Today there two big news stories.
Firstly, the US Supreme Court has upheld a fundamental right to marriage for all citizens, including those that wish to marry others of the same gender.
Secondly there have been a spate of attacks claimed by IS, in Syria, in Kuwait, Tunisia and France. In Yemen. A ring of blood around the Mediterranean.
While the West (right wing social conservatives not withstanding) drifts to ever more liberal stances, the East sinks further into fundamentalism.
There are minorities on both sides, but the polarisation is clear. IS watching openly gay people in the US celebrate a victory will be yet more convinced they are right, and their enemies are evil.
Devout waverers who disapprove of the more extreme IS violence may well look at the decadence of the Western alternative and decide IS to be the lesser of two evils.
All around the world, ordinary people will be aware that while the Arab world drowns in blood, the west immerses itself in a philosophical argument about the nature of marriage.
Outside our bubble this looks like self indulgence.
The horrors visited on the Middle East, in part having grown out of Western interventions, are old news even before they are yesterday's news.
I have no strong feelings on this supreme court judgement, other than its irrelevance to real life.
If the biggest problem you have is the state's refusal to issue a certificate recognising your relationship, you don't have a problem.
On the other hand, if your biggest problem is the state does issue certificates recognising relationships you don't like, you really don't have a problem.
We collectively do have a problem in engaging with a region which we cannot begin to comprehend. Russia is authoritarian and increasingly homophobic.
It appears they understand the Middle East a bit better than we do.
Friday 26 June 2015
Wednesday 3 June 2015
Can the oppressed become the oppressor?
There has been much talk lately about racism, and what it is.
There are two views of racism, that it is the manifestation of prejudice held within the heart of an individual, or that it is a societal thing, embedded in our institutions. Examples of the first is an individual who shouts offensive comments at a minority person from a car window. The judgement passed on London's Metropolitan police by the infamous McPherson report give ample demonstration of the second.
It is possible to believe think that both forms exist.
There is, though, the opinion that people from an oppressed minority cannot be racist. In fact, the word minority there is redundant. Who could argue that Black South Africans although a majority, were not oppressed?
So, it is argued, that the oppressed cannot be racist.
Women cannot be sexist.
People argue this from both sides. I think any reasonable person would agree that it is white racism that poses the biggest problem for societies across the world, that macro, institutional racism is white
Does that really mean a black person cannot be racist?
I believe that the human race is one big family. And that those who try to divide on lines of race are racist. Tribalism is a basic human instinct. It can be channelled for good, in which case we call it loyalty, or bad, and be called prejudice.
To claim that a person cannot be subject to these basic instincts is to deny an aspect of our common humanity. It is, itself, racism.
In some ways oppression arises from oppression. It is not just that oppressed can become oppressor, so much as oppression begets oppression. As violence begets violence. Hutus and Tutsis oppress each other in a repeating cycle of revenge.
Perhaps anyone who thinks the oppressed can never become the oppressor should study the fate of Palestine.
This is not to say there is no such thing as institutional racism. But I do say institutions, and society, do not exist in and of themselves. They are in some way a collective formed from the individuals past and present. A society will not continue to be institutionally racist unless at least some members of the more powerful group are individually racist.
Furthermore, I believe the idea that society is institutionally organised to favour all white people over all people who are not white is to misunderstand how power is organised in our society. For sure white males predominant in the power structure. This does not mean the power structure exists to the benefit of all white males. Or to white people only. Winston Churchill could be defined as an ethnic minority. As could Ian Duncan Smith. Both were leaders of the British Conservative Party.
By many measures, in the UK, poor white males are the group with the worst life chances.
The power structures of the UK are not based around race any more than they are around gender, or around some combination of both. That would be to the advantage of far too large a group.
We are ruled by a much smaller elite. A new aristocracy.
There are white males who think they are on the 'inside'. They fool themselves. They are divided from potential comrades with whom their interests are shared. There are many people who vote against their own economic self interest.
The same goes when privately educated feminists implore poor women to support the agenda of elite females. Doctors and lawyers will benefit far more from free childcare than any cleaner.
This talk of society being a power structure built in favour of all whites, against blacks also divides the oppressed is racist because it divides along lines of race.
The people who promote this thinking are just like white males, they fall into two groups. The elite, and the bitches of the elite.
There are two views of racism, that it is the manifestation of prejudice held within the heart of an individual, or that it is a societal thing, embedded in our institutions. Examples of the first is an individual who shouts offensive comments at a minority person from a car window. The judgement passed on London's Metropolitan police by the infamous McPherson report give ample demonstration of the second.
It is possible to believe think that both forms exist.
There is, though, the opinion that people from an oppressed minority cannot be racist. In fact, the word minority there is redundant. Who could argue that Black South Africans although a majority, were not oppressed?
So, it is argued, that the oppressed cannot be racist.
Women cannot be sexist.
People argue this from both sides. I think any reasonable person would agree that it is white racism that poses the biggest problem for societies across the world, that macro, institutional racism is white
Does that really mean a black person cannot be racist?
I believe that the human race is one big family. And that those who try to divide on lines of race are racist. Tribalism is a basic human instinct. It can be channelled for good, in which case we call it loyalty, or bad, and be called prejudice.
To claim that a person cannot be subject to these basic instincts is to deny an aspect of our common humanity. It is, itself, racism.
In some ways oppression arises from oppression. It is not just that oppressed can become oppressor, so much as oppression begets oppression. As violence begets violence. Hutus and Tutsis oppress each other in a repeating cycle of revenge.
Perhaps anyone who thinks the oppressed can never become the oppressor should study the fate of Palestine.
This is not to say there is no such thing as institutional racism. But I do say institutions, and society, do not exist in and of themselves. They are in some way a collective formed from the individuals past and present. A society will not continue to be institutionally racist unless at least some members of the more powerful group are individually racist.
Furthermore, I believe the idea that society is institutionally organised to favour all white people over all people who are not white is to misunderstand how power is organised in our society. For sure white males predominant in the power structure. This does not mean the power structure exists to the benefit of all white males. Or to white people only. Winston Churchill could be defined as an ethnic minority. As could Ian Duncan Smith. Both were leaders of the British Conservative Party.
By many measures, in the UK, poor white males are the group with the worst life chances.
The power structures of the UK are not based around race any more than they are around gender, or around some combination of both. That would be to the advantage of far too large a group.
We are ruled by a much smaller elite. A new aristocracy.
There are white males who think they are on the 'inside'. They fool themselves. They are divided from potential comrades with whom their interests are shared. There are many people who vote against their own economic self interest.
The same goes when privately educated feminists implore poor women to support the agenda of elite females. Doctors and lawyers will benefit far more from free childcare than any cleaner.
This talk of society being a power structure built in favour of all whites, against blacks also divides the oppressed is racist because it divides along lines of race.
The people who promote this thinking are just like white males, they fall into two groups. The elite, and the bitches of the elite.
Thursday 30 April 2015
Bye bye austerity
In case you hadn't noticed, the UK has an election going on.
Paul Krugman delights that this could mean the end of the Austerians. Noting in yesterday's Guardian (30/04/2015), the UK government is about the last in the world where the myth of expansionary austerity is still celebrated.
He notes that a lot of people who have pushed austerity have done so for political, rather than economic, reasons.
The way he voices it is somewhat less cynical than it could have been.
Because while the UK government uses austerity as a political club with which to bludgeon the opposition, it doesn't actually practice it.
The current UK government has comprehensively missed its deficit reduction targets.
After two years of trying austerity, Cameron and Osbourne eventually accepted their policy had failed. They moved to stimulate the housing market as the most ideologically acceptable climbdown for a pair of Conservative right wingers.
Again they promise us lots of pain in the first two ears of the next parliament, followed by an easing up, creating growth in time for the subsequent election.
But now we know even if they did once believe in the silly mantras of Thatcherite economics, experience has taught them how wrong it all is.
Now we know that any cut to social benefits is not for economic, but ideological reasons.
If we vote for them, we will deserve the outcome.
Pity those who will suffer the most for such folly.
Paul Krugman delights that this could mean the end of the Austerians. Noting in yesterday's Guardian (30/04/2015), the UK government is about the last in the world where the myth of expansionary austerity is still celebrated.
He notes that a lot of people who have pushed austerity have done so for political, rather than economic, reasons.
The way he voices it is somewhat less cynical than it could have been.
Because while the UK government uses austerity as a political club with which to bludgeon the opposition, it doesn't actually practice it.
The current UK government has comprehensively missed its deficit reduction targets.
After two years of trying austerity, Cameron and Osbourne eventually accepted their policy had failed. They moved to stimulate the housing market as the most ideologically acceptable climbdown for a pair of Conservative right wingers.
Again they promise us lots of pain in the first two ears of the next parliament, followed by an easing up, creating growth in time for the subsequent election.
But now we know even if they did once believe in the silly mantras of Thatcherite economics, experience has taught them how wrong it all is.
Now we know that any cut to social benefits is not for economic, but ideological reasons.
If we vote for them, we will deserve the outcome.
Pity those who will suffer the most for such folly.
Friday 27 March 2015
Evangelising for Israel
I read today that according to Pew, 82% white evangelical Christians in the US believe that Israel was given to the Jews by God. Whereas only 40% of Jews subscribe to this view.
While this may not surprise us, it is an astounding statistic. All the more astounding for how true it rings.
After all to be Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and also to believe that the Jews stand in rejection of him.
To be Evangelical is to believe in an individual duty to preach Jesus to the unconverted.
Apparently, in America, Jewish people have an exemption from evangelism. I can think of a good few people who might want to feign a Jewish background as a result.
This represents a remarkable shift. Jews were routinely persecuted in Europe for several hundred years. Anti Semitism did not stop at the Atlantic's eastern shore, but crossed to the new world. Significant Americans, and significant numbers of ordinary Americans were casually or actively anti Semitic well into the 1970s. The Ku Klux Klan, that barometer of old school racism, peddled hatred of Jews just as easily as hatred of blacks.
But something has changed. If an organisation representing the worst of the extreme right was to be founded today, very likely it would be talking about 'Judeo Christian heritage'. For the right, Jews are no longer part of 'them', rather they are now part of 'us'.
So a Republican candidate, to win the presidential nomination, must seriously love Israel. The question is, will that help them win the election? Like so many hot issues for Republicans in general, and evangelicals in particular, saying what the primary voters want to hear means saying things that ordinary voters think sound insane.
Democracy is a wonderful thing. Grass roots movements like the tea party are amongst the most democratic of all movements. But they are not mainstream. If Republicans don't find a way to get more mainstream candidates past the committed base of Evangelicals, not only will elections be hard to win, but winning them will have consequences. These consequences will be bad news for the Republicans. Governing (if only in part) in the interests of another nation cannot end well. And it must have less than ideal consequences for the US, too. But worst of all, the alliance between the Republican right and Israel is really an alliance between the Republican right and the Israeli right. It isn't even to the benefit of all Israeli Jews.
It seems to me that most educated Americans must know all this. But the train is hurtling down the track and the brakes have failed. No one knows how to stop it.
While this may not surprise us, it is an astounding statistic. All the more astounding for how true it rings.
After all to be Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and also to believe that the Jews stand in rejection of him.
To be Evangelical is to believe in an individual duty to preach Jesus to the unconverted.
Apparently, in America, Jewish people have an exemption from evangelism. I can think of a good few people who might want to feign a Jewish background as a result.
This represents a remarkable shift. Jews were routinely persecuted in Europe for several hundred years. Anti Semitism did not stop at the Atlantic's eastern shore, but crossed to the new world. Significant Americans, and significant numbers of ordinary Americans were casually or actively anti Semitic well into the 1970s. The Ku Klux Klan, that barometer of old school racism, peddled hatred of Jews just as easily as hatred of blacks.
But something has changed. If an organisation representing the worst of the extreme right was to be founded today, very likely it would be talking about 'Judeo Christian heritage'. For the right, Jews are no longer part of 'them', rather they are now part of 'us'.
So a Republican candidate, to win the presidential nomination, must seriously love Israel. The question is, will that help them win the election? Like so many hot issues for Republicans in general, and evangelicals in particular, saying what the primary voters want to hear means saying things that ordinary voters think sound insane.
Democracy is a wonderful thing. Grass roots movements like the tea party are amongst the most democratic of all movements. But they are not mainstream. If Republicans don't find a way to get more mainstream candidates past the committed base of Evangelicals, not only will elections be hard to win, but winning them will have consequences. These consequences will be bad news for the Republicans. Governing (if only in part) in the interests of another nation cannot end well. And it must have less than ideal consequences for the US, too. But worst of all, the alliance between the Republican right and Israel is really an alliance between the Republican right and the Israeli right. It isn't even to the benefit of all Israeli Jews.
It seems to me that most educated Americans must know all this. But the train is hurtling down the track and the brakes have failed. No one knows how to stop it.
Tuesday 17 March 2015
A new consensus. Is it possible?
In the Democratic world, there was an overall political consensus from the 1930s to the 1970s.
This was a left wing consensus.
It was brought about by the depredations of the great depression. Reinforced by the horror at the handiwork of the extreme right, the Nazis. This consensus oversaw the advancement of the state until it took over half the economy or more.
From the mid 70s onward, this consensus collapsed. The weight of over empowered workers, who misdirected the collectivism of unions into a defence of their own, new vested interest. The corruption of an unholy alliance between the liberal left and the authoritarian apologists for the Soviet Union. The discrediting of nominally leftist leaders, such as Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam, or Wilson in Rhodesia. The leftists' had become a new elite. A new version of the establishment.
Therefore forces of the right, while maintaining the banner of conservatism, could offer what seemed a new radical approach to politics. So came the alliance of libertarian free marketeers with social conservatism. The idea that freeing a sector of society to get rich would benefit us all. 'A rising tide lifts all boats'. So a second consensus was formed. This entailed the idea that the state was inherently inefficient and should do as little as possible, that all state action stifled enterprise. That tax was evil, wealth, and particularly wealth 'creators' good. All that was need for progress was freedom for employers, and limits on the freedom of workers to organise. This consensus was reinforced by the fall of the Soviet Union, bringing a clutch of new nations into the orbit of the west, nations that would distrust the left and feel nothing but gratitude to the 'Cold Warriors' of the right.
The economic and banking crisis of the last few years leaves this second consensus as tarnished as the first was 35 years ago.
The second consensus was personified by Reagan and Thatcher. But before either of them took office Menachem Begin won election in Israel in 1977. His election ended thirty years of leftists dominance, thirty years that represented the whole life of the state of Israel.
This leaves me wondering, if the left wins in Israel today, does that signal a new leftist consensus is about to spring into being? From Obamacare in the US to economics trumping security in Israel, all the signs are there.
It is the time of the 99%.
UPDATE----
Or maybe not. Netanyahu won, apparently. Israel views itself as a democracy, it therefore gets the government it deserves. One that rejects peace with its neighbours. That was the change Netanyahu made to win. Israel has declared itself to be more the country not of Netanyahu than Ben Gurion. Let it be judged as such..
This was a left wing consensus.
It was brought about by the depredations of the great depression. Reinforced by the horror at the handiwork of the extreme right, the Nazis. This consensus oversaw the advancement of the state until it took over half the economy or more.
From the mid 70s onward, this consensus collapsed. The weight of over empowered workers, who misdirected the collectivism of unions into a defence of their own, new vested interest. The corruption of an unholy alliance between the liberal left and the authoritarian apologists for the Soviet Union. The discrediting of nominally leftist leaders, such as Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam, or Wilson in Rhodesia. The leftists' had become a new elite. A new version of the establishment.
Therefore forces of the right, while maintaining the banner of conservatism, could offer what seemed a new radical approach to politics. So came the alliance of libertarian free marketeers with social conservatism. The idea that freeing a sector of society to get rich would benefit us all. 'A rising tide lifts all boats'. So a second consensus was formed. This entailed the idea that the state was inherently inefficient and should do as little as possible, that all state action stifled enterprise. That tax was evil, wealth, and particularly wealth 'creators' good. All that was need for progress was freedom for employers, and limits on the freedom of workers to organise. This consensus was reinforced by the fall of the Soviet Union, bringing a clutch of new nations into the orbit of the west, nations that would distrust the left and feel nothing but gratitude to the 'Cold Warriors' of the right.
The economic and banking crisis of the last few years leaves this second consensus as tarnished as the first was 35 years ago.
The second consensus was personified by Reagan and Thatcher. But before either of them took office Menachem Begin won election in Israel in 1977. His election ended thirty years of leftists dominance, thirty years that represented the whole life of the state of Israel.
This leaves me wondering, if the left wins in Israel today, does that signal a new leftist consensus is about to spring into being? From Obamacare in the US to economics trumping security in Israel, all the signs are there.
It is the time of the 99%.
UPDATE----
Or maybe not. Netanyahu won, apparently. Israel views itself as a democracy, it therefore gets the government it deserves. One that rejects peace with its neighbours. That was the change Netanyahu made to win. Israel has declared itself to be more the country not of Netanyahu than Ben Gurion. Let it be judged as such..
Tuesday 10 February 2015
After oil, shale and isolationism
There has been much talk of the decline of US influence. Conservatives & Neo-Cons blame Obama for being indecisive, or weak. Liberals blame the poisonous legacy of George W Bush.
There are probably a gang of centrists somewhere blaming the unique circumstance of one following the other.
One of the reactions to the fallout from US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been 'frack baby frack'. The call for energy independence.
While there are environmental concerns, and green campaigners must despair at the continued reliance on fossil fuel implied, there is a seemingly powerful logic for the US to pursue the shale revolution.
Firstly shale promises to all but eliminate US dependence on the permanently unstable middle east. This is a persuasive argument not just for anyone who favours an isolationist approach to world affairs, but a big slice of Americans who do not want to see their army deployed abroad if at all possible.
Secondly, shale holds out the possibility of a new boom in well paying manual jobs, not just in the actual drilling industry, but also the related supply chain. Manufacturing jobs. This is a vital issue for a whole swathe of Americans. Blue collar people in particular, both Democrats and Tea Partiers
Thirdly, while shale oil and gas are fossil fuels, and there is a risk of groundwater contamination, dependence on coal is inevitably reduced. Exploitation of shale resource will help reduce the US carbon footprint. This may not satisfy people with green issues at the top of their agenda, but it brings many people on side who think Global Warming is an issue, but are somewhat vague on the actual details.
Fourthly, there is a group who may mot think burning fossil fuels is a mortal sin, but still want to preserve what is left of the wilderness, huntsmen, outdoors type people, as well as some environmentalists. They might be happy to avoid drilling up Alaska .Still achieving the goal of relaxing the ban on drilling in the arctic without actually doing so. Namely producing more energy at home.
Fifthly there is the balance of payments.
Last, but by no means least, there is the corporate constituency.
Looking at the list above, the combination of local activists concerned about groundwater combined with people opposed to any extension of fossil fuel dependence were never going to prevail. Perhaps we should take a bit of time to think about that. If poisoning the water supply is not a slamdunk argument, are we inevitably doomed?
Moving swiftly on to the issues that do matter in the society we have built, the arguments for exploitation of shale, both strategic and economic speak of a stronger America.
But what about unintended consequences. Those lamenting declining US influence might wonder what this has to do with shale, but a key plank of global dominance has been the longstanding alliance with Saudi Arabia. Formed at the end of WWII, this alliance is centred on a simple construct, security for oil. Saudi Arabia, coupled with ally Kuwait, acts as a swing producer in the OPEC oil cartel, keeping the price of oil at an acceptable level. In return the US guarantees the security of the Saudis in particular, and the gulf in general.
But the foundation of that deal is now shaking. The invasion of Iraq took place in the face of Saudi opposition. Whatever the intentions o the US, turning a neighbour with whom the Saudis share a border into an Iranian proxy (at best) or even a failed state is not conducive to security, which is the US side of the bargain.
The invasion of Iraq was dubbed as part of the response to the 911 attacks. If it was, it was severely misguided, but it should always be remembered that 15 of the 19 hijackers (not to mention Osama bin Laden himself) were Saudi citizens. So the effect of the Iraq war can be exaggerated, even before then many Saudis were desperately unhappy with the relationship of mutual dependence.
So the US is no longer the guarantor of security it was. If it also no longer needs the oil, the arrangement of 'security for oil' looks dead in the water.
Not everyone will lament the end of that arrangement. But the Middle East remains a massively important strategic location. It is not Obama's perceived 'weakness' which adds to the perceived 'incompetence' of George W Bush, but the indisputable fact that the US is no longer the biggest customer.
The gulf Arabs have been trading for centuries, if not millennia. America's capitalists surely must understand the importance of not offending your biggest customer. Nowadays that means don't mess with China.
The flip side of America's new found energy independence is a loss of influence in the Middle East. You will find rentaquote Neo Cons lamenting Obama's weakness on the one hand while calling for energy independence on the other. They won't tell you that energy independence might be a cause of declining US influence.
The real question for America is 'Does it really matter?'. What is US influence in the Middle East for, if not to guarantee oil supply? Is the focus of world trade moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Whatever the political class may think, or pundits tell you, most citizens of the US would swap any amount of world influence for a return to the days of steadily rising incomes.
Perhaps the effects will be felt more in the Middle East than in America. In the Gulf, in Egypt, perhaps even in Israel.
There are probably a gang of centrists somewhere blaming the unique circumstance of one following the other.
One of the reactions to the fallout from US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been 'frack baby frack'. The call for energy independence.
While there are environmental concerns, and green campaigners must despair at the continued reliance on fossil fuel implied, there is a seemingly powerful logic for the US to pursue the shale revolution.
Firstly shale promises to all but eliminate US dependence on the permanently unstable middle east. This is a persuasive argument not just for anyone who favours an isolationist approach to world affairs, but a big slice of Americans who do not want to see their army deployed abroad if at all possible.
Secondly, shale holds out the possibility of a new boom in well paying manual jobs, not just in the actual drilling industry, but also the related supply chain. Manufacturing jobs. This is a vital issue for a whole swathe of Americans. Blue collar people in particular, both Democrats and Tea Partiers
Thirdly, while shale oil and gas are fossil fuels, and there is a risk of groundwater contamination, dependence on coal is inevitably reduced. Exploitation of shale resource will help reduce the US carbon footprint. This may not satisfy people with green issues at the top of their agenda, but it brings many people on side who think Global Warming is an issue, but are somewhat vague on the actual details.
Fourthly, there is a group who may mot think burning fossil fuels is a mortal sin, but still want to preserve what is left of the wilderness, huntsmen, outdoors type people, as well as some environmentalists. They might be happy to avoid drilling up Alaska .Still achieving the goal of relaxing the ban on drilling in the arctic without actually doing so. Namely producing more energy at home.
Fifthly there is the balance of payments.
Last, but by no means least, there is the corporate constituency.
Looking at the list above, the combination of local activists concerned about groundwater combined with people opposed to any extension of fossil fuel dependence were never going to prevail. Perhaps we should take a bit of time to think about that. If poisoning the water supply is not a slamdunk argument, are we inevitably doomed?
Moving swiftly on to the issues that do matter in the society we have built, the arguments for exploitation of shale, both strategic and economic speak of a stronger America.
But what about unintended consequences. Those lamenting declining US influence might wonder what this has to do with shale, but a key plank of global dominance has been the longstanding alliance with Saudi Arabia. Formed at the end of WWII, this alliance is centred on a simple construct, security for oil. Saudi Arabia, coupled with ally Kuwait, acts as a swing producer in the OPEC oil cartel, keeping the price of oil at an acceptable level. In return the US guarantees the security of the Saudis in particular, and the gulf in general.
But the foundation of that deal is now shaking. The invasion of Iraq took place in the face of Saudi opposition. Whatever the intentions o the US, turning a neighbour with whom the Saudis share a border into an Iranian proxy (at best) or even a failed state is not conducive to security, which is the US side of the bargain.
The invasion of Iraq was dubbed as part of the response to the 911 attacks. If it was, it was severely misguided, but it should always be remembered that 15 of the 19 hijackers (not to mention Osama bin Laden himself) were Saudi citizens. So the effect of the Iraq war can be exaggerated, even before then many Saudis were desperately unhappy with the relationship of mutual dependence.
So the US is no longer the guarantor of security it was. If it also no longer needs the oil, the arrangement of 'security for oil' looks dead in the water.
Not everyone will lament the end of that arrangement. But the Middle East remains a massively important strategic location. It is not Obama's perceived 'weakness' which adds to the perceived 'incompetence' of George W Bush, but the indisputable fact that the US is no longer the biggest customer.
The gulf Arabs have been trading for centuries, if not millennia. America's capitalists surely must understand the importance of not offending your biggest customer. Nowadays that means don't mess with China.
The flip side of America's new found energy independence is a loss of influence in the Middle East. You will find rentaquote Neo Cons lamenting Obama's weakness on the one hand while calling for energy independence on the other. They won't tell you that energy independence might be a cause of declining US influence.
The real question for America is 'Does it really matter?'. What is US influence in the Middle East for, if not to guarantee oil supply? Is the focus of world trade moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Whatever the political class may think, or pundits tell you, most citizens of the US would swap any amount of world influence for a return to the days of steadily rising incomes.
Perhaps the effects will be felt more in the Middle East than in America. In the Gulf, in Egypt, perhaps even in Israel.
Ukraine, war or appeasement?
The Western world looks at Ukraine like a slow motion train crash.
Here is a country in Europe on the borders of the EU being slowly dismembered.
We do nothing.
Problem is, what can we do? The options are pretty simple.
We do nothing, and hope that Putin's Russia will then be, in the words of Bismarck, a 'satiated power'.
We tool up for war, knowing this will be a confrontation between Russia and the West.
We keep on talking, indulging in a game of bluff. Pretending that we will actually do something.
All of the above include the ever present, nearly always ineffectual, economic sanctions.
Almost everyone thinks that nothing is unacceptable. And I can understand why. Appeasement does not have a good track record anywhere, let alone central Europe. But is the 'do nothing' option really appeasement? I'm not so sure. Appeasement generally involves a lot of talking. Plenty of diplomacy, and the crafting of an agreement which reflects whatever facts on the ground an aggressor has created.
It is really the third option that is appeasement.
In the final analysis there is only one question. Are we prepared to send our sons and daughters to die in the name of Ukrainian freedom? It is a stark question because we face a stark choice: the alternative to doing nothing is to fight.
For me the answer is no. I am not prepared to die for Ukrainian freedom. Nor to send my children to.
It appears that Russian is prepared to sacrifice her children in this fight. There is no amount of diplomacy, sanctions, negotiations, agreements which can bridge this gap.
We can acquiesce with words of condemnation. It may seem weak, but it is at least honest. Endless rounds of talks to legitimise a limited annexation of Crimea, Donbas, Mariupol etc. that is what appeasement looks like. That is what Chamberlain did in Munich.
All the talk of agreements and ceasefires in Minsk. All our threats of arming Ukraine, committing ourselves to Ukrainian freedom, unless we are prepared to sacrifice our children, it is nothing but a game of bluff.
Sometime great poker players can win a game of bluff. Perhaps Merkel or Obama fit that mould. But no one, however great a player, can truly win a game of bluff when the other side is for real.
I really don't think Mr Putin is bluffing. Everything he has done so far is a bit more extreme than we Westerners expected. He really does mean to recapture a slice of his near abroad.
We may not be prepared to intervene to stop him, but neither should we legitimise that with an agreement in exchange for a commitment to stop at some new, arbitrary border.
Here is a country in Europe on the borders of the EU being slowly dismembered.
We do nothing.
Problem is, what can we do? The options are pretty simple.
We do nothing, and hope that Putin's Russia will then be, in the words of Bismarck, a 'satiated power'.
We tool up for war, knowing this will be a confrontation between Russia and the West.
We keep on talking, indulging in a game of bluff. Pretending that we will actually do something.
All of the above include the ever present, nearly always ineffectual, economic sanctions.
Almost everyone thinks that nothing is unacceptable. And I can understand why. Appeasement does not have a good track record anywhere, let alone central Europe. But is the 'do nothing' option really appeasement? I'm not so sure. Appeasement generally involves a lot of talking. Plenty of diplomacy, and the crafting of an agreement which reflects whatever facts on the ground an aggressor has created.
It is really the third option that is appeasement.
In the final analysis there is only one question. Are we prepared to send our sons and daughters to die in the name of Ukrainian freedom? It is a stark question because we face a stark choice: the alternative to doing nothing is to fight.
For me the answer is no. I am not prepared to die for Ukrainian freedom. Nor to send my children to.
It appears that Russian is prepared to sacrifice her children in this fight. There is no amount of diplomacy, sanctions, negotiations, agreements which can bridge this gap.
We can acquiesce with words of condemnation. It may seem weak, but it is at least honest. Endless rounds of talks to legitimise a limited annexation of Crimea, Donbas, Mariupol etc. that is what appeasement looks like. That is what Chamberlain did in Munich.
All the talk of agreements and ceasefires in Minsk. All our threats of arming Ukraine, committing ourselves to Ukrainian freedom, unless we are prepared to sacrifice our children, it is nothing but a game of bluff.
Sometime great poker players can win a game of bluff. Perhaps Merkel or Obama fit that mould. But no one, however great a player, can truly win a game of bluff when the other side is for real.
I really don't think Mr Putin is bluffing. Everything he has done so far is a bit more extreme than we Westerners expected. He really does mean to recapture a slice of his near abroad.
We may not be prepared to intervene to stop him, but neither should we legitimise that with an agreement in exchange for a commitment to stop at some new, arbitrary border.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)