied in UN Security Council
resolution 1701 then the situation would be
different.
This brings us to Iran, the hidden hand
behind the 2006 war, and at least to some
degree behind the present war with Gaza,
and the direct threat that it constitutes for
Israel.
After the deadline for reaching a permanent nuclear deal with Iran ran out last month, US President Barack Obama bought himself and Iran four more months by extending the deadline of the talks.
Iran can continue to develop its nuclear
weapons until after the US midterm election unconstrained by international scrutiny. And Obama can pretend for four more months that he is going to achieve a nuclear deal that will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Israel however, was not given four months.
Without the Iranian nuclear umbrella, Iran’s terror proxies in Gaza were able to develop weapons to attack nearly the entire country.
What will they develop if that nuclear
umbrella is instated? Prime Minister
Netanyahu is correct. Iran’s nuclear weapons program is an existential threat to Israel. And it needs to be wiped out.
Given the threats from Lebanon and Iran, it
is clear that Israel’s decision to try to limit its operations in Gaza was necessary. Israel
cannot afford to tie its forces down
indefinitely. And if Israel is forced to retake
control over Gaza, it will need to deploy its
forces in such a way that it maintains
sufficient reserve capacity to handle Gaza,
Lebanon and Iran simultaneously.
This would be challenging enough under the best of circumstances. Unfortunately, the situation is made all the more complicated by the Obama administration’s strategic aim of appeasing Iran by enabling it to develop nuclear weapons and by siding with Hamas against Israel and the US’s traditional Sunni Arab allies.
The administration’s unswerving devotion to this policy aim was again clarified on
Monday when Palestinian sources at the
Cairo talks told the media that the US had
again joined forces with Hamas-supporting
Qatar to achieve an alternate cease-fire,
undercutting Egyptian efforts and giving
Hamas reason to walk away from the table.
Just last week the US media lambasted
Secretary of State John Kerry for supporting
Hamas against Israel in cease-fire
negotiations. The fact that the Obama
administration continues to act in this
manner suggests that it is completely
committed to this course of action.
Israel can cope with all of these challenges
and surmount them. But it won’t be easy.
In recent days a spate of government
ministers and foreign supporters have
recommended bevy of options that involve
getting someone else to deal with Hamas for
Israel. Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman
said Monday that Gaza should become a UN
mandate.
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and her
colleagues on the Left, joined by former Bush administration deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams say that Fatah can be brought into Gaza to fight Hamas for Israel.
These suggestions are all based on wishful
thinking and an extraordinary capacity to
ignore reality.
The UN is institutionally committed to
delegitimizing and ultimately destroying
Israel.
In the best circumstance, Fatah can only come into Gaza after Hamas has been destroyed completely and driven from leadership by Israel.
Under any other circumstance, Fatah will
collaborate with Hamas against Israel, as it
has always done. And if Hamas is routed and destroyed Fatah would only destabilize the situation.
The time has come for us to recognize that
there are no easy answers for Israel. IDF
operations in Gaza in recent weeks have
dealt a harsh blow to Hamas. Perhaps the
terror commanders have been deterred.
Perhaps not. Whatever the case may be, if Israel and Egypt are able to continue to block US attempts to open the borders for Hamas resupply until Kerry gets swept up in another major crisis, then Hamas can be defeated through attrition.
If not, then Israel will have no choice but to
retake control of Gaza while maintaining
enough forces in reserve to respond to a
second front in the North, and finally end
Iran’s dream of becoming a nuclear power.
There are no silver bullets. The price of
freedom is hard work and vigilance.
Only if we act in full cognizance of the
gravity of the moment and the absence of
easy answers will we navigate the minefield
we find ourselves in successfully and restore the safety of the south, the north, the east and the center of the country.
50 THINGS BARACK OBAMA HAS DONE WRONG
John Hawkins
Why would anyone dislike Barack Obama?
Could it be because of what he’s done in the
White House? As you get a refresher on the
national nightmare that has been Barack
Obama’s presidency, keep in mind that the
biggest difficulty in compiling it was limiting it to just 50 examples of corruption,
dishonesty, and incompetence.
1) Because of Obama’s policies since he
became President, 11,472,000 Americans
have left the work force.
2) “Fewer Americans are at work today than in April 2000, even though the population since then has grown by 31 million.” — Mortimer Zuckerman
3) The number of Americans on welfare has
hit record highs.
4) A record 20% of Americans were on food
stamps in 2013.
5) The almost 11 million Americans getting
disability payments is now approaching the
population of Cuba.
6) Our nation lost its AAA credit rating
because Obama is spending so much money.
7) Not only was Cash for Clunkers a wasteful government program that “ cost $1.4 million for every job it created and did little to reduce carbon emissions ,” destroying the “clunkers” helped dramatically jack up the cost of used
cars for the rest of the country.
8) After BP had a huge oil spill in the Gulf,
Obama not only bungled the clean-up process, he slowed oil production from other companies that had done nothing wrong which led to higher oil prices.
9) Obama has helped drive up the cost of gas by blocking the Keystone Pipeline.
10) When he was running for office in 2008,
Obama claimed that, “Under my plan, no
family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” He lied.
11) Through 2013, the Obama Administration had imposed new regulations on businesses that cost 46 billion dollars a year .
12) Taxpayers lost 25 billion dollars on
Obama’s bailout of General Motors and
Chrysler. Chrysler isn’t even an American
company any more. It’s now owned by an
Italian company, Fiat.
13) When he was running for office, Obama
called Bush “unpatriotic” for adding so much to the debt and promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Yet, the national debt is up 7 trillion dollars since Obama became President. That’s more debt than all U.S. Presidents from George
Washington through Bill Clinton combined.
14) Obama’s administration gave guns to
Mexican cartels that were used to murder
hundreds of Mexicans and border agent
Brian Terry. The Obama Administration has
refused to cooperate with the investigation or hold anyone accountable for that illegal
behavior.
15) The NSA has spied on Americans under
Obama.
16) Under Obama, the CIA spied on the
Senate.
17) Obama’s campaign contributors at
Solyndra were handed 535 million dollars of taxpayer money that the Obama
Administration knew they would never be
able to pay back before they gave it to them.
18) The IRS targeted Obama’s political
enemies including Christian groups, pro-
Israel groups, and most prominently, Tea
Party groups. The Obama Administration has refused to cooperate with the investigation or hold anyone accountable for the illegal behavior.
19) Numerous donors to Mitt Romney were
audited by the IRS after giving him large
contributions.
20) When the EPA and IRS were asked to
provide emails requested by Congress as part of an investigation into their illegal activities, they’ve claimed over and over again to have lost the information because of “hard drive crashes.” Given that it’s quite easy to back up a hard drive and that they’re required by law to retain that information, it seems likely that they’re habitually destroying evidence to hide
their illegal activities.
21) Veterans received poor health care and
even died because of the incompetence and
cover-ups of Obama’s VA.
22) Even Barney Frank admits Barack Obama shamelessly lied to the American people to get Obamacare passed – and lie, he did. He promised that Americans could keep their insurance plans, that they could keep their doctors, and that Obamacare would save the average family $2500 per year. Not only were all of those lies, Obama knew they were lies when he made those promises.
23) Barack Obama has broken the law
repeatedly by making at least 23 unilateral
changes to Obamacare.
24) Obama has been illegally trying to force
Christians to pay for abortifacients via
Obamacare.
25) Obamacare has been a disaster that cost
millions their insurance and sent health care costs spiraling into the stratosphere.
26) Obama is taking 700 billion dollars out of Medicare to put into Obamacare.
27) The website portion of Obamacare,
healthcare.gov, was a non-functional disaster for months when it rolled out and Obama claimed he was completely unaware that there was anything wrong with it.
28) Instead of calming people down, Obama
helped to turn Americans against each other racially be inserting himself into the Trayvon Martin case.
29) Obama created so much racial animosity by attacking the police when they had done nothing wrong in the Henry Louis Gates case that he had to have a ridiculous “beer summit” to try to undo the damage.
30) The Department of Justice failed to pursue a voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panthers because they were black and liberal. Former DOJ official J. Christian Adams quit over the case and “accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white
victims.”
31) George W. Bush quit playing golf in 2003 because he didn’t want the mother of some fallen soldier to see the Commander-in-Chief out playing golf. He also said he thought playing golf during a war sent the wrong signal to the American people. Through June of 2014, Obama was up to 177 rounds and is on pace to play twice as much in his second term as his first term.
32) Obama chose tax cheat Tim Geithner to be his Secretary of the Treasury and then has had the audacity to spend his whole
presidency pushing for higher taxes.
33) After promising to unite America when he was running for office in 2008, Obama has been the most hyper-partisan President in decades.
34) Despite the fact that Barack Obama
claimed to believe that marriage should be
between one man and one woman when he
was running for President in 2008, his
Department of Justice asked states attorney
general to refuse to defend their states’ bans on gay marriage in court.
35) The Department of Justice has worked
overtime to help increase voter fraud by
fighting against voter ID. This is despite the
fact that you need ID to buy alcohol, drive a
car, fly on a plane or even to use Obamacare.
36) He’s the reason why countless Americans have been groped, molested and harassed by the TSA, even though agents never caught a terrorist sticking their hand down anyone’s pants.
37) He’s responsible for the dumbing down of our education system with Common Core.
38) We first landed on the moon in 1969, but because of Obama, we’re no longer even capable of going into space.
39) His servile bowing to other world leaders is embarrassing and un-American.
40) Barack Obama engaged in an illegal war
in Libya without the permission of Congress
that helped turn that country into an unstable basket case run by radical Islamists. How bad is it? America, Libyans and the rest of the world were better off with Muammar Gaddafi in charge. That’s how bad it is.
41) Radical Islamist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan
“described himself as mujahedeen” and
yelled “Allahu Akbar” as he murdered 13 of
his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. The Obama
Administration labeled that as "workplace
violence" rather than admitting there was a
terrorist attack on his watch.
42) He released 5 Taliban terrorists In
exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl.
43) Americans died at Benghazi because
Obama’s administration didn’t take their
repeated requests for additional security
seriously.
44) Russia annexed Crimea while Obama did nothing of consequence to discourage it from invading. That’s not a surprise for a
President who is fond of throwing out “red
lines” that don’t mean anything.
45) Obama’s premature pull-out in Iraq and
foolish refusal to get a status of forces
agreement in Iraq left the country vulnerable and led to the terrorists in ISIS taking over a large portion of that country.
46) Barack Obama unilaterally implemented the DREAM Act that Congress didn’t pass and illegally handed out work permits to illegal aliens.
47) Obama is threatening to bypass Congress and simply “legalize” millions more of illegal immigrants even though it’s illegal and unconstitutional and it hurts the American people and will further encourage even more illegal aliens to surge across the border.
48) The fence on our southern border was
supposed to be completed by 2009. The
Obama Administration has made it clear that it doesn’t intend to finish it during his
presidency.
49) Barack Obama is deliberately creating a
crisis on the southern border by refusing to
deport illegal aliens crossing into our
country.
50) For all practical purposes, Barack Obama has already unilaterally implemented amnesty in America because “ at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records” aren’t being deported.
Why would anyone dislike Barack Obama?
Could it be because of what he’s done in the
White House? As you get a refresher on the
national nightmare that has been Barack
Obama’s presidency, keep in mind that the
biggest difficulty in compiling it was limiting it to just 50 examples of corruption,
dishonesty, and incompetence.
1) Because of Obama’s policies since he
became President, 11,472,000 Americans
have left the work force.
2) “Fewer Americans are at work today than in April 2000, even though the population since then has grown by 31 million.” — Mortimer Zuckerman
3) The number of Americans on welfare has
hit record highs.
4) A record 20% of Americans were on food
stamps in 2013.
5) The almost 11 million Americans getting
disability payments is now approaching the
population of Cuba.
6) Our nation lost its AAA credit rating
because Obama is spending so much money.
7) Not only was Cash for Clunkers a wasteful government program that “ cost $1.4 million for every job it created and did little to reduce carbon emissions ,” destroying the “clunkers” helped dramatically jack up the cost of used
cars for the rest of the country.
8) After BP had a huge oil spill in the Gulf,
Obama not only bungled the clean-up process, he slowed oil production from other companies that had done nothing wrong which led to higher oil prices.
9) Obama has helped drive up the cost of gas by blocking the Keystone Pipeline.
10) When he was running for office in 2008,
Obama claimed that, “Under my plan, no
family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” He lied.
11) Through 2013, the Obama Administration had imposed new regulations on businesses that cost 46 billion dollars a year .
12) Taxpayers lost 25 billion dollars on
Obama’s bailout of General Motors and
Chrysler. Chrysler isn’t even an American
company any more. It’s now owned by an
Italian company, Fiat.
13) When he was running for office, Obama
called Bush “unpatriotic” for adding so much to the debt and promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Yet, the national debt is up 7 trillion dollars since Obama became President. That’s more debt than all U.S. Presidents from George
Washington through Bill Clinton combined.
14) Obama’s administration gave guns to
Mexican cartels that were used to murder
hundreds of Mexicans and border agent
Brian Terry. The Obama Administration has
refused to cooperate with the investigation or hold anyone accountable for that illegal
behavior.
15) The NSA has spied on Americans under
Obama.
16) Under Obama, the CIA spied on the
Senate.
17) Obama’s campaign contributors at
Solyndra were handed 535 million dollars of taxpayer money that the Obama
Administration knew they would never be
able to pay back before they gave it to them.
18) The IRS targeted Obama’s political
enemies including Christian groups, pro-
Israel groups, and most prominently, Tea
Party groups. The Obama Administration has refused to cooperate with the investigation or hold anyone accountable for the illegal behavior.
19) Numerous donors to Mitt Romney were
audited by the IRS after giving him large
contributions.
20) When the EPA and IRS were asked to
provide emails requested by Congress as part of an investigation into their illegal activities, they’ve claimed over and over again to have lost the information because of “hard drive crashes.” Given that it’s quite easy to back up a hard drive and that they’re required by law to retain that information, it seems likely that they’re habitually destroying evidence to hide
their illegal activities.
21) Veterans received poor health care and
even died because of the incompetence and
cover-ups of Obama’s VA.
22) Even Barney Frank admits Barack Obama shamelessly lied to the American people to get Obamacare passed – and lie, he did. He promised that Americans could keep their insurance plans, that they could keep their doctors, and that Obamacare would save the average family $2500 per year. Not only were all of those lies, Obama knew they were lies when he made those promises.
23) Barack Obama has broken the law
repeatedly by making at least 23 unilateral
changes to Obamacare.
24) Obama has been illegally trying to force
Christians to pay for abortifacients via
Obamacare.
25) Obamacare has been a disaster that cost
millions their insurance and sent health care costs spiraling into the stratosphere.
26) Obama is taking 700 billion dollars out of Medicare to put into Obamacare.
27) The website portion of Obamacare,
healthcare.gov, was a non-functional disaster for months when it rolled out and Obama claimed he was completely unaware that there was anything wrong with it.
28) Instead of calming people down, Obama
helped to turn Americans against each other racially be inserting himself into the Trayvon Martin case.
29) Obama created so much racial animosity by attacking the police when they had done nothing wrong in the Henry Louis Gates case that he had to have a ridiculous “beer summit” to try to undo the damage.
30) The Department of Justice failed to pursue a voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panthers because they were black and liberal. Former DOJ official J. Christian Adams quit over the case and “accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white
victims.”
31) George W. Bush quit playing golf in 2003 because he didn’t want the mother of some fallen soldier to see the Commander-in-Chief out playing golf. He also said he thought playing golf during a war sent the wrong signal to the American people. Through June of 2014, Obama was up to 177 rounds and is on pace to play twice as much in his second term as his first term.
32) Obama chose tax cheat Tim Geithner to be his Secretary of the Treasury and then has had the audacity to spend his whole
presidency pushing for higher taxes.
33) After promising to unite America when he was running for office in 2008, Obama has been the most hyper-partisan President in decades.
34) Despite the fact that Barack Obama
claimed to believe that marriage should be
between one man and one woman when he
was running for President in 2008, his
Department of Justice asked states attorney
general to refuse to defend their states’ bans on gay marriage in court.
35) The Department of Justice has worked
overtime to help increase voter fraud by
fighting against voter ID. This is despite the
fact that you need ID to buy alcohol, drive a
car, fly on a plane or even to use Obamacare.
36) He’s the reason why countless Americans have been groped, molested and harassed by the TSA, even though agents never caught a terrorist sticking their hand down anyone’s pants.
37) He’s responsible for the dumbing down of our education system with Common Core.
38) We first landed on the moon in 1969, but because of Obama, we’re no longer even capable of going into space.
39) His servile bowing to other world leaders is embarrassing and un-American.
40) Barack Obama engaged in an illegal war
in Libya without the permission of Congress
that helped turn that country into an unstable basket case run by radical Islamists. How bad is it? America, Libyans and the rest of the world were better off with Muammar Gaddafi in charge. That’s how bad it is.
41) Radical Islamist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan
“described himself as mujahedeen” and
yelled “Allahu Akbar” as he murdered 13 of
his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. The Obama
Administration labeled that as "workplace
violence" rather than admitting there was a
terrorist attack on his watch.
42) He released 5 Taliban terrorists In
exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl.
43) Americans died at Benghazi because
Obama’s administration didn’t take their
repeated requests for additional security
seriously.
44) Russia annexed Crimea while Obama did nothing of consequence to discourage it from invading. That’s not a surprise for a
President who is fond of throwing out “red
lines” that don’t mean anything.
45) Obama’s premature pull-out in Iraq and
foolish refusal to get a status of forces
agreement in Iraq left the country vulnerable and led to the terrorists in ISIS taking over a large portion of that country.
46) Barack Obama unilaterally implemented the DREAM Act that Congress didn’t pass and illegally handed out work permits to illegal aliens.
47) Obama is threatening to bypass Congress and simply “legalize” millions more of illegal immigrants even though it’s illegal and unconstitutional and it hurts the American people and will further encourage even more illegal aliens to surge across the border.
48) The fence on our southern border was
supposed to be completed by 2009. The
Obama Administration has made it clear that it doesn’t intend to finish it during his
presidency.
49) Barack Obama is deliberately creating a
crisis on the southern border by refusing to
deport illegal aliens crossing into our
country.
50) For all practical purposes, Barack Obama has already unilaterally implemented amnesty in America because “ at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records” aren’t being deported.
THE B.R.I.C.S DEVELOPMENT BANK: A GAME-CHANGER?
Sonia Hukil
At the 2014 BRICS summit held in Brazil from 14-16 July, the five member countries agreed to the creation of a New Development Bank (NDB) and Contingent
Reserve Arrangement (CRA). Will this move enhance the BRICS’ economic clout by countering the hegemony of Western-run financial systems? Will it be a game-
changer?
Significance of the BRICS Bank
The NDB will have an initial subscribed capital of $50 billion, which premises on an equity principle wherein the five signatories will contribute $10 billion each
towards the $100 billion bank corpus. The capital base will fund infrastructure and sustainable development projects in the BRICS countries and eventually in the
rest of the developing countries. The CRA is a fund pool to aide countries in hedging against short-term liquidity pressures. In contrast to the NDB, the CRA will be
unequally funded by the BRICS – with China, contributing 41 per cent, at the helm. These arrangements are expected to have massive economic and political impacts.
The formation of the NDB is proclaimed to be just, inclusive and forward-looking. It provides an equal voting status to the founding members and offers loans
for assistance without attached conditions. This is envisioned in order to deepen present and long-term cooperation amongst the BRICS nations and further strengthen South-South economic cooperation.
Clearly, the BRICS’ main motive behind these initiatives is to press for a larger role in the international economic order that is otherwise centered on the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). The NDB intends to supplement, and, perhaps later, supplant these multilateral institutions for a new financial
architecture. The BRICS nations are craving for more control over their own resources as well as for greater representation in order to democratise the framework of
multilateral funding systems.
A Game-Changer?
Will the BRICS bank succeed in challenging the Western hold on global finance? Or will it have a mere symbolic and rhetorical impact?
In proposition at least, the BRICS hold the financial capacity to counter the hegemony of the WB and IMF given how four of the BRICS founding members – China, India, Brazil and Russia – are the among the world’s top 10 economies. Yet, the reality is riddled with complexities. The NDB’s subscribed capital base and authorised lending is miniscule in comparison to the WB – which is estimated to lend approximately $60 billion this year. Clearly, lending by the NDB will not be sufficient to make a substantial impact on the
development process of emerging nations. It will be difficult for the NDB to challenge the reach and expanse of existing development institutions.
Meanwhile, through the NDB, the BRICS will continue to conduct their business using the dollar, thereby making their economies function in accordance with policies and procedures designed by the US. There is no other alternative to the dollar as it is the primary choice for financial transactions, globally. Thus, instead of
controlling the global economic order, the BRICS nations likely to remain stuck in it for the near future.
Furthermore, structural disparities are likely to be a tipping point for differences amongst the BRICS. This remains the core issue for de-stabilisation of the BRICS
institutions. China is not only the second largest economy in the world but also substantially larger than all the BRICS nations’ economies combined. China’s
contributions to the CRA will be significantly more than the rest of the member-nations’. Analysts state that
China will bring countries from its own sphere of influence for membership. Thus, with greater political and economic clout, Beijing will overwhelm the institution. Fears linger that more than being a jointly-
held banking system, the NDB will demonstrate China’s individual supremacy.
Moreover, the economies of the BRICS member-nations are projected to a downturn in the foreseeable future.
Their future growth will be less remarkable as compared to the past due to consistent economic troubles like inflation. Some even speculate that the next financial meltdown will come from the BRICS. Failure to sustain
high growth rates will thwart the lending capacity of the BRICS and in turn augment their dependency on the WB and the IMF.
The BRICS’ divergent interests, priorities, and governance systems further raise doubts on its ability to challenge the Western-dominated financial systems.
Intra-BRICS dynamics too seem delicate. India-China ties have deteriorated over territorial disputes; Russia seems worried about China’s growing economic influence, and South Africa’s ties with China have been staggering in light of rising Chinese demands for its vital resources. The BRICS bloc therefore appears to be a fragile partnership of convenience that may possibly encounter demise in the future given China’s hold on power. The initiative taken during the summit is ground-
breaking. However it is doubtful to envision the BRICS bank’s success in replacing the existing development banks and re-balancing the global economic order.
India has high expectations from the BRICS bank.
However, policymakers in New Delhi should not be complacent with its standing within the bank. India must tread cautiously and decisively along the BRICS
road, and, if needed, must not shy away from taking a different turn altogether.
At the 2014 BRICS summit held in Brazil from 14-16 July, the five member countries agreed to the creation of a New Development Bank (NDB) and Contingent
Reserve Arrangement (CRA). Will this move enhance the BRICS’ economic clout by countering the hegemony of Western-run financial systems? Will it be a game-
changer?
Significance of the BRICS Bank
The NDB will have an initial subscribed capital of $50 billion, which premises on an equity principle wherein the five signatories will contribute $10 billion each
towards the $100 billion bank corpus. The capital base will fund infrastructure and sustainable development projects in the BRICS countries and eventually in the
rest of the developing countries. The CRA is a fund pool to aide countries in hedging against short-term liquidity pressures. In contrast to the NDB, the CRA will be
unequally funded by the BRICS – with China, contributing 41 per cent, at the helm. These arrangements are expected to have massive economic and political impacts.
The formation of the NDB is proclaimed to be just, inclusive and forward-looking. It provides an equal voting status to the founding members and offers loans
for assistance without attached conditions. This is envisioned in order to deepen present and long-term cooperation amongst the BRICS nations and further strengthen South-South economic cooperation.
Clearly, the BRICS’ main motive behind these initiatives is to press for a larger role in the international economic order that is otherwise centered on the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). The NDB intends to supplement, and, perhaps later, supplant these multilateral institutions for a new financial
architecture. The BRICS nations are craving for more control over their own resources as well as for greater representation in order to democratise the framework of
multilateral funding systems.
A Game-Changer?
Will the BRICS bank succeed in challenging the Western hold on global finance? Or will it have a mere symbolic and rhetorical impact?
In proposition at least, the BRICS hold the financial capacity to counter the hegemony of the WB and IMF given how four of the BRICS founding members – China, India, Brazil and Russia – are the among the world’s top 10 economies. Yet, the reality is riddled with complexities. The NDB’s subscribed capital base and authorised lending is miniscule in comparison to the WB – which is estimated to lend approximately $60 billion this year. Clearly, lending by the NDB will not be sufficient to make a substantial impact on the
development process of emerging nations. It will be difficult for the NDB to challenge the reach and expanse of existing development institutions.
Meanwhile, through the NDB, the BRICS will continue to conduct their business using the dollar, thereby making their economies function in accordance with policies and procedures designed by the US. There is no other alternative to the dollar as it is the primary choice for financial transactions, globally. Thus, instead of
controlling the global economic order, the BRICS nations likely to remain stuck in it for the near future.
Furthermore, structural disparities are likely to be a tipping point for differences amongst the BRICS. This remains the core issue for de-stabilisation of the BRICS
institutions. China is not only the second largest economy in the world but also substantially larger than all the BRICS nations’ economies combined. China’s
contributions to the CRA will be significantly more than the rest of the member-nations’. Analysts state that
China will bring countries from its own sphere of influence for membership. Thus, with greater political and economic clout, Beijing will overwhelm the institution. Fears linger that more than being a jointly-
held banking system, the NDB will demonstrate China’s individual supremacy.
Moreover, the economies of the BRICS member-nations are projected to a downturn in the foreseeable future.
Their future growth will be less remarkable as compared to the past due to consistent economic troubles like inflation. Some even speculate that the next financial meltdown will come from the BRICS. Failure to sustain
high growth rates will thwart the lending capacity of the BRICS and in turn augment their dependency on the WB and the IMF.
The BRICS’ divergent interests, priorities, and governance systems further raise doubts on its ability to challenge the Western-dominated financial systems.
Intra-BRICS dynamics too seem delicate. India-China ties have deteriorated over territorial disputes; Russia seems worried about China’s growing economic influence, and South Africa’s ties with China have been staggering in light of rising Chinese demands for its vital resources. The BRICS bloc therefore appears to be a fragile partnership of convenience that may possibly encounter demise in the future given China’s hold on power. The initiative taken during the summit is ground-
breaking. However it is doubtful to envision the BRICS bank’s success in replacing the existing development banks and re-balancing the global economic order.
India has high expectations from the BRICS bank.
However, policymakers in New Delhi should not be complacent with its standing within the bank. India must tread cautiously and decisively along the BRICS
road, and, if needed, must not shy away from taking a different turn altogether.
AFGHANISTAN: THE FRAGILE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY
Matthew Porges
Afghanistan’s ongoing presidential election, if successful, will mark the first transfer of power via an election in that country's history. Election does not necessarily imply democracy. Afghanistan's previous two presidential elections, both won by incumbent Hamid Karzai, saw ubiquitous election fraud and there are legitimate questions about how representative one
leader or political party can be in a country so fraught with sectarian and tribal divisions. Nowhere are these divisions more apparent than in the central challenge of selling the whole process of democracy to the Afghan people.
Afghanistan's divisions are manifested partly in the readiness of many Afghans to pursue other avenues when the State looks less than functional, which is its usual condition. Presidential candidate Abdullah
Abdullah who withdrew from the 2009 election to protest Karzai's election fraud has threatened to create a “parallel state,” by force if necessary, if the currently
disputed outcome cannot be resolved. This willingness on Abdullah's part is suggestive of many things, most important of which may be a lack of confidence that the
central government can effectively represent more than one of Afghanistan's many groups at a time. Abdullah
nominally represents Tajik interests—the northern part of the country—despite his own mixed ancestry.
Ashraf Ghani, the other candidate, has more widespread support among Pashtuns. The challenge all parties face is in trying to make this election more than a contest to
see which ethnic group has more voters.
There are a lot of ways to slice Afghanistan: along tribal lines, religious lines, political allegiances, ethnicity, or even language. Western powers, however, have chosen
none of these divisions. Afghanistan is to be ruled as a single state, headquartered in Kabul, and is to be a democracy. The 2004 constitution under which Karzai has vaguely been operating grants considerable powers of centralisation: for instance, the president appoints not only regional governors, but also the police chiefs.
In a country like Afghanistan, where adjacent regions may be radically different, this is understandably concerning to anyone not belonging to the current
president's particular ethnic group. In part, this will be mitigated by various power-sharing measures, such as reinstating the position of a Prime Minister, as well as
proposed elections for regional governors. While this is a step in the right direction, it is not without its own dangers. Democracy can take many different forms, and
centralised government is not the only way to rule Afghanistan. Working with instead of against Afghanistan's existing tribal structures remains an open challenge for both the West and any future government
in Kabul.
The larger question, perhaps even bigger than identifying the least dysfunctional sort of governance, is whether or not Afghanistan has improved since the US-led
invasion. Certainly the problems facing Afghanistan today are not the same problems that faced the country in 2001; they are, perhaps, new twists in old problems.
The Taliban government is gone, but the Taliban itself is not, and it remains a political force by virtue of its long reach and extraordinary brutality. Different ethnic groups can now sit around negotiating tables and debate
representation—but ethnic divisions remain the primary backdrop against which all political manoeuvring is
conducted. Afghanistan is certainly better in some ways, but it is unclear whether that change is durable, or whether a post-NATO Afghanistan can protect the improvements that have been made.
In that context, is Western involvement in the form a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) in the interest of most Afghans? Karzai, who has said he will not sign the
agreement—citing heavy civilian casualties and the US’ meddling in the allegedly democratic process it created —disagrees. The arguments in favour of continued
Western involvement are well-known—ongoing insurgency, fragile central governance, weak institutions, al-Qaeda—but good counterinsurgency has to be more
than the temporary solutions of concentrated firepower, strung together until they become permanent. If
Afghanistan is to be a democracy, it must be permitted to make its own choices, right or wrong. Both Ghani and Abdullah have stated that they intend to sign the BSA if
elected.
Tactical operations are easy to evaluate but strategic goals are often opaque for long periods of time. Expecting Afghanistan to be a functioning democracy right now is probably unrealistic. The things that are
realistic are all short-term, and fairly precise: hold a (reasonably) legitimate election, transfer power peacefully, draw-down Western troops from the country,
and sign a BSA.
The real danger here is alienation – a sense that Afghanistan is somehow impervious to improvement or positive change. That is untrue, but that perception among external actors will only be reinforced by a lengthy and fraudulent election process. What is at
stake is not so much Afghanistan's present as its future. At some point, there needs to be some tangible progress, something to demonstrate that Afghanistan can, in fact, exist as a single country under democratic
leadership. Perfection is not required, but if there aren't glimpses of something better than perpetual civil war, entrenched corruption, and a total lack of trust in the
process, the notion of Afghanistan itself is going to be a hard sell—both internationally, and to the Afghan people.
Afghanistan’s ongoing presidential election, if successful, will mark the first transfer of power via an election in that country's history. Election does not necessarily imply democracy. Afghanistan's previous two presidential elections, both won by incumbent Hamid Karzai, saw ubiquitous election fraud and there are legitimate questions about how representative one
leader or political party can be in a country so fraught with sectarian and tribal divisions. Nowhere are these divisions more apparent than in the central challenge of selling the whole process of democracy to the Afghan people.
Afghanistan's divisions are manifested partly in the readiness of many Afghans to pursue other avenues when the State looks less than functional, which is its usual condition. Presidential candidate Abdullah
Abdullah who withdrew from the 2009 election to protest Karzai's election fraud has threatened to create a “parallel state,” by force if necessary, if the currently
disputed outcome cannot be resolved. This willingness on Abdullah's part is suggestive of many things, most important of which may be a lack of confidence that the
central government can effectively represent more than one of Afghanistan's many groups at a time. Abdullah
nominally represents Tajik interests—the northern part of the country—despite his own mixed ancestry.
Ashraf Ghani, the other candidate, has more widespread support among Pashtuns. The challenge all parties face is in trying to make this election more than a contest to
see which ethnic group has more voters.
There are a lot of ways to slice Afghanistan: along tribal lines, religious lines, political allegiances, ethnicity, or even language. Western powers, however, have chosen
none of these divisions. Afghanistan is to be ruled as a single state, headquartered in Kabul, and is to be a democracy. The 2004 constitution under which Karzai has vaguely been operating grants considerable powers of centralisation: for instance, the president appoints not only regional governors, but also the police chiefs.
In a country like Afghanistan, where adjacent regions may be radically different, this is understandably concerning to anyone not belonging to the current
president's particular ethnic group. In part, this will be mitigated by various power-sharing measures, such as reinstating the position of a Prime Minister, as well as
proposed elections for regional governors. While this is a step in the right direction, it is not without its own dangers. Democracy can take many different forms, and
centralised government is not the only way to rule Afghanistan. Working with instead of against Afghanistan's existing tribal structures remains an open challenge for both the West and any future government
in Kabul.
The larger question, perhaps even bigger than identifying the least dysfunctional sort of governance, is whether or not Afghanistan has improved since the US-led
invasion. Certainly the problems facing Afghanistan today are not the same problems that faced the country in 2001; they are, perhaps, new twists in old problems.
The Taliban government is gone, but the Taliban itself is not, and it remains a political force by virtue of its long reach and extraordinary brutality. Different ethnic groups can now sit around negotiating tables and debate
representation—but ethnic divisions remain the primary backdrop against which all political manoeuvring is
conducted. Afghanistan is certainly better in some ways, but it is unclear whether that change is durable, or whether a post-NATO Afghanistan can protect the improvements that have been made.
In that context, is Western involvement in the form a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) in the interest of most Afghans? Karzai, who has said he will not sign the
agreement—citing heavy civilian casualties and the US’ meddling in the allegedly democratic process it created —disagrees. The arguments in favour of continued
Western involvement are well-known—ongoing insurgency, fragile central governance, weak institutions, al-Qaeda—but good counterinsurgency has to be more
than the temporary solutions of concentrated firepower, strung together until they become permanent. If
Afghanistan is to be a democracy, it must be permitted to make its own choices, right or wrong. Both Ghani and Abdullah have stated that they intend to sign the BSA if
elected.
Tactical operations are easy to evaluate but strategic goals are often opaque for long periods of time. Expecting Afghanistan to be a functioning democracy right now is probably unrealistic. The things that are
realistic are all short-term, and fairly precise: hold a (reasonably) legitimate election, transfer power peacefully, draw-down Western troops from the country,
and sign a BSA.
The real danger here is alienation – a sense that Afghanistan is somehow impervious to improvement or positive change. That is untrue, but that perception among external actors will only be reinforced by a lengthy and fraudulent election process. What is at
stake is not so much Afghanistan's present as its future. At some point, there needs to be some tangible progress, something to demonstrate that Afghanistan can, in fact, exist as a single country under democratic
leadership. Perfection is not required, but if there aren't glimpses of something better than perpetual civil war, entrenched corruption, and a total lack of trust in the
process, the notion of Afghanistan itself is going to be a hard sell—both internationally, and to the Afghan people.
PEOPLE OF THE WORD
Peter Lopatin
Simon Schama’s choice of “Story” in place of “History” in the title of this impressive new work is fitting, for the history he recounts is not history conceived of as a chronicle of important events, but rather as a compendium of thematically linked stories told throughout the ages by, and about, the lived experience of real people—and of a people. Schama tells these stories in terms of a number of characteristically
Jewish oscillations: between exclusivity and
inclusivity, differentiation and syncretism,
assimilation and rejection, fidelity to law and tradition and the Jewish proclivity for
scrutinizing and interrogating both. The
myriad ways in which Jews mediated and
resolved (or didn’t resolve) these oppositions over the better part of two millennia constitute the warp and weft, the theme and variation, of Schama’s narrative.
To tell a story is, necessarily, to adopt a
stance, an agenda that informs the story-
teller’s choices of what tales to tell and what
themes to educe, and Schama lays his agenda on the table at the outset:
What the Jews have lived through, and
somehow survived to tell the tale, has been
the most intense version known to human
history of adversities endured by other
peoples as well; of a culture perennially
resisting its annihilation, of remaking homes and habitats, writing the prose and the poetry of life, through a succession of
uprootings and assaults. It is what makes this story at once particular and universal, the shared inheritance of Jews and non-Jews alike, an account of our common humanity.
It turns out to be an agenda that serves
Schama well. Some of the stories he relates
are of well-known figures of Jewish history,
biblical and otherwise: Ezra and Nehemiah,
inveighing against the corruption of Jewish
society by “foreign” influences; the important (if ever problematical and dubious) Flavius Josephus, a Jew turned faithful Roman general and chronicler of Jerusalem’s destruction at the hands of his Roman masters; rabbi and philosopher Maimon ben Joseph (known to us today as Maimonides) striving to reconcile faith with reason. And the list goes on, including rabbis and scholars, to be sure, but also mapmakers, courageous wives and daughters, poets, and physicians.
The book’s subtitle is a bit misleading.
Although there are references to the very
earliest days of Jewish history, Schama’s story really begins with the fifth-century-b.c. Jewish community at Elephantine, in Upper Egypt, which provides the thematic backdrop for the stories that follow. As revealed in troves of papyri uncovered at the end of the 19th century, a Jewish garrison town flourished in Elephantine, populated by “tough guys, anxious mothers, slave-girl wives, kibitzers and quibblers, hagglers over property lines, drafters of prenups, scribes, temple officials, jailbait indignant that they were set up for a fall, big shots and small fry.” This was a community of Jews aware of its distinct identity, yet one which remained open to the wider non-Jewish world. Their
Jewishness was “worldly, cosmopolitan,
vernacular (Aramaic) not Hebrew, obsessed
with law and property, money-minded,
fashion-conscious [and] much concerned
with . . . the niceties of the social pecking
order and both the delights and burdens of
the Jewish ritual calendar.” These were Jews who mingled freely with their non-Jewish neighbors, sometimes to the point of taking non-Jewish wives, a practice repugnant to the priestly grandees of contemporaneous Jerusalem, where, at roughly the same time, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were being composed, “with the express aim of purging Jewish society of ‘foreign’ elements: a winnowing out of foreign women, foreign cults, foreign habits.”
Elephantine and Jerusalem serve as the
thematic poles about which Schama’s “story
of the Jews” will turn, as he guides his reader deftly, if at times feverishly, over a great swath of Jewish history. The tension between the sacred demands of text and tradition—the never-ending “laying on of words” that is intrinsic both to the practice of Judaism and the lived experience that is Jewishness—and the pervasiveness of “alien” influences upon a people who saw themselves in some important sense as “distinct” is a recurrent theme in Jewish history. That theme runs like a river through Schama’s account as well,
perhaps nowhere more strikingly than in his chapter on “Classical Jews,” in which he
explores the tense yet fructifying interplay
between Hellenism and Judaism.
On the one hand, the Greeks abhorred the
obduracy of the stiff-necked Jews and “their
exasperating refusal to be like everyone else,” insisting—as against all (Greek) reason and spiritual sensibility—on restricting their diets (rather than indulging their appetites), violating the beauty of the human form through the practice of circumcision, and the exclusivity of their faceless God. Schama asks the key question: “What was it to be: the nude or the word? God as beauty or God as writing? Divinity invisible or an eyeful of perfect body?” The division seems stark and unbridgeable. Yet the lived reality of Hellenic Judaism tells us otherwise. From Libya to Alexandria to Judea and the Galilee, Jews and pagans lived among and influenced one
another:
For those multitudes, Hellenism and Judaism were not mutually incompatible at all. Their manner of living exemplified something like the opposite: unforced convergence; a spontaneous (if not untroubled) coexistence.
It is important to note that neither here, nor
in his compelling account of Jewish life in
Moorish Spain—nor anywhere else, for that
matter—does Schama spin a feel-good yarn of this or that golden age of Jewish life under the rule of non-Jews. He is keenly aware that the story of the Jews is, in part, a lachrymose tale of persecution and destruction. He notes that the earliest appearance of “Israel” on any historical artifact is a late-13th-century- b.c. Egyptian inscription that proclaims:
“Israel is laid waste, its seed is no more.” For all the cosmopolitanism of the Jews of
Elephantine, they were “stigmatized as
colonists, tools of the Persian occupiers . . .
their religion a desecrating intrusion.”
Schama knows those stories and tells them
vividly. But he also wishes to tell “a second
story . . . in which the line between the alien and the pure is much less hard and fast; in which being Jewish did not carry with it the requirement of shutting out neighboring cultures but, to some degree at least, living in their company.” The coexistence of these two stories is, in Schama’s telling, the real “Story”
of the Jews.
This book was conceived as a companion to
the eponymous BBC television documentary
series authored by Schama (now on PBS as
well), and, not surprisingly, Schama has
chosen a richly visual writing style that is
admirably evocative but occasionally
stumbles over itself. (Can it really be the case that “it takes no imagination at all to wander the streets of Elephantine, hear the gossip and smell the cooking pots”? Surely a little imagination would help!) And although, for the most part, Schama’s informal, conversational style works well, the overly generous sprinkling of Yiddishisms (Maimonides was a “king of the kvetch”) feels like a bit too much schmaltz in the kishka.
And it would have been helpful if the author had provided translations of some of the Hebrew words: nagid, nefesh, and sandek come to mind.
These are quibbles, however. The Story of the Jews is a deft, engaging, and humane work that, like all well-told tales, carries the reader along and leaves him better for the journey.
Simon Schama’s choice of “Story” in place of “History” in the title of this impressive new work is fitting, for the history he recounts is not history conceived of as a chronicle of important events, but rather as a compendium of thematically linked stories told throughout the ages by, and about, the lived experience of real people—and of a people. Schama tells these stories in terms of a number of characteristically
Jewish oscillations: between exclusivity and
inclusivity, differentiation and syncretism,
assimilation and rejection, fidelity to law and tradition and the Jewish proclivity for
scrutinizing and interrogating both. The
myriad ways in which Jews mediated and
resolved (or didn’t resolve) these oppositions over the better part of two millennia constitute the warp and weft, the theme and variation, of Schama’s narrative.
To tell a story is, necessarily, to adopt a
stance, an agenda that informs the story-
teller’s choices of what tales to tell and what
themes to educe, and Schama lays his agenda on the table at the outset:
What the Jews have lived through, and
somehow survived to tell the tale, has been
the most intense version known to human
history of adversities endured by other
peoples as well; of a culture perennially
resisting its annihilation, of remaking homes and habitats, writing the prose and the poetry of life, through a succession of
uprootings and assaults. It is what makes this story at once particular and universal, the shared inheritance of Jews and non-Jews alike, an account of our common humanity.
It turns out to be an agenda that serves
Schama well. Some of the stories he relates
are of well-known figures of Jewish history,
biblical and otherwise: Ezra and Nehemiah,
inveighing against the corruption of Jewish
society by “foreign” influences; the important (if ever problematical and dubious) Flavius Josephus, a Jew turned faithful Roman general and chronicler of Jerusalem’s destruction at the hands of his Roman masters; rabbi and philosopher Maimon ben Joseph (known to us today as Maimonides) striving to reconcile faith with reason. And the list goes on, including rabbis and scholars, to be sure, but also mapmakers, courageous wives and daughters, poets, and physicians.
The book’s subtitle is a bit misleading.
Although there are references to the very
earliest days of Jewish history, Schama’s story really begins with the fifth-century-b.c. Jewish community at Elephantine, in Upper Egypt, which provides the thematic backdrop for the stories that follow. As revealed in troves of papyri uncovered at the end of the 19th century, a Jewish garrison town flourished in Elephantine, populated by “tough guys, anxious mothers, slave-girl wives, kibitzers and quibblers, hagglers over property lines, drafters of prenups, scribes, temple officials, jailbait indignant that they were set up for a fall, big shots and small fry.” This was a community of Jews aware of its distinct identity, yet one which remained open to the wider non-Jewish world. Their
Jewishness was “worldly, cosmopolitan,
vernacular (Aramaic) not Hebrew, obsessed
with law and property, money-minded,
fashion-conscious [and] much concerned
with . . . the niceties of the social pecking
order and both the delights and burdens of
the Jewish ritual calendar.” These were Jews who mingled freely with their non-Jewish neighbors, sometimes to the point of taking non-Jewish wives, a practice repugnant to the priestly grandees of contemporaneous Jerusalem, where, at roughly the same time, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were being composed, “with the express aim of purging Jewish society of ‘foreign’ elements: a winnowing out of foreign women, foreign cults, foreign habits.”
Elephantine and Jerusalem serve as the
thematic poles about which Schama’s “story
of the Jews” will turn, as he guides his reader deftly, if at times feverishly, over a great swath of Jewish history. The tension between the sacred demands of text and tradition—the never-ending “laying on of words” that is intrinsic both to the practice of Judaism and the lived experience that is Jewishness—and the pervasiveness of “alien” influences upon a people who saw themselves in some important sense as “distinct” is a recurrent theme in Jewish history. That theme runs like a river through Schama’s account as well,
perhaps nowhere more strikingly than in his chapter on “Classical Jews,” in which he
explores the tense yet fructifying interplay
between Hellenism and Judaism.
On the one hand, the Greeks abhorred the
obduracy of the stiff-necked Jews and “their
exasperating refusal to be like everyone else,” insisting—as against all (Greek) reason and spiritual sensibility—on restricting their diets (rather than indulging their appetites), violating the beauty of the human form through the practice of circumcision, and the exclusivity of their faceless God. Schama asks the key question: “What was it to be: the nude or the word? God as beauty or God as writing? Divinity invisible or an eyeful of perfect body?” The division seems stark and unbridgeable. Yet the lived reality of Hellenic Judaism tells us otherwise. From Libya to Alexandria to Judea and the Galilee, Jews and pagans lived among and influenced one
another:
For those multitudes, Hellenism and Judaism were not mutually incompatible at all. Their manner of living exemplified something like the opposite: unforced convergence; a spontaneous (if not untroubled) coexistence.
It is important to note that neither here, nor
in his compelling account of Jewish life in
Moorish Spain—nor anywhere else, for that
matter—does Schama spin a feel-good yarn of this or that golden age of Jewish life under the rule of non-Jews. He is keenly aware that the story of the Jews is, in part, a lachrymose tale of persecution and destruction. He notes that the earliest appearance of “Israel” on any historical artifact is a late-13th-century- b.c. Egyptian inscription that proclaims:
“Israel is laid waste, its seed is no more.” For all the cosmopolitanism of the Jews of
Elephantine, they were “stigmatized as
colonists, tools of the Persian occupiers . . .
their religion a desecrating intrusion.”
Schama knows those stories and tells them
vividly. But he also wishes to tell “a second
story . . . in which the line between the alien and the pure is much less hard and fast; in which being Jewish did not carry with it the requirement of shutting out neighboring cultures but, to some degree at least, living in their company.” The coexistence of these two stories is, in Schama’s telling, the real “Story”
of the Jews.
This book was conceived as a companion to
the eponymous BBC television documentary
series authored by Schama (now on PBS as
well), and, not surprisingly, Schama has
chosen a richly visual writing style that is
admirably evocative but occasionally
stumbles over itself. (Can it really be the case that “it takes no imagination at all to wander the streets of Elephantine, hear the gossip and smell the cooking pots”? Surely a little imagination would help!) And although, for the most part, Schama’s informal, conversational style works well, the overly generous sprinkling of Yiddishisms (Maimonides was a “king of the kvetch”) feels like a bit too much schmaltz in the kishka.
And it would have been helpful if the author had provided translations of some of the Hebrew words: nagid, nefesh, and sandek come to mind.
These are quibbles, however. The Story of the Jews is a deft, engaging, and humane work that, like all well-told tales, carries the reader along and leaves him better for the journey.
HILLARY CLINTON'S REPUTATION
Jay Cost
The rollout of Hillary Clinton’s new memoirs, Hard Choices, was not a resounding success for the former secretary of state. She stuck her foot in her mouth regarding her family’s vast fortune. She had trouble answering questions about her evolution on gay marriage. Critics, on the whole, found the book tired and shopworn.
Yet her poll numbers remain surprisingly
solid. Surveys conducted by Quinnipiac
University, Fox News, and Rasmussen Reports —all taken since the book’s release—show her with comfortable leads nationally over Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush. A mid-July CNN poll shows her with generally strong favorable ratings, although not as positive as they were when she wrapped up her tenure at State. Even so, respondents said they thought her to be a “strong and decisive leader” who “generally agrees” with them on
the issues, can “manage the government
effectively,” and “cares about people” like
them.
What lessons are there to draw from these
numbers? The first, and probably most
obvious, is the disconnect between the
political class and the greater public.
Clinton’s book rollout was a disaster among
politicos and cable news obsessives, but
people who do not dedicate inordinate time
to politics and policy hardly seemed to notice.
While this might be disappointing for
conservatives, who would like to see Clinton’s numbers brought back to Earth, it is nevertheless a good reminder that what
matters in the Beltway does not necessarily
play in Peoria.
The second lesson becomes apparent when we think of Clinton’s numbers in terms of
Weekly Standard online editor Daniel
Halper’s new book, Clinton, Inc. As Halper
shows quite clearly, the Clintons are obsessed with brand management and have become exceedingly skilled at maintaining the improved reputation they have developed since the dark days of the Lewinsky scandal.
This reputation is not going to fall apart
simply because of a bad book rollout. The
collapse of the Barack Obama foreign policy— of which Clinton was an integral part—
apparently has done little to diminish it. Even Benghazi has hardly made a dent.
While the 2014 midterm election is still three months away, it looks as though the
Republicans are set to do quite well. Still,
Clinton’s continued polling strength cannot
but cast a pall over GOP prospects for 2016.
Republicans hope that a faltering Barack
Obama will damage Hillary Clinton’s
presidential chances. It’s true that unpopular presidents generally drag down their successor nominees. John McCain was hurt by George W. Bush, Hubert Humphrey by Lyndon Johnson, Adlai Stevenson by Harry Truman, James M. Cox by Woodrow Wilson.
But Clinton has something that McCain,
Humphrey, Stevenson, and Cox all lacked: a
national reputation built over a quarter-
century of assiduous brand management.
The early signs of the 2016 Clinton campaign suggest a subtle break with Obama that will reinforce her unique identity. Writing for the New Republic, Anne Applebaum took a careful read of Hard Choices as a piece of early campaign literature and concluded that Hillary Clinton is planning to run a campaign
akin to Richard Nixon’s 1968 “man in the
arena” strategy. She is battle-tested,
experienced, ready to make the hard
sacrifices for the country, and above all
somebody who can be counted upon:
Clinton hopes to be . . . deeply non-
ideological, a centrist. She intends to run as a hard-working, fact-oriented pragmatist—
someone who finds ways to work with
difficult opponents, and not only faces up to
difficult problems but also makes the
compromises needed to solve them. Again
and again she portrays herself sitting across
the table from Dai Bingguo or President
Putin, working hard, searching for a way
forward. Similar methods, presumably, can
be applied to the Republican leadership.
The problem for Republicans here is stark:
They have run a campaign like this for the
last half-century. It has met with little success in the last 20 years, and it has never worked against the Clintons; Hillary Clinton’s numbers suggest she would be able to “sell” the public on this problem-solving image better than the GOP nominee could. Given a choice between a Republican and a Clinton offering basically the same thing, there is little reason to believe that the country will select the Republican. Nor, for that matter, can Republicans rest on their oars and assume that Obama’s sinking reputation will pull Hillary Clinton down as well. After all, it hasn’t yet.
What, then, is the best response for the GOP?
It is simply this: The party must wrap itself
unabashedly in the garb of reform. If Hillary Clinton offers herself as the wise and learned hand who will rely upon her decades of experience to guide the ship of state, Republicans have to argue that her
experience is exactly what the country
doesn’t need at this moment. They need to
convince the public that, by being in
Washington for the last quarter-century, she is too committed to a broken status quo that is in desperate need of change. The party then needs to lay out a credible and salable agenda for that change.
This should sound familiar, for it is how
Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in
2008. A message of reform resonated six
years ago, and it could very well resonate
again (so long as it is carried by somebody
other than Obama!). Now as then, the country is tired and frustrated with the status quo.
The people appear to want a change in
course. Granted, this is unfamiliar territory for the Republican party. From Dwight Eisenhower to Nixon to Gerald Ford to George H. W. Bush to Bob Dole to George W. Bush to McCain to Mitt Romney, “fresh and new” are not its calling cards! Only Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan broke with tradition, and only Reagan was a political success. The party is more comfortable offering a “Return to Normalcy,” even if the country doesn’t want normalcy.
If Hillary Clinton offers a Return to Normalcy in 2016, it is a fair bet that the GOP will not be able to beat her by competing on the same terrain. Instead, Republicans should focus assiduously on maximizing their gains in this midterm election, take a few weeks to enjoy
(hopefully) their victory, and then have a
serious conversation about exactly what kind of change they want to offer the country in 2016. For that appears to be the best— perhaps the only—way to beat Hillary Clinton.
The rollout of Hillary Clinton’s new memoirs, Hard Choices, was not a resounding success for the former secretary of state. She stuck her foot in her mouth regarding her family’s vast fortune. She had trouble answering questions about her evolution on gay marriage. Critics, on the whole, found the book tired and shopworn.
Yet her poll numbers remain surprisingly
solid. Surveys conducted by Quinnipiac
University, Fox News, and Rasmussen Reports —all taken since the book’s release—show her with comfortable leads nationally over Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush. A mid-July CNN poll shows her with generally strong favorable ratings, although not as positive as they were when she wrapped up her tenure at State. Even so, respondents said they thought her to be a “strong and decisive leader” who “generally agrees” with them on
the issues, can “manage the government
effectively,” and “cares about people” like
them.
What lessons are there to draw from these
numbers? The first, and probably most
obvious, is the disconnect between the
political class and the greater public.
Clinton’s book rollout was a disaster among
politicos and cable news obsessives, but
people who do not dedicate inordinate time
to politics and policy hardly seemed to notice.
While this might be disappointing for
conservatives, who would like to see Clinton’s numbers brought back to Earth, it is nevertheless a good reminder that what
matters in the Beltway does not necessarily
play in Peoria.
The second lesson becomes apparent when we think of Clinton’s numbers in terms of
Weekly Standard online editor Daniel
Halper’s new book, Clinton, Inc. As Halper
shows quite clearly, the Clintons are obsessed with brand management and have become exceedingly skilled at maintaining the improved reputation they have developed since the dark days of the Lewinsky scandal.
This reputation is not going to fall apart
simply because of a bad book rollout. The
collapse of the Barack Obama foreign policy— of which Clinton was an integral part—
apparently has done little to diminish it. Even Benghazi has hardly made a dent.
While the 2014 midterm election is still three months away, it looks as though the
Republicans are set to do quite well. Still,
Clinton’s continued polling strength cannot
but cast a pall over GOP prospects for 2016.
Republicans hope that a faltering Barack
Obama will damage Hillary Clinton’s
presidential chances. It’s true that unpopular presidents generally drag down their successor nominees. John McCain was hurt by George W. Bush, Hubert Humphrey by Lyndon Johnson, Adlai Stevenson by Harry Truman, James M. Cox by Woodrow Wilson.
But Clinton has something that McCain,
Humphrey, Stevenson, and Cox all lacked: a
national reputation built over a quarter-
century of assiduous brand management.
The early signs of the 2016 Clinton campaign suggest a subtle break with Obama that will reinforce her unique identity. Writing for the New Republic, Anne Applebaum took a careful read of Hard Choices as a piece of early campaign literature and concluded that Hillary Clinton is planning to run a campaign
akin to Richard Nixon’s 1968 “man in the
arena” strategy. She is battle-tested,
experienced, ready to make the hard
sacrifices for the country, and above all
somebody who can be counted upon:
Clinton hopes to be . . . deeply non-
ideological, a centrist. She intends to run as a hard-working, fact-oriented pragmatist—
someone who finds ways to work with
difficult opponents, and not only faces up to
difficult problems but also makes the
compromises needed to solve them. Again
and again she portrays herself sitting across
the table from Dai Bingguo or President
Putin, working hard, searching for a way
forward. Similar methods, presumably, can
be applied to the Republican leadership.
The problem for Republicans here is stark:
They have run a campaign like this for the
last half-century. It has met with little success in the last 20 years, and it has never worked against the Clintons; Hillary Clinton’s numbers suggest she would be able to “sell” the public on this problem-solving image better than the GOP nominee could. Given a choice between a Republican and a Clinton offering basically the same thing, there is little reason to believe that the country will select the Republican. Nor, for that matter, can Republicans rest on their oars and assume that Obama’s sinking reputation will pull Hillary Clinton down as well. After all, it hasn’t yet.
What, then, is the best response for the GOP?
It is simply this: The party must wrap itself
unabashedly in the garb of reform. If Hillary Clinton offers herself as the wise and learned hand who will rely upon her decades of experience to guide the ship of state, Republicans have to argue that her
experience is exactly what the country
doesn’t need at this moment. They need to
convince the public that, by being in
Washington for the last quarter-century, she is too committed to a broken status quo that is in desperate need of change. The party then needs to lay out a credible and salable agenda for that change.
This should sound familiar, for it is how
Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in
2008. A message of reform resonated six
years ago, and it could very well resonate
again (so long as it is carried by somebody
other than Obama!). Now as then, the country is tired and frustrated with the status quo.
The people appear to want a change in
course. Granted, this is unfamiliar territory for the Republican party. From Dwight Eisenhower to Nixon to Gerald Ford to George H. W. Bush to Bob Dole to George W. Bush to McCain to Mitt Romney, “fresh and new” are not its calling cards! Only Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan broke with tradition, and only Reagan was a political success. The party is more comfortable offering a “Return to Normalcy,” even if the country doesn’t want normalcy.
If Hillary Clinton offers a Return to Normalcy in 2016, it is a fair bet that the GOP will not be able to beat her by competing on the same terrain. Instead, Republicans should focus assiduously on maximizing their gains in this midterm election, take a few weeks to enjoy
(hopefully) their victory, and then have a
serious conversation about exactly what kind of change they want to offer the country in 2016. For that appears to be the best— perhaps the only—way to beat Hillary Clinton.
5 Aug 2014
IS THINKING OBSOLETE?
Thomas Sowell
Some have said that we are living in a post-
industrial era, while others have said that we are living in a post-racial era. But growing evidence suggests that we are living in a post- thinking era.
Many people in Europe and the Western
Hemisphere are staging angry protests
against Israel's military action in Gaza. One
of the talking points against Israel is that far
more Palestinian civilians have been killed
by Israeli military attacks than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel that started this latest military conflict.
Are these protesters aware that vastly more
German civilians were killed by American
bombers attacking Nazi Germany during
World War II than American civilians killed
in the United States by Hitler's forces?
Talk show host Geraldo Rivera says that there is no way Israel is winning the battle for world opinion. But Israel is trying to win the battle for survival, while surrounded by enemies. Might that not be more important?
Has any other country, in any other war,
been expected to keep the enemy's civilian
casualties no higher than its own civilian
casualties? The idea that Israel should do so
did not originate among the masses but
among the educated intelligentsia.
In an age when scientists are creating
artificial intelligence, too many of our
educational institutions seem to be creating
artificial stupidity.
It is much the same story in our domestic
controversies. We have gotten so intimidated by political correctness that our major media outlets dare not call people who immigrate to this country illegally "illegal immigrants."
Geraldo Rivera has denounced the Drudge
Report for carrying news stories that show
some of the negative consequences and
dangers from allowing vast numbers of
youngsters to enter the country illegally and be spread across the country by the Obama administration.
Some of these youngsters are already known to be carrying lice and suffering from disease. Since there have been no thorough medical examinations of most of them, we have no way of knowing whether, or how many, are carrying deadly diseases that will spread to American children when these unexamined young immigrants enter schools across the country.
The attack against Matt Drudge has been in
the classic tradition of demagogues. It turns
questions of fact into questions of motive.
Geraldo accuses Drudge of trying to start a
"civil war."
Back when masses of immigrants from
Europe were entering this country, those with dangerous diseases were turned back from Ellis Island. Nobody thought they had a legal or a moral "right" to be in America or that it was mean or racist not to want our children to catch their diseases.
Even on the less contentious issue of
minimum wage laws, there are the same
unthinking reactions.
Although liberals are usually gung ho for
increasing the minimum wage, there was a
sympathetic front page story in the July 29th San Francisco Chronicle about the plight of a local non-profit organization that will not be able to serve as many low-income minority youths if it has to pay a higher minimum wage. They are seeking some kind of exemption.
Does it not occur to these people that the very same thing happens when a minimum wage increase applies to profit-based employers?
They too tend to hire fewer inexperienced
young people when there is a minimum wage law. This is not breaking news. This is what has been happening for generations in the United States and in other countries around the world.
One of the few countries without a minimum wage law is Switzerland, where the unemployment rate has been consistently less than 4 percent for years. Back in 2003, The Economist magazine reported that "Switzerland's unemployment neared a five- year high of 3.9% in February." The most recent issue shows the Swiss unemployment rate back to a more normal 3.2 percent.
Does anyone think that having minimum
wage laws and high youth unemployment is
better? In fact, does anyone think at all these days?
Some have said that we are living in a post-
industrial era, while others have said that we are living in a post-racial era. But growing evidence suggests that we are living in a post- thinking era.
Many people in Europe and the Western
Hemisphere are staging angry protests
against Israel's military action in Gaza. One
of the talking points against Israel is that far
more Palestinian civilians have been killed
by Israeli military attacks than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel that started this latest military conflict.
Are these protesters aware that vastly more
German civilians were killed by American
bombers attacking Nazi Germany during
World War II than American civilians killed
in the United States by Hitler's forces?
Talk show host Geraldo Rivera says that there is no way Israel is winning the battle for world opinion. But Israel is trying to win the battle for survival, while surrounded by enemies. Might that not be more important?
Has any other country, in any other war,
been expected to keep the enemy's civilian
casualties no higher than its own civilian
casualties? The idea that Israel should do so
did not originate among the masses but
among the educated intelligentsia.
In an age when scientists are creating
artificial intelligence, too many of our
educational institutions seem to be creating
artificial stupidity.
It is much the same story in our domestic
controversies. We have gotten so intimidated by political correctness that our major media outlets dare not call people who immigrate to this country illegally "illegal immigrants."
Geraldo Rivera has denounced the Drudge
Report for carrying news stories that show
some of the negative consequences and
dangers from allowing vast numbers of
youngsters to enter the country illegally and be spread across the country by the Obama administration.
Some of these youngsters are already known to be carrying lice and suffering from disease. Since there have been no thorough medical examinations of most of them, we have no way of knowing whether, or how many, are carrying deadly diseases that will spread to American children when these unexamined young immigrants enter schools across the country.
The attack against Matt Drudge has been in
the classic tradition of demagogues. It turns
questions of fact into questions of motive.
Geraldo accuses Drudge of trying to start a
"civil war."
Back when masses of immigrants from
Europe were entering this country, those with dangerous diseases were turned back from Ellis Island. Nobody thought they had a legal or a moral "right" to be in America or that it was mean or racist not to want our children to catch their diseases.
Even on the less contentious issue of
minimum wage laws, there are the same
unthinking reactions.
Although liberals are usually gung ho for
increasing the minimum wage, there was a
sympathetic front page story in the July 29th San Francisco Chronicle about the plight of a local non-profit organization that will not be able to serve as many low-income minority youths if it has to pay a higher minimum wage. They are seeking some kind of exemption.
Does it not occur to these people that the very same thing happens when a minimum wage increase applies to profit-based employers?
They too tend to hire fewer inexperienced
young people when there is a minimum wage law. This is not breaking news. This is what has been happening for generations in the United States and in other countries around the world.
One of the few countries without a minimum wage law is Switzerland, where the unemployment rate has been consistently less than 4 percent for years. Back in 2003, The Economist magazine reported that "Switzerland's unemployment neared a five- year high of 3.9% in February." The most recent issue shows the Swiss unemployment rate back to a more normal 3.2 percent.
Does anyone think that having minimum
wage laws and high youth unemployment is
better? In fact, does anyone think at all these days?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)