Thursday, March 27, 2003

Balkanization in the Middle East.

A really perceptive piece by Stanley Kober appeared on the Fox News website today. As I believe his warnings to be extremely important in this case, I will quote the article almost in its entirety:

This transformation is designed, in part, to facilitate resolution of the conflict with Israel. "Old patterns of conflict in the Middle East can be broken, if all concerned will let go of bitterness, hatred, and violence, and get on with the serious work of economic development, and political reform, and reconciliation," President Bush declared on February 26. "America will seize every opportunity in pursuit of peace. And the end of the present regime in Iraq would create such an opportunity."

This is a daring vision, and even its proponents compare it to the remaking of the world after World War II when the United States transformed Germany and Japan. By invoking these precedents, the administration and its supporters are not only demonstrating the possibility of such transformation; they are also emphasizing its difficulty. Yet history does not repeat itself exactly, and the differences between the two situations must be scrutinized.

One difference in particular stands out: the attachment to land. Reconciliation between the United States and its defeated enemies after World War II was possible because the U.S. did not covet their land. To be sure, the United States does not covet the territory of Iraq or any other Arab country. But if there is to be reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians, the emotional issue of the land has to be resolved, because each side believes it has an entitlement to the same land.

For the Israelis, this right is rooted in a Biblical legacy. When asked about the occupied territories, Daniel Ayalon, a former advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and now the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, replied that "this land was given to us by God. The lands you refer to are the birthplace of the nation of Israel. This is where our nation was built over 4,000 years, therefore we are not occupiers." Some prominent American supporters of Israel have echoed this view. "Our claim to the land -- to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble," argues a report prepared in 1996 by a study team headed by Richard Perle, now the head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. "Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, 'peace for peace,' is a solid basis for the future."

For the Palestinians, their right to the land is rooted in the right of return, which they have been promised by their leaders, and which is enshrined in U.N. Resolution 194 (December 1948). To be sure, the U.N. Resolution is not binding and is open to interpretation, and Palestinian negotiators have reassured their Israeli counterparts that any right of return would have to be limited so as not to alter the demographic balance within Israel. The problem, however, is that for the Palestinian people the right of return is just that -- a right, not a privilege -- and therefore it is not to be compromised. When Dr. Sari Nusseibeh, the PLO representative in Jerusalem (until December 2002), recently visited a Palestinian university to explain the need for compromising the right of return, the students denounced him as a traitor and he was forced to leave. The students' sentiments appear to be shared even by members of the Palestinian diaspora who have integrated into Western societies. "Men like Nusseibeh offer a solution without justice," writes Jaffer Ali, a Palestinian-American, in the Jordan Times. "Palestinians must reject this cold world that prizes expediency over human rights."

Thus, just as the Jews who returned to Israel after centuries of dispersion felt they had a right to the land, so do the Palestinians. Indeed, the language of rights, which underpins our understanding of civil society in a democracy, is also the language of war. When the American Founders declared independence, it was to protect their fundamental rights, which they believed the British had violated. Once people talk about their rights, they are no longer talking about political compromise. A right must be guaranteed in full, or it is not truly a right. Even the willingness to receive compensation in exchange for surrendering a birthright is depicted in the Biblical story of Esau as dishonorable.

The United States will encounter many problems in the aftermath of the Iraq war. It should be under no illusion that bringing democracy to the Middle East will, by itself, change the conviction of people regarding the sanctity of their fundamental rights. And so long as the conflict involves a confrontation of irreconcilable rights, it is bound to endure.

In 1913, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace prepared a report on the Balkan Wars that preceded the First World War. The report declared, in part, "War is waged not only by the armies but by the nations themselves...[t]he populations mutually slaughtered and pursued with a ferocity heightened by mutual knowledge and the old hatreds and resentments they cherished." The presence of American peacekeepers in the Balkans almost a century later provides a warning of the degree of commitment the United States might be assuming as it prepares to remake the Middle East.

I am inclined to see greater precendent for the current Iraq "libertation" in Clinton's "liberation" of the Balkans, instead of the more historically-flaccid World War II comparison. Is Kosovo now a good example of stable regime-change?

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

The plastic purviews of postcommunist politics.

Martin Simecka's essay, "The Havel Paradox", mediates the dry ground between the politics of dissent and the purloins of modern pragmatism.

Simecka decribes the November 2002 NATO Summit in Prague, or what he calls "The Havel Paradox"-- "In an effort to take back what the last century of war had stolen, the former prisoner of the Communist regime had invited to Prague the elite of Western civilization for the NATO summit." This suma was supposed to resolve the ancient European questions about borders and Europeaness; no longer would Central, Eastern, or Southeastern Europe function as primary descriptions of the postcommunist states. We are all Europeans now. Or so it is supposed.

Simecka's perspective is particularly interesting given his hallowed status as a political dissident under communism.

Martin Simecka was born in 1957. Like his father Milan Simecka, a leading Czechoslovak dissident, he was unable to publish his writing under the communist regime. In the 1990s his novel The Year of the Frog was translated into several languages and won a number of awards. Since 1999 Martin Simecka has been editor in chief of the Bratislava daily SME.

Coming from a receding hairline of postcommunist intellectual nobility--the only nobility worth mentioning in Europe-- Simecka's skepticism remains his trademark, the kiss of dissent. He even offers a "cast of characters" at the end of this essay, a final touch which makes even the most genuine remarks therein seem plastic. While the characters of the "NATO mafia" summit might appear like the new, postcommunist plastic people of the universe, let me remind you that plasticity is much more popular in democracies than it ever was under communist systems. Is Havel's beautiful theatre going corporate? Has art lost its bearing to truth in its effort to sell? And what better arena for practice than politics?

Simecka concludes:

All of us agreed that the summit--including the Last Supper-- was magnificent. Who knows? Maybe our world will be a bit safer, though the conference gave the most vague of answers to the questions of the nature, boundaries, and defense of Western civilization. Even Slovakia can join this world, if it doesn't turn into a frog again.

But something will definitely change for the worse. The world of politics will be devoid of poetry, and of the desire to purify the soul after Czech President Vaclav Havel and his paradox are gone.

It behooves a life lived in truth to admit that living postcommunist politics requires an ample bit of practice at PR, political prenups, and posh tomfoolery. Unfortunately, we must ask ourselves what we lose to gain such wonderful velvet-roped paths. The price, I fear, compromises more than the scenery.

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

To send or not to send.

The US Postal Service just issued guidelines for what we should send to troops in the Middle East. The bottom line? No porn or pork. Easy enough.

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

A song to avoid right now-- "We Are the Champions" by Queen.

My sympathy for American servicefolk led me to pen a short note this morning. Operation Dear Abby allows you to send a message of support to American troops in the Middle East. Regardless of your opinions about Bush, many of these young men and women did not decide to wage this war-- they are merely following orders. There is no need to speak of a Nuremberg defense here, as clearly the situations are not even comparable.

That said, I really resent the constant WWII analogies. Bush is not Hitler. Saddam is not Hitler. Stop trivializing Hitler's monstrosity by even invoking such historically-irresponsible comparisons.

Monday, March 24, 2003

Why I am never bored-- A variation on a Thank-you to my funny valentine.

Thanks to my "Valentine at large", I now know that Charles Bukowski believed "only the boring get bored". I wholeheartedly agree with Buskowski on this-- there is nothing more stupifying or dull than those who are continuously bored. Granted, the "never-bored" might indulge in activities considered, well, just plain boring to ladies and gents who need a constant barrage of ever-novel stimulation. So I provide you with a list of some of the mindless, lazy, or just plain antisocial activities with which I have amused myself over the course of the last 24 hours....

1. Played Text Twist.
2. Attempted to boost my memory, which, for some strange reason, has been geriatric lately.
3. Read a few essays in the latest issue of Parabola.
4. Did Pilates on the back porch with my Honey, my chien andalusian in mind, though not in body.
5. Worked on a literary project for a NYC friend.
6. Spent 2 hours online searching for cheap flights to Bucuresti, Romania.

OK, OK, so maybe loner is a better way to describe people like me who are never bored.

Monday, March 24, 2003

Democracy in America.

I just discovered my new favorite website of the week, thanks to a Denny Henke. The site is devoted to Regime-Change in the USA. Did I mention how very much the idea thrills me? Did I mention how much I appreciate the unascribed quotation in Henke's email?

"If the freedom so many generations have fought and died for is best exemplified by a man in a voting booth, who checks a box on the ballot before returning to work in an environment no more under his control than it was an hour before, then the heritage our emancipating forefathers and suffragette grandmothers have left us is nothing but a sham substitute for the true liberty they lusted after."

Monday, March 24, 2003

Lay Your Sleeping Head, My Love by W.H. Auden.

Lay your sleeping head, my love,
Human on my faithless arm;
Time and fevers burn away
Individual beauty from
Thoughtful children, and the grave
Proves the child ephermeral:
But in my arms till break of day
Let the living creature lie,
Mortal, guilty, but to me
The entirely beautiful.

Soul and body have no bounds:
To lovers as they lie upon
Her tolerant enchanted slope
In their ordinary swoon,
Grave the vision Venus sends
Of supernatural sympathy,
Universal love and hope;
While an abstract insight wakes
Among the glaciers and the rocks
The hermit's sensual ecstasy.

Certainty, fidelity
On the stroke of midnight pass
Like vibrations of a bell,
And fashionable madmen raise
Their pedantic boring cry:
Every farthing of the cost,
All the dreadful cards foretell,
Shall be paid, but not from this night
Not a whisper, not a thought,
Not a kiss nor look be lost.

Beauty, midnight, vision dies:
Let the winds of dawn that blow
Softly round your dreaming head
Such a day of sweetness show
Eye and knocking heart may bless.
Find the mortal world enough;
Noons of dryness see you fed
By the involuntary powers,
Nights of insult let you pass
Watched by every human love.

Monday, March 24, 2003

Beyond the agitprop.

This is what war looks like. As you can see, Rumsfeld's "precision" is truly "humane"-- especially the photo of the young boy. Not only am I shocked and awed, but I am deeply disgusted, saddened, and disgraced.

Monday, March 24, 2003

A thump on the head.

This is for some of my utopian-minded compadres who were cocksure about how grateful the Iraqi people might be to find themselves liberated from the constraints of house, hearth, home, family, community, and Saddam. War is nasty, guys. Stop finding excuses.

Monday, March 24, 2003

You know it's bad when only The Moscow Times will publish this.

John Brown explains why he decided to quit the US foreign service, and then being shocked and awed by last week's "shock and awe" campaign.

My doubts about the president's policy began in earnest in the fall of last year. A Sept. 7 New York Times article, "Bush Aides Set Strategy to Sell Policy on Iraq," drew my special attention. In it, White House chief of staff Andrew Card Jr. said the administration waited until after Labor Day to kick off its plans to persuade the public of the necessity of war against Iraq because "from a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in August." The idea of war as a product to be sold appalled me.

Subsequent readings of press and government statements did not convince me of the administration's arguments for war.

Indeed, I felt they were not coherent arguments at all, but base propaganda. The crudest propagandistic techniques were in evidence: the constant repetition of words and slogans (ranging from "regime change" to "liberating the Iraqi people") without making an intellectually valid case; the demonization of opponents of the war, from Baghdad to Paris, rather than a solid refutation of their views; the appeal to atavistic emotions such as fear of outsiders and shadowy enemies instead of the use of consistent logic and clear reason.

It was clear to me that this vulgar propaganda was directed not only to the world, but to Americans as well.

The eloquent Feb. 27 resignation letter of my foreign service colleague John Brady Kiesling (whom I'd never met) made a strong impression. "The policies we are now asked to advance," he wrote, "are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson."

The president's press conference on March 6 was the straw that broke the camel's back. Speaking to a docile press in a faux imperial White House setting, red carpet and all, his scripted performance was a disastrous effort to explain why the United States should be ready to attack Iraq at this time. Tom Shales, the intelligent TV commentator for The Washington Post, wondered if the president "may have been ever so slightly medicated."

After the press conference I could not see myself continuing with the State Department, knowing that I had done nothing against a stupid war. I sat in front of my computer for many hours to write a resignation letter. By Monday, March 10, I had had enough of staring at draft after draft on the monitor. I realized that if I didn't send the resignation letter I'd never be able to get down to serious work.

Brown includes a copy of his letter of resignation in his essay. Certainly worth taking the time to read.

Monday, March 24, 2003

Slovenians support EU and NATO membership.

According to The New York Times, Slovenes voted overwhelmingly today to join the European Union and gave strong support to membership in NATO in twin referendums. The strate-gery continues.

Monday, March 24, 2003

In the Balkans, one can never be too disarmed.

According to an IWPR report by Aleksandar Radic, Bojan Dimitrijevic and Vladimir Jesic, authorities in Belgrade fear that members of the notorious "Red Beret" unit will rally behind ex-commandersuspected of Djindjic assassination. The report warns:

Yugoslav army MIG 21 jets have been buzzing over the headquarters of the Special Operations Unit, JSO, known as the Red Berets, in the north Serbian town of Kula for several days now.

The Stolc compound at the edge of the town, 150 km north of Belgrade, is the base of a once-feared unit, which Serbia's edgy authorities now regard with the deepest suspicion as a centre of potential revolt.

Kula has become a centre of speculation, which has focused on whether members of the special unit might rise in support of their ex-commander Milorad "Legija" Lukovic, the man the government believes is implicated in the assassination of the Serbian prime minister, Zoran Djindjic.

There is no obvious sign that military or police forces are mustering for armed action here. In this town of 20,000 inhabitants, life goes on as normal. The Stolc compound also appears relaxed. Supply vehicles and fuel tanks trundle in and out of the HQ and at one point around 30 Red Berets were seen leaving in civilian vehicles, hiding their faces from photographers and cameramen.

But they have been banned from leaving the base with their equipment and military vehicles ever since the murder of the premier on March 12, according sources in the army and police, the latter controlling all the roads leading to Kula.

The authorities clearly fear that these battle-hardened war veterans might stage a coup in support of their former commander, now one of the leading figures in the Zemun gang that the authorities hold responsible for Djindjic's murder, as well as other killings.

Do all roads lead to Kosovo, with the Kula route providing just another detour?

Monday, March 24, 2003

In honor of Adrian Brody's Oscar...

I predicted this one. I'm glad to see that the old Hollywood fatcats and I share one taste in common. Voila Brody with The Pianist director Roman Polanski.



And here is Brody brooding. What is it about men that brood? Perhaps the possibility that they might appreciate females that brood?

Monday, March 24, 2003

'Tis the season for great folly.



Albert Einstein described marriage as follows:

"Marriage is the unsuccesful attempt to make something lasting out of an incident."

Monday, March 24, 2003

An American officer comments on a battle in Iraq.

"It wasn't even a fair fight. I don't know why they don't just surrender," said Col. Mark Hildenbrand, commander of the 937th Engineer Group. "When you're playing soccer at home, 3-2 is a fair score, but here it's more like 119-0."

Monday, March 24, 2003

What it takes.

Watch our President getting his hair coiffed if you feel that dread war skepticism creeping back.

Friday, March 21, 2003

Just a thought.

Sometimes I think graphically with a little help from my friends at The Economist.

Friday, March 21, 2003

If you're going to San Francisco...

Be sure to add a few baby-wipes to that famed flower-in-your-hair. Apparently, San Franciscans decided to stage a "vomit-in" as a means of protest. What better way to attract all the Hollywood youngsters and wannabe bulimics?

Friday, March 21, 2003

Debates on the legality of war.

The Foreign Policy Association's newsletter held a few articles of interest this week. Especially titillating-- an article by Robert Nolan comparing various legal arguments surrounding this new type of preemptive war.

As bombs fall over Baghdad, international lawyers and politicians seeking to justify or undermine the American- led attack on Iraq continue to debate the legality of the second Gulf War. The United Nations Charter, along with numerous Security Council resolutions passed from 1990 through 2002, provide legal experts on both sides of the debate with the ability to present their cases convincingly. According to Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and president of the American Society of International Law, the Bush administration has embarked on a course that could be called "illegal but legitimate." In avoiding another Security Council vote and relying instead on existing resolutions, says Slaughter, "both sides can claim to have the better of the argument over how best to disarm Iraq."....

International lawyers who challenge the Bush administration's actions in Iraq claim that it has not met either of these requirements. "Either you are acting in self-defense or you are acting under the authorization of the Security Council," said Sean Murphy, an international law professor at George Washington University, in a United Press International report. Restoring "international peace and security", say experts who dispute the legality of the war, can only take place with the explicit approval of the Security Council – an authorization process that the U.S. has largely forgone.

Lawyers from the Bush administration and others familiar with international law, however, claim that the war in Iraq is justified under article 51, which authorizes the use of force for self-defense. President Bush himself has invoked the UN Charter as justification for American military action, to the surprise of many who doubt the administration's commitment to international law. In his speech Monday, President Bush invoked the nation's "sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," claiming that "terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal their threats with fair notice in formal declarations." According to the Boston Globe, "That statement seemed to echo existing calls to interpret the UN Charter less like a statute and more like a constitution, allowing its mandates to be interpreted to adopt to changed circumstances."

This topic continues to fascinate me as the most unlawful human practice, namely war, continuously intersects with the international laws of sovereignty and human rights in what can only be described as amazing ways. If you ever feel like discussing this topic, you know who to seek.

Friday, March 21, 2003

"Oh, the humanity."

Friday, March 21, 2003

The pulse of a nation at war.

While folks in New Jersey ponder the significance of a "red alert", Californians express their recalcitrance about the Bush administration's war on Iraq.

In a Pentagon press briefing today, Rumsfeld reminded worried Americans about the unbelievable "humanity" of the precision-guided bombs in what has been deemed the largest-scale bombing campaign in modern military history.

CASTIGAT RIDENDO MORES.

SEARCH TOTALITARIANISM TODAY SEARCH THE WEB