Category Archives: May You Live In Interesting Times

Shaming Russia

“How can people go sit at a table with a regime that bombs hospitals and drops chlorine gas again and again and again and again and again and again, and acts with impunity? Are you supposed to sit there and have happy talk in Geneva under those circumstances when you’ve signed up to a ceasefire and you don’t adhere to it? What kind of credibility do you have with any of your people?”

–John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State, at the United Nations during talks on Syria

The recent talks followed air strikes which killed workers attempting to bring relief supplies to besieged Syrian civilians, despite an agreed upon ceasefire. The United States has blamed Russia, either for the strikes or allowing their Syrian allies to carry them out.

John Kerry is a diplomat’s diplomat. He continually remains civil and courteous even to those who must frustrate him to the point of insanity. This time, however, he could not contain his anger.

Until now, he’s managed civil negotiations with Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. He wants Lavrov and his country, in the interests of simple humanity, to reign in their protegé, Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s leader. Assad has committed atrocities against his people surely surpassing Russia’s own Ivan the Terrible.

Russians support Assad because they wish to retain their airbase and Mediterranean port in Syria. What to do?

Considering what happened when U.S. troops invaded Iraq, few Americans wish to commit their troops to Syria. The United Nations is hamstrung from acting because of Russia’s veto in the Security Council.

One suggestion is for American planes to bomb Syria’s airfields, preventing planes from using them to bomb civilians. Such actions are an act of war against a country not directly harming us.

Perhaps the heroes are those who come back, yes, again and again to seek a solution. If the atrocities committed in that small country continue, they refuse to allow the world to forget. Let the shaming continue.

The Call to Be Pro-Truthers

The Economist (September 10, 2016) noted that politicians have always lied, but current trends suggest that in today’s world, truth has been left behind entirely. We see it in political campaigns, not only in the United States but in other democracies, as in Britain during the vote to leave or stay in the European Union.

We see it also in misinformation deliberately fed into the internet, as Russia has been accused of doing in feeding falsehoods to the world through social media.

One reason for the influence of false information, suggested by The Economist, is “magical thinking.” In a time of terrorism, new diseases, and other threats not easily controlled, people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. For some of us, they provide neat answers to complex questions. An unsubstantiated speculation “feels” right, whether or not it’s backed up with facts.

Another reason for the prevalence of falsehood is how we now choose to receive our news. Social media is helpful in putting more information at our fingertips, but little of it classifies as investigative reporting. It does have the ability to spread unsubstantiated rumor as the truth to millions in seconds.

What can be done? Checking a rumor with a reputable fact finding site is helpful. However, until we practice the hard discipline of reading more from reputable sources (online or in print), democracy will be threatened by demagogues and hucksters out for their own gain.

Sicily, Early 2000’s, Before the Trickle of Boat People Became a Wave

Before the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, I wandered through a market place in Sicily, the Mediterranean island nestled off the coast of Italy. A few of the sellers appeared to be recent immigrants from sub Saharan Africa and stood out in that European culture.

Years before, I listened to a speaker in a U.S. State Department seminar. He warned of huge pressures building in African and Near Eastern communities. Europe, he said, would experience a wave of boat people surpassing all previous population movements.

The speaker was correct. In Sicily, I had witnessed the beginnings of those waves of immigrants. The subject of immigration has now roiled the electorate on both sides of the Atlantic.

The United States was built by immigrants, from the first settlers in Jamestown and Plymouth to today’s immigrant harvesters in our orchards and our knowledge workers at Microsoft and Intel. We have depended on immigrants and continue to do so.

With a culture of immigration, the United States has proved a better integrator of immigrants into society than has Europe. It has reaped the rewards of new entrepreneurs and vibrant communities.

Any nation must allow an honest discussion about effects of an overwhelming tide of newcomers. Yet, compassion for the vast majority who flee from awful brutality, who are themselves the targets of terrorism, compels us to develop humane policies.

We can work with all countries where desperate people seek refuge. Some nations like Jordan, one of our allies in the Middle East, cope with refugee numbers massively out of proportion to their small native populations.

Europe and the United States also must own the colonialism and the oil wars that contributed to the economic hardship and brutality that have sent so many men, women, and children fleeing.

If the Nation Goes to War, Everybody Goes to War

The draft for service in the United States military ended in 1973. Since then, the nation has relied on a volunteer force, despite fighting the longest war in U.S. history, the double Afghan/Iraq conflicts. U.S. military personnel were severely strained, leading to damaging multiple tours of duty for a tiny minority of Americans.

“By rescinding their prior acceptance of conscription, the American people effectively opted out of war . . .” Andrew J. Bacevich wrote in Foreign Affairs (“Ending Endless War,” September/October 2016). The shortcomings of this policy are, he said, “glaringly apparent.”

Less than half a percent of Americans serve combat tours, while the vast majority of Americans attend to shopping and lives as usual. They didn’t even push Congress to roll back the tax cuts of the early 2000’s, greatly reducing our ability to pay for the Afghan/Iraq conflicts.

Usually, when the nation fights a war, citizens at least share the burden by paying more taxes to support the efforts, but not in this case. Obviously, such irresponsibility greatly increases our national debt, leaving less money for everything from building roads to research into conquering new diseases like the Ebola and Zika viruses.

From now on, Bacevich said, we should use military force only as a last resort. The American people should be fully engaged in supporting it, not just a few uniformed personnel. Allies should do their part for their own security.

He recommends several steps to remedy the unequal sacrifice of those who serve. One is a requirement that American citizens pay for wars in which they send their soldiers to die. Another is a military reserve that mirrors American society in “race, gender, region, and, above all, class.”

If we all share the sacrifice of military action, we might use it more wisely.

America’s Gift to Exiles

The country of Turkey, a NATO ally, has issued an extradition order to the United States for Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish national living in Pennsylvania.

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, recently put down a coup attempt by Turkish military officers to overthrow him. Europe and the United States condemned the coup, an attempt against a democratically elected leader.

In 1999, Gulen broke with Erdogan in an apparent power struggle and took refuge in the United States. Many Turks, including Erdogan, believe the coup was masterminded by Gulen. They want him brought back to Turkey for trial.

Some have deplored the harshness with which Erdogan is dealing with suspects in the coup plot, suggesting Erdogan is using the coup as a means to consolidate power, even become a dictator. They also wonder if Gulen could receive a fair trail in Turkey, if he is indeed guilty of the charges. Is Erdogan merely using his current popularity for putting down the coup as a way to get rid of an old antagonist?

The United States says it is considering the extradition request and has asked for absolute proof that Gulen is indeed guilty. He says he had nothing to do with the coup.

This is not the first time dissidents have sought refuge in the United States. More recently, Yu Jie, a Chinese dissident, settled with his wife and son in Washington, D.C. to continue his writing. Yu Jie, a Christian, writing in First Things (August/September, 2016), cites Christianity’s growth in China and predicts that “Christianity is China’s future.” This is probably not the future desired by current Chinese leaders.

Gullen’s fate is still to be decided as of this writing. Has he been guilty of aid to a coup against a democracy? Or is he one of a long line of persecuted dissidents the country has taken in, from religious nonconformists to political exiles?

City Street Lights and Brexit

Our small town plans to replace the city’s street lamps with bulbs that last longer and use less electricity. One type of light is being considered, but residents in some cities with these lights have criticized the emission from the bulbs as “too harsh.” Thus, one such light was installed on a corner for residents to examine its effects and decide if they want them all over town.

Since we’re little more than six square blocks, most residents can easily walk over after dark and check it out. They are then invited to email the mayor with their observations. A yes or no decision suits this kind of situation.

Not so with Brexit, the vote by the British to leave the European Union. The European Union was formed over several decades following World War II. The goal was the formation of a closer union to avoid more war and brutality between the nations of Europe, especially between Germany and France. Anybody who has read The Nightingale by Kristin Hannah or All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr understands the tragedies of those wars.

Few deny that the European Union has made mistakes, including, some say, the creation of a single currency before adequate institutions were built to manage it. Others cite mistakes in handling the mass migration into Europe from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

Nevertheless, critics of the Brexit referendum complain about a complex question being put to a yes or no vote. Such a contest pushes citizens into warring camps, leading to sensational claims and unfounded accusations. It may have contributed to the death of a member of the British parliament, perhaps by a mentally deranged man, too easily angered.

Issues like immigration or job growth differ from decisions about street lights. The answer normally is not a simple solution, but perhaps a compromise between several ideas. Labeling and name calling those with whom you disagree is best avoided. The dream of one right answer is a delusion.

It’s Okay to Disagree

Fifty-one diplomats within the U.S. State Department recently signed a document dissenting from the current U.S. policy on Syria. They wish a more activist policy against Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s leader. They believe the U.S. should do more to stop Assad’s brutal treatment of his civilian population by barrel bombs and other atrocities.

The dissent channel of the State Department allows any diplomat to disagree with a current U.S. foreign policy. Retaliation to the dissenter’s career is forbidden.

The dissent channel was established in the 1970’s during the Vietnamese conflict to allow challenges to official policy. The idea is that dissent is not a weakness in a democracy but a strength: all views should be aired. No one person has all knowledge or wisdom. We benefit when different opinions can be expressed, whether we agree or disagree with the dissenter.

In the midst of all our self-criticism, we can be proud that underlings are encouraged to speak their views and not suffer retaliation.

Once More With Hatred

After a gunman killed forty-nine people in Orlando, Florida, Jen Christensen wrote an article for CNN (June 12, 2016). According to Christensen, the United States has five percent of the world’s population, while about thirty-one percent of the mass shootings occur in the U.S.

No one reason appears a motive for a mass killing. Mental illness is sometimes involved. Terrorism is a motive at other times. Racial hatred also has been a factor. The shooting in Orlando took place in a gay bar, and the gunman is reported to have expressed anti gay feelings.

Christensen listed several differences between U.S. shootings and others worldwide. In the U.S., they more frequently happen at work or school, versus near military installations in other places.

The U.S. shooter is more likely to have more than one firearm, but the global shooter usually has only one.

Of course, with news focused on mass events, we forget how many people are killed in less publicized shootings. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2013, deaths from firearms in the United States stood at 33,636.

Aware in Saudi Arabia, Clueless in America

In Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in 1992, those of us working at the U.S. consulate watched via television with Saudi citizens as Bill Clinton defeated George H. W. Bush for the presidency. Many U.S. embassies and consulates around the world provide space for local citizens to watch results of major U.S. elections.

The elder Bush, father of later President George W. Bush, was popular in Saudi Arabia, having led a coalition of countries to free neighboring Kuwait in 1991 after Iraq’s conquest of the country and threat to Saudi Arabia. Saudis were disappointed at George H.W. Bush’s defeat. At least one Saudi remarked that the world ought to get a vote in U.S. presidential elections since the U.S. plays an influential role in world affairs.

Citizens of many countries follow the progress of U.S. presidential elections. On the other hand, many Americans appear clueless about events in the rest of the world.

Presidential campaigns lack serious attention to foreign policy issues beyond shallow posturing. Foreign issues don’t play well in Peoria. Yet global events constantly surprise and challenge us, from Pearl Harbor to twenty-first century terrorist attacks.

After World War II, the United States was one of the few democratic nations with its economy intact. Sometimes with crass self interest and at other times with true sacrifice, we accepted leadership in encouraging a world of democracy and justice. We can opt out now if we choose, but leadership may fall to others without those values.

Unstoppable Democracy?

In the euphoric years following 1989, the year the Soviet Union began unraveling, many observers believed democracy was set on an unstoppable course. That view prevailed for many years.

According to a Washington Post article in 2013, however, more countries registered declines than gains in democratic practices over the course of 2012. It marked “the seventh consecutive year in which countries with declines outnumbered those with improvements.”

Among Arab countries, after the widely hailed “Arab Spring,” only Tunisia appears to have retained a democratic form of government. Others headed in that direction have now backtracked. Egypt got rid of a dictator, but its first elected government disappointed many. A military general took over, after shedding his uniform, which fooled no one.

Libya has fallen into warring militias. Syria is a brutal nightmare. The Gulf countries have kept their royals. Algeria and other countries in the region limp along with few changes.

How to revive the democratic movement? Since the United States prides itself on being Exhibit A for representative government, Americans might start there. How about campaign financing? After all, we can hardly berate other countries for their corrupt practices if our own politicians are bought by the highest bidder.

If We Can’t Have Peace, Conflict Beats War

History shows us few times of real peace. We may need to pass through protracted conflict on the way to peace. If we can avoid a killing war in a world of competing interests, we may be holding the line for peace the best way possible.

The Cold War was a time of protracted conflict, but it never became a global hot war. No nuclear weapons were fired, no armies massed over continents, no navies engaged in large battles.

Winston Churchill is credited with favoring jaw-jaw over war-war. In the past few years, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry seems to have been jaw-jawing forever. With Middle Easterners, with Europeans, with Russian foreign minister Lavrov, with Chinese leaders and scores more, he is constantly speaking to reporters after some conference or meeting.

Dropping bombs, especially if you are a superpower, is more exciting than weary negotiations for the one thousandth time. But dead men, women, and children cannot be brought back to life. You can always hold one more talk, give a little here, dig your heels in there, perhaps inch your way toward resolution of those competing interests.

War is final, talking is forever.

Americans No Longer Talk Only to Americans

After the invention to cheaply print words on paper more than half a millennium ago, written ideas transformed the world. For the first few centuries, such exchange of ideas benefited the European world, where the printing began. Literacy became widespread.

The conquest of much of the non-European world by Europeans carried their languages to other regions. With the growth of the British empire in the nineteenth century and of American influence in the twentieth, English became a global language. Educated speakers of other languages often learned it as a second language.

Books and magazines circulated around the world, but the shipping of printed material increased the costs of purchase. The digital age overcame that cost. The inexpensive exchange of ideas opened up more interaction between Americans and the rest of the world, regardless of social class.

More Americans are reading international authors. Some works are translated. In other cases, the non-Americans write in English. Americans now read books and articles by Afghans, Australians, Indians, Iranians, Nigerians, Swedes, and scores more.

Americans may not realize how widely their ideas, their successes, and their failures are broadcast to the rest of the world. The political rhetoric of our politicians is instantly known all over the world. Any arrogance is scorned, any threat resented, and any hatred returned.

Our Hopes Versus the Hopes of ISIS

One reason some young people are attracted to radical Islam is the promise of hope for those who lack it. For years in too many Middle Eastern countries, corrupt elites have run governments like personal fiefdoms. They became rich while throwing crumbs to their citizens, imprisoning and torturing any who disagreed with their policies.

While the actions of ISIS repulse civilized people, ISIS has a reputation for cleaning up corruption. (They could hardly do worse.) It also offers a sense of purpose through the ISIS-inspired belief in a spiritual kingdom, bizarre though its practices may be.

Why are youth from Europe and North America attracted to ISIS, despite the greater freedoms, chances of material success, and more open governments of those countries?

Perhaps we have too often stressed freedom but have forgotten to emphasize the discipline and servanthood that partner with any successful freedom. Freedom has become a means to power and wealth, not an opportunity for meaning through service and community and an inner life of the spirit.

Finding the Best Bad Candidate

I know better than to look for a perfect candidate for U.S. president. Forget swallowing any candidate’s campaign rhetoric with worshipful awe.

Better that I coldly examine a candidate’s ability to lead (not coerce) a complex country in a complex world. They will be the leader not only of those who voted for them but also of those who voted against them.

Better that I ask how wisely they will react to unforeseen events, because the next few years will certainly bring them. Can they admit and learn from their mistakes? Because they will surely make them.

I should understand the limits on a president’s power. The president is bound not only by other branches of the U.S. government but by circumstances elsewhere in the world over which he or she has little control. Better a president who can react to sudden changes with creativity and the willingness to consider different opinions.

In addition, I judge them beyond domestic issues. Fairly or unfairly, the United States is expected to play a leading role on the world stage. How well do they understand that a reputation for decency and honesty and fair play is as important for the carrying out of our policies as the ability to shock and awe our enemies?

When Whole Populations Flee

We can understand why Syrians are leaving their country. Were we living there, the anarchy would tempt most of us to leave also. We can see why Afghans flee, too, a country split into corrupt, warring factions. Iraq? Not much better.

Others flee Libya, just as broken as the rest. Still others leave corrupt governments and economic hardships in Yemen and Somalia and Nigeria and a dozen or more other places.

Though neighbors to Syria—Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey—absorb the most refugees per person, masses flee toward the more diverse European countries. Why do so many refugees seek these culturally different countries?

Economic opportunity, of course, and relief from overcrowded refugee camps. Still, we might be surprised that so many flee toward Europe’s secular culture.

European countries uphold freedom of religion, impartial judicial systems, and representative government. Such policies create the societies toward which refugees flee. Do they understand what creates those societies? Can they, someday, replicate policies in their own countries?

Circle the Wagons

During times of great change, we are tempted to circle the wagons against any perceived threats to our traditional ways of life, spooked even by unsubstantiated rumors.

Thomas Albert Howard reports on “The Dangers of Hindu Nationalism” in First Things (March, 2016). He reports on increased attacks against Christians and Muslims in India in the past few years, as Hindu nationalism revives. In 1948, Mahatma Gandhi himself was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist.

But a frightening, changing world encourages belief groups to grow more inward and arrogant, from young Muslims who embrace ISIS to Christians who burn the Quran to Americans threatened by a seeming loss of political faith in American institutions.

No belief system, liberal or conservative, is immune. Words that caricature simple faith as hogwash can fuel the flames as much as bigoted nationalism.

Just as a more radical Hindu nationalism encourages a clinging to the ancient Indian caste system, so any movement based in fear encourages its own “caste” systems, that is, encourages an us/them mentality.

The times call for a particular kind of bravery to hold strong personal beliefs yet not denigrate those who hold different ones.

The Hunger Games and Star Wars: Sacrifice, not Pleasure

The Hunger Games and the Star Wars franchises have risen during a period of world turmoil and suffering, of tragedy suddenly inflicted on innocents by angry malcontents, and of growing inequality.

They provide escape, as movies and books do when times are evil. J.R.R. Tolkien wrote much of The Lord of the Rings in Britain during the dark days of World War II. France had fallen with most of Europe. The United States was still officially neutral. England stood alone as German bombers rained death on the island nation, contested only by a few remaining British pilots.

The Hunger Games follows this tradition but is flavored with today’s anxieties. The leaders in the capital preside over the ultimate consumer society. The workers in the districts receive only crumbs, providing the capital with goods and, once a year, giving their blood for entertainment.

The heroes of this series are conflicted. The winners are not always pure. Evil is not completely banished, but must be guarded against, for humans are morally frail creatures.

Yet these kinds of stories forever show the little guy against the storm troopers, victims pushed too far, willing to risk all they are and have for the sake of a more just order.

When we are threatened, we are less interested in pleasure and more sympathetic to sacrifice.

ISIS Plays to its Base, the Non-Belongers

The terrorist group known as ISIS brutally murders in digital time for all the world to see. Their actions shock most of us, but ISIS is playing to its base.

ISIS leaders know decent people will be appalled, but they are not recruiting decent people. They target the disaffected young person, the one who doesn’t belong. ISIS is similar to a youth gang, a way for members to belong and pay back the belongers by breaking their rules.

In the case of ISIS, its members work for a revolution to give them meaning and purpose, a revolution against established values. They don’t want freedom of religion or democratic elections because such practices imply that no man or woman is God, that we are all imperfect and need the input of the larger community.

ISIS prefers a state run by a few leaders who claim a divine mandate to decide issues, not one where citizens are given a choice.

The Nazi regime also spoke to its base, those Germans humiliated by their losses in World War I. Jews were a convenient scapegoat. Leaders convinced other Germans that the Jews diluted their society and kept it from reaching the heights of a world power, superior to others.

American politicians may choose to play to their base of followers as well. Political speeches today shock some for incivilities, even lies. But the speakers are not playing to those who cherish civility; they are playing to those who feel injured by the status quo, the disrespected, the non-belongers.

Until we find ways to disagree without denigrating, to take seriously the non-belongers, some will seek other ways to gain respect.

A Clash between Religions or between Religion and No Religion?

In the waning years of the twentieth century, a few years before the terrorist attacks of 9/ll, Samuel P. Huntington wrote a best seller, The Clash of Civilizations.

The Soviet Union had dissolved, and the Cold War was over. Americans reveled in the dawning digital age, freed, they believed, from fears of a global conflict. Huntington, a professor at Harvard University, did not share their optimism for the new age.

In the absence of cold war ideology, Huntington suggested, religion was becoming more important, not less. Secularization had disrupted communities and cultures. I saw this disruption in the Middle Eastern countries where I lived during the 1990’s. Oil wealth led to vast change in one, Saudi Arabia. A consumer society emerged in one generation from an isolated, desert kingdom, bringing in Westerners who got drunk and watched x-rated movies. Most of the 9/ll terrorists came from this shell-shocked nation.

Humans needed, Huntington said, “new sources of identity, new forms of stable community, and new sets of moral precepts to provide them with a sense of meaning and purpose. Religion . . . meets these needs.”

Are the clashes and terrorist attacks since the publication of Huntington’s book only a struggle between religions or do they stem more from a struggle between religion and no religion?

Western societies have assumed an upward progress toward secular utopias with high rates of material benefits. In an age of rapid change, ordinary men and women may yearn for purpose and meaning. Where do they find them?

Whose Side Is God On? Wrong question.

A news analyst asked a panel of religious leaders: “How do you decide whose side God is on when each religion assumes God is on its side?”

Personally, I think the analyst asked the wrong question. The question is not: “Whose side is God on?” The question is: “Who is on God’s side?”

I doubt God is some kind of Santa Claus dealing in wish fulfillment. We don’t demand God’s blessing for “our side.” He sets the rules by which he decides. We accept them or not, but the rules stand.

I think those choosing qualities like compassion, mercy, and forgiveness are the ones on God’s side. Their choices may mean sacrifice, even seeming defeat at times. I believe, however, that they will ultimately be on God’s side, the side that wins.