Quantcast

Blogs

Cuba: To Embargo or Not

It was bound to happen eventually: The United States and Cuba have decided to restore diplomatic relations after treating each other as enemy states since the 1960s.

Some are elated and some are despondent. Both sides can make a strong case.  

I visited Cuba near the end of last year and returned home with mixed feelings about the US embargo. Cuba is in no way a strategic or military threat to the United States. If diplomatic relations hadn’t already been severed a long time ago, Washington would have no reason to suddenly sever them now. In that sense, the embargo is an anachronism, a leftover from a now-distant past and a different era of history.  

On the other hand, Cuba has the worst human rights record in the Western Hemisphere. Allowing the regime in from the cold gives it a patina of legitimacy it has done nothing whatsoever to earn, and it exhausts whatever scraps of leverage the United States had to convince the island’s overlords to free their people and share power like most other governments in the region.

So is restoring diplomatic ties the right call? I have no idea. I thought I’d return home from Cuba and take a firm stand one way or another, but some things in politics and in life are ambiguous.

What follows are my thoughts as originally published in World Affairs in March, 2014, before this decision was made.

*

Aside from the Arab boycott against Israel, American sanctions against Cuba have lasted longer than any other embargo in the modern era.

The sanctions were imposed in stages in the early 1960s after Fidel Castro began economic warfare against the United States by nationalizing private US property on the island. Cuban communism survived the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, so in 1993 the purpose of the embargo was modified by the Cuban Democracy Act, stating that it will not be lifted unless and until the government in Havana respects the “internationally accepted standards of human rights” and “democratic values.”

For years now, the embargo has appeared to me as outdated as it has been ineffective. The Chinese government, while less repressive nowadays than Cuba’s, likewise defies internationally accepted standards of human rights, yet it’s one of America’s biggest trading partners. And the embargo against Cuba gives the Castro regime the excuse it desperately needs for its citizens’ economic misery. As ever, it is all the fault of the Yanquis. Cuba’s people are poor not thanks to communism but because of America.

After spending a few weeks in Cuba in October and November, however, I came home feeling less certain that the embargo was an anachronism. The ailing Fidel Castro handed power to his less ideological brother Raúl a few years ago, and the regime finally realizes what has been obvious to everyone else for what seems like forever: communism is an epic failure. Change is at last on the horizon for the island, and there’s a chance that maybe—just maybe—the embargo might help it finally arrive.

“I fully support the embargo and the travel ban,” Cuban exile Valentin Prieto says, “and am on record calling for it to be tightened and given some real teeth instead of allowing it to remain the paper tiger it is. The United States of America is the bastion of democracy and liberty in the world. Not only should we not have normal relations with repressive regimes, it is our moral obligation to ensure, by whatever means possible save for military action, that we in no way promote, fund, assist, ignore, or legitimize said repressive regimes.”

Professor Alfred Cuzán at the University of West Florida offers a counterpoint. “One argument in support of keeping the embargo,” he says, “is that it gives the United States leverage to force the Castros to make liberalizing changes. I think that argument has some merit. And Cuba did confiscate and expropriate American property. But I don’t think the embargo is effective. The regime can still get whatever it wants from Canada, from Europe, and so on. The US embargo is something of a myth.”

He has a point. The United States is Cuba’s fifth-largest trading partner after Venezuela, China, Spain, and Brazil. Cuba gets more of its products from the United States even now than from Canada or Mexico. Sanctions are still in place—Cuba cannot buy everything, and it must pay in cash—but the embargo is hardly absolute.

The United States, however, purchases nothing from Cuba. Americans are for the most part prohibited by US law from traveling there. You can’t just buy a plane ticket to Havana and hang out on the beach. You have to go illegally through Mexico or book an expensive people-to-people tour through the mere handful of travel agents licensed to arrange such trips by the US Treasury Department. Journalists like me are exempt from these regulations, but I am still not allowed to buy Cuban rum or cigars and bring them back with me.

The embargo does harm the Cuban economy—after all, that’s the point—but the bankrupt communist system inflicts far more damage, and in any case the decision to break off economic relations was made not by the United States but by Fidel Castro.

“Cuba is ninety miles across the Florida Straits,” said Professor Cuzán, “and was increasingly integrated in the American market for a hundred years. Then Castro severed economic and commercial ties completely and shifted the entire economy toward the Soviet Union. That was insane. Then he tried to forge cultural ties with the Soviet Union and force Cubans to learn Russian. It was a crazy project and it ruined the country.”

Cuba isn’t yoked to Moscow any longer, now that the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, but its economic system is still mostly communist. The government owns all major industries, including what in normal countries are small businesses like restaurants and bars, so the majority of Cubans work for the state. Salaries are capped at twenty dollars a month and supplemented with a ration card.

I asked a Cuban woman what she gets on that card. “Rice, beans, bread, eggs, cooking oil, and two pounds of chicken every couple of months. We used to get soap and detergent, but not anymore.”

Doctor and hospital visits are free, but Cuba never has enough medicine. I had to bring a whole bag full of supplies with me because even the simplest items like Band-Aids and antibiotics aren’t always available. Patients have to bring their own drugs, their own sheets, and even their own iodine—if they can find it—to the hospital with them.

Cuba is constantly short on food too. I was told in October that potatoes won’t be available again until January. That can’t be a result of the embargo. Cuba is a tropical island with excellent soil and a year-round growing season perfectly capable of producing its own potatoes. But the potato shortage is no surprise. I saw shockingly little agriculture in the countryside. Most fields are fallow. Those that still produce food are minuscule. Cows look like leather-wrapped skeletons. We have more and better agriculture in the Eastern Oregon desert, where the soil is poor, where only six inches of rain falls every year, and where the winters are long and shatteringly cold.

I heard no end of horror stories about soap shortages, both before and after I got there. A journalist friend of mine who visits Cuba semi-regularly brings little bars of hotel soap with him and hands them out to his interview subjects.

“They break down in tears when I give them soap,” he told me. “How often does that happen?” I said. “A hundred percent of the time,” he said.

I too brought soap with me to the island—full-size bars from the store, not small ones from hotels—but I didn’t want to make people cry wherever I went, so I left them discreetly for hotel staff, waiters, taxi drivers, and so on. And I tipped everyone as generously as I could since the government refuses to pay them.

None of this economic impoverishment is the result of American policy. The United States is hardly the world’s only soap manufacturer, for instance. Cuba can buy it from Mexico. Or Canada. Or the Dominican Republic. Cuba can make its own soap. It fact, it does make its own soap. The reason the country does not have enough is because the government historically hasn’t cared if the little people can’t wash. Soap is just one item among thousands that is strictly for the elite, for the “haves,” and for those lucky enough to find some in the shops before it runs out.

In a non-communist country where such a basic product is in short supply, somebody would mass-produce it and sell it. Soap-making doesn’t require nuclear physics. You can make it at home. Google “soap recipe” and you’ll see how easy it is. But Cuba is a communist country where private commerce is banned. If you make stuff and sell stuff, you might become “rich” and “bourgeois,” and the authorities will send you to prison.

That’s why Cuba is poor. Lifting the embargo would have little or no effect on such tyrannical imbecility.

Click here to read the rest of the essay.


India’s ‘Annihilator of Enemies’ Takes to the Sea

On Monday, Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar approved sea trials of the INS Arihant, his country’s first indigenously built nuclear-powered submarine. The boat, which first slipped into harbor water in July 2009, is designed to launch ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads. “Arihant” means “annihilator of enemies.”

The Indian Navy already operates a nuclear-powered sub. INS Chakra, however, is a Russian Akula-2, leased for 10 years from Moscow and commissioned in April 2012. This “attack” boat, designed primarily to kill other submarines, carries only conventional weapons, most notably torpedoes and cruise missiles.

A Landmark Meeting for Monarch in Waiting

In December, Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, second in line to the British throne, made a one-day side trip to Washington from a longer visit to New York with his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge, and met separately with both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

Britain’s future monarch had a speaking engagement at the World Bank in Washington, so a courtesy visit to the president was good manners. But the Obama White House has done very little hobnobbing with foreign royalty and has been known to refuse occasional requests by other European royals for just such a visit, citing pressure of work or presidential travels (in which case, the royals in question don’t include the US capital city in their itinerary).

The Sydney Gunman’s Failed Message

A radical Islamist seized hostages in a café yesterday in Sydney, Australia. Sixteen hours later police shot him dead. At least two of his captives died and several others are seriously injured.

Shortly after he took over the café, he forced some of the hostages to hold a black flag up to the glass for news cameras to photograph. It is known variously as the black standard, the jihad flag, and the Salafist flag. It’s similar in some ways to the Saudi flag. It’s also similar to the black flag of the Abbasid caliphate.

Anybody who flies it is potentially dangerous.

Salafism is a relatively recent Islamic ideology (less than 150 years old) that arose as a reaction against 19th century Western imperialism in general and the liberal Western ideas that began percolating into the Middle East at the time, which was not ruled by Western imperialists but mostly by the (Turkish) Ottoman Empire.

Salafists wish to remove all modern “innovations” from Islam and to bring back the 7th century version as practiced by Mohammad. They also wish to build a caliphate—a state—based on the 7th century model. Some of them would be content to do this non-violently, but others are a little less, shall we say, patient.

So an individual won’t necessarily be violent just because he’s a Salafist—especially not in the Persian Gulf region where their numbers are huge—but Al Qaeda and ISIS are the armed wings of the Salafist movement.

When the Australian gunman forced his hostages to hold that flag up to the glass, he was identifying himself as a Salafist. But no one in media seemed to know what that flag is. Reporters just described it as “a flag with some Arabic writing on it,” as if it’s just some random flag from anywhere that could have meant anything.

The guman sent a message, but it wasn’t received. And we know he was monitoring the news in real time. He was directly across the street from an Australian news channel. He wanted attention, but he was not getting the attention he wanted. Reporters couldn’t even figure out who he was when he clearly identified himself and his ideology.

Hours into the standoff, he demanded an ISIS flag in return for the release of one of the hostages. CNN anchors wondered aloud why, if he wanted an ISIS flag, he didn’t just bring one with him in the first place. But he did bring a Salafist flag. He must assumed that at least somebody would recognize it and explain it to the audience. I recognize it because I’ve been working in the Middle East for ten years, but news anchors are generally not experts in anything in particular except presenting information on television. They’re generalists.

Would the standoff have ended better if the man had more quickly succeeded in delivering his initial message without all the mounting frustration of being misunderstood? Probably not. Obviously, since he took hostages at gunpoint, he was not from the non-violent wing of the Salafist movement. Nevertheless, it’s time for Westerners who aren’t Middle East experts to know who the Salafists are and what they’re insignia looks like. They’ve been at war with us now for a long time.

Postscript: My latest collection of dispatches, Tower of the Sun: Stories from the Middle East and North Africa, is now available in both trade paperback and electronic editions.

Obama Cites Dangers in Xi’s Consolidation of Power

At the beginning of the month, President Obama, in comments to the Business Roundtable in Washington, displayed his command of Chinese Communist Party politics. “He has consolidated power faster and more comprehensively than probably anybody since Deng Xiaoping,” he said of his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping. “And everybody’s been impressed by his … clout inside of China after only a year and a half or two years.”

“There are dangers in that,” Obama then remarked.

Yes, there are, and it was important for the president to have said so, even if it was unusual for the leader of the free world to comment on the political standing of an authoritarian supremo.

Israel's Comrade Rivlin

By Alan Johnson and Lorin Bell-Cross

When Shimon Peres’s term as president of Israel came to an end in July, many in Israel were fearful: Who could fill the shoes of the Nobel Peace Prize winner and elder statesman?

Their fears were deepened by the election of Peres’s successor: Reuven (“Rubi”) Rivlin, a veteran right-wing Likud Party parliamentarian, minister of communications under Ariel Sharon, opponent of the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, and someone opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state.  

Al Jazeera’s Scurrilous Attack on Morocco

Some people and organizations who claim to champion human rights don’t give a flying fork about the genuine article and would rather slam Western democracies and their allies than take an unflinching look at those who binge on anti-Westernism who, not coincidentally, include most of the worst human rights abusers on earth. The U.S. and Israel are the most abused targets, but Arab countries can get hit with it too.

The latest example came over the Thanksgiving weekend when Morocco hosted the second annual World Human Rights Forum in the city of Marrakech. (The first was held last year in Brazil.) I was invited to participate—I was not paid to be there, but travel expenses were covered—along with almost 7,000 others, mostly from the Middle East and Africa. 

Al Jazeera published a report about the conference before it even began and described it as a “masquerade” right in the headline. The forum, it says, was “designed to deceive Western political and business partners about the North African kingdom's 2011 political reform project.”

This is nonsense on stilts. The forum had nothing to do with Morocco or its internal affairs. It just happened to take place in Morocco. It was sponsored by an international institution concerned with human rights all over the world. Next year’s forum will be held in Argentina.

But Morocco is a pro-Western country, one of America’s major non-NATO allies, and a source of stability instead of “resistance,” so in certain quarters it’s suspect.

Al Jazeera’s hit piece describes the Moroccan Association of Human Rights, which boycotted the event, as the country’s “foremost civil rights activists,” but it’s actually a motley collection of hardcore leftists and far-right Islamists well outside the Moroccan mainstream.

The organization has some legitimate complaints, though, to be sure. Morocco’s emergence from authoritarian rule is incomplete, and the Ministry of the Interior has shut down some of its meetings in hotels. Using instruments of the state to bust up meetings only gives them more things to complain about.

Robert M. Holley, a former diplomat at the US Embassy in Morocco, attended the conference. He knows the AMDH well and has little patience for them even if they are right about some things. “They have been especially adamant critics of the government for jailing people who have been rounded up on allegations of connections with jihadi groups here seeking to aid ISIS,” he told me. “They won a high profile lawsuit in the Moroccan courts against the Ministry of Interior for interfering with its organizational activities. I think that is clear evidence that the system they are protesting against seems to be working pretty well to address their grievances. There are always going to be dissident voices here. AMDH is an organization whose leadership is composed of many from the far left that has also been infused with new membership from the rejectionist Islamist political spectrum in Morocco. It’s a curious partnership that seems mostly united by its blanket rejectionist approach to most social and political issues in Morocco.”

Eric Goldstein at Human Rights Watch is also quoted in the Al Jazeera report. He thinks it’s “disturbing that at the moment Morocco is preparing to host this forum on human rights, it’s taking measures to restrict the freedom of its own human rights organizations.”

He neglects to point out that Moroccan courts sided with the AMDH against the Ministry of Interior. Perhaps he did say that and Al Jazeera snipped it, but Human Rights Watch, I’m sorry to say, has been on an anti-Morocco kick now for years, which is part of a most unfortunate pattern.

Robert Bernstein founded Human Rights Watch in 1978 and publicly broke with his own organization in 2009 for spending far too much time and effort beating on Israel—the nation with by far the best human rights record in the Middle East—at the expense of investigating Israel’s neighbors even when they’re guilty of backing terrorist organizations abroad and committing mass murder at home. In 2011 he founded a new organization, Advancing Human Rights, to correct the wrongs of his first organization.

But Israel isn’t the only country his first organization spends too much time grinding its axe against. It does the exact same thing to Morocco. Human Rights Watch at times acts as a volunteer shill organization for the Polisario, the communist guerilla army hatched by Fidel Castro and Moammar Qaddafi in the early 1970s and backed by Algeria. The Polisario to this day holds tens of thousands of citizens from the contested Western Sahara region hostage in “refugee camps” in the Algerian desert. Human Rights Watch reports from the Western Sahara read like ludicrous press releases from the Algerian police state, the Polisario’s primary patron, which resembles nothing so much as an Arab version of East Germany circa 1976.

“Refugees from the Western Sahara conflict who have been living in camps in the Algerian desert for four decades seem to be generally able to leave the camps if they wish,” according to a Human Rights Watch report issued in October of this year.

They seem to be able to leave? No. These people have been held against their will for almost as long as I’ve been alive. I’ve been to the Western Sahara. I know a number of people who fled the Polisario’s camps after being tortured nearly to death. I know people whose family members are to this day held in these camps as bargaining chips and who will be hunted down and perhaps even killed if they dare try to escape. There is no reason to expect anything better of an armed militia backed by the Castros and Algeria’s Soviet-style regime, let alone Qaddafi back when he was still with us. Yet Human Rights Watch takes their side against one of the few Arab countries that is successfully democratizing without bloodshed and mayhem.

There are a number of reasons why certain types of self-styled human rights champions bash Western democracies and their allies disproportionately while giving far worse actors a pass. Partly it’s because they have a double standard, partly it’s because of a reflexive anti-Western bias, and partly it’s because democratic and tolerant nations won’t kill, arrest, or blacklist those who complain. That last problem is built-in and unfixable, but the first two certainly aren’t.

What Al Jazeera, the AMDH, and Human Rights Watch ignore or don’t even care about much in the first place is the fact that Morocco is the most under appreciated Arab Spring success story. The Western media ignore this as well, not because foreign correspondents are generally suspicious of Morocco but because Morocco doesn’t explode. If it bleeds it leads, as we say in the media business, and Morocco doesn’t bleed. It successfully transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected government, and it did so with neither revolution nor war. Morocco, along with Tunisia, adopted one of the most liberal constitutions in the entire Arab world while much of the rest of the region went up in flames. But hardly anyone noticed because the infernos in Egypt, Libya, and Syria sucked up all the oxygen.

*

Though Morocco’s King Mohammad VI did not attend the conference, a minister from the government read his speech at the opening ceremony. In it he explained why so many attendees were from Africa and the Middle East.

“It is a historical fact,” he said, “that international human rights instruments were developed in the absence of Africa. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, there were only four independent African countries. When the 1966 International Covenants were adopted, there were only about 30 African countries which had freed themselves from the colonial yoke.

“Africa cannot remain a mere consumer of international standards devised in its absence,” he continued. “Africa can no longer be the invariable object of international reports and external evaluations. Our continent has become mature enough to claim its rightful place in the global human rights architecture and to fully play its role in it.”

I attended some of the discussion groups in the following days and was curious what the attending Arabs and Africans would say about human rights and democracy considering they hail from regions where human rights and democracy are often in dismal condition at best. I’ve run into far too many people in this part of the world who have only the vaguest idea what these concepts even mean. The Muslim Brotherhood says it’s in favor of human rights and democracy despite championing terrorist organizations and governing like pharaohs after being elected. Many of Egypt’s secular activists likewise proved to be profoundly illiberal when they hailed the military dictatorship of General Sisi, who is far more of a brute than Hosni Mubarak.

I encountered none of this Egyptian-style faux liberalism at the World Human Rights Forum. Instead I heard one Arab and African speaker after another extolling the virtues of liberal constitutions, the separation of powers, the protection of minority rights, the right to worship freely, the need to dismantle authoritarian and unaccountable institutions, and the necessity of flourishing civil society organizations that act as buffers between individuals and the state.

A panel on democracy and human rights sponsored by the Embassy of Switzerland and the Council of Europe pondered a serious question: Can the Middle East and North Africa preserve human rights during democratic transitions and prevent the Arab Spring from turning to winter? The answer in Tunisia and Morocco is yes. The answer in Egypt, Libya, and Syria is an unambiguous no. 

Sectarian and ethnic divisions complicate things as well in the Arab world and in Sub-Saharan Africa. One speaker pointed out what simply can’t be denied: ethnically and religiously fractious nations that hold elections prematurely may discover that elections are civil war by other means. Iraq has proven that to everybody with eyes. Sunnis voted for Sunnis, Shias voted for Shias, and the Shias, with their demographic majority, used the power of the state to smash the minority. Some despondent Sunni leaders then made a fateful alliance with ISIS in order to keep Baghdad’s boots off their necks.

One speaker at the forum passionately argued that human rights existed before states and cannot be taken away by states, and that everyone on earth is born into this world with inalienable rights. He quoted Hannah Arendt’s book The Origins of Totalitarianism. Thomas Jefferson would have smiled. Many of the people who made these points spoke in the language of the Middle East and North Africa. They proved that Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir was right when he said, shortly before Syria’s Assad regime murdered him in Beirut with a car bomb, that “political liberalism can be conjugated in Arabic.”

On occasion I hear Arabs saying such things in opposition to their governments, but genuine democrats are thin on the ground in most of the Middle East, and they’re rarely numerous or powerful enough to transform their political systems. But in Morocco these things were said under the auspices of the government and the head of state. Nothing remotely like this will happen any time soon in Egypt, Libya, or Algeria. The very idea is absurd. It certainly won’t happen any time soon in Syria where would-be democrats are trapped between the anvil of the Assad regime on one side and the hammer of ISIS on the other. They have no choice, really, other than exile.

Al Jazeera can pre-emptively dismiss all this from thousands of miles away as a “masquerade” if it wants, but the real masquerade is Al Jazeera pimping human rights to its audience while elsewhere supporting the narrative of Middle Eastern terrorist organizations

Morocco doesn't have a perfect record—not even the US or Canada in 2014 have perfect records—but it has been moving in the right direction for years. Freedom House—a far more serious organization than Human Rights Watch—used to rank the country as Not Free, but now says it’s Partly Free and improving. Yet it remains imperfect. Even if were Free instead of Partly Free it wouldn’t be perfect. The country did not snap its fingers and transform instantly into a Jeffersonian democracy. But the Al Jazeera bosses in the quasi-medieval Qatari sheikhdom—which Freedom House bluntly dismisses as Not Free—have no clue what a Jeffersonian democracy even looks like.

Decoding Putin’s State of the Union Speech

Vladimir Putin’s December 4th “state of the union” address to Russia’s Federal Assembly once again explained why he annexed the Crimea. This time, his explanation reached new ideological heights, while again confounding academic realists, who continue to insist that Russia grabbed the Crimea in response to an aggressive West. Here are Putin’s words:

[The annexation of the Crimea] has special significance for our country and our people. Because our people live in the Crimea, and the territory itself is strategically important; because it is here that is found the spiritual source of the formation of a multifaceted but monolithic Russian nation and a centralized Russian state. It was here, in the Crimea, in ancient Chersonesus or Korsun, as ancient Russian chroniclers called it, that Grand Prince Vladimir was baptized and then baptized all of Rus.

Israel Bombs Syria – Again

The Israelis bombed Syria again. That’s what the Syrian and Iranian regimes are claiming anyway, though the Israelis won’t confirm or deny it.

Generally we should take Israel’s word over Syria’s and Iran’s, but not this time. Israel’s refusal to deny it is a tacit admission that it did indeed launch air strikes against Syria, this time on the outskirts of Damascus.

Israel is not bombing Syria randomly. It’s targeting weapons shipments bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The rest of us are focused on ISIS and ignoring what the Assad regime and Hezbollah are up to, but the Israelis have to live in that neighborhood. The main reason Hezbollah is fighting Sunni jihadists in Syria is because it desperately needs the Assad regime as backup in its relentless war against Israel. If ISIS defeats Assad, Hezbollah loses.

The Syrian and Iranian foreign ministers are claiming Israel is “in the same trench” as ISIS since it’s attacking those who are fighting against ISIS. There’s a certain logic there, but it’s circular. The United States is “in the same trench” as Israel, which according to these characters puts us “in the same trench” as ISIS. Yet the United States is also “in the same trench” as Assad and Hezbollah since we’re bombing ISIS. That’s a heck of a trench! It’s a circular trench, or perhaps even a three dimensional möbius trench. But that’s the Middle East for you.

Russia is furious about all this, of course, but that’s no surprise. There’s nothing complicated about which trench Vladimir Putin is in.

Taiwan Voters Reject China-Centric Policies

Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou bowed for 10 seconds Wednesday as he confirmed his resignation as chairman of the ruling Kuomintang, taking responsibility for the party’s worst drubbing since 1949, when Chiang Kai-shek fled to the island after defeat in the Chinese civil war. On Saturday, voters thoroughly rejected the KMT, as the organization is known, in elections for 11,130 local posts across the island.

Voters turned down KMT candidates in seats that had been safely “blue” for decades. It was not so much that the electorate had gone “green”—the color adopted by the opposition Democratic Progressive Party and its allies—as much as they had rejected Ma, who was nearing the end of his second and last term.

As the president said while announcing his resignation, “The results of the election tell us our reforms were not made fast enough and have yet to meet the expectations of the people, which is why the KMT failed to win the support of most voters.”

Who Will Save the People of the Donbas?

The answer, as is becoming increasingly obvious, is no one. Having ruined the economy of the Donbas enclave they occupy and caused a humanitarian catastrophe, neither Russia nor its terrorist proxies will come to the population’s rescue. Western powers reluctant to confront Vladimir Putin certainly aren’t going to open their wallets to the tune of billions of dollars. And Ukraine, which continues to proclaim that the territories are “temporarily occupied,” lacks the financial and military capacity to liberate the area. That leaves the enclave’s people isolated and, ultimately, completely dependent on themselves.

As many residents of the area now realize, the self-proclaimed leaders of the Donbas and Luhansk republics are more inclined to destroy than to create. As long as they’re around, the enclave will be unsalvageable, and it looks like they’ll be around for a while.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky on the Proposed Jewish State Law

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed Cabinet Secretary Avichai Mandelblit this evening to issue letters of dismissal to Finance Minister Yair Lapid and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni. Tomorrow the Knesset will likely discuss a bill to dissolve the current Knesset. One of the main reasons for the breakup of the government has been the acrimonious debate over the Likud leader’s determination to pass a new Basic Law enshrining Israel’s status as a “Jewish state.”

In this context, it is worth reflecting on what Ze’ev Jabotinsky (1880–1940), the ideological godfather of the Israeli right and founder of the branch of Zionism now headed by Netanyahu, wrote on this question. The following commentary is composed entirely from Jabotinsky’s words.

*

Dispatch from Vietnam: Will the US Foster a Natural Ally?

My latest essay in the print edition of World Affairs is now available online. Here's the first part:

Nearly forty years after the Vietnam War, Hanoi holds no grudges against the United States, in part because nearly all the country’s negative energy today is focused on China. And for good reason: China is big; it’s powerful; it’s right next door; and it has been hostile for two thousand years. Vietnam’s war with the US will never be repeated, but its long history of conflict with China, which is roughly as old now as Christianity, hasn’t been settled and might be revving up yet again.

Earlier this year, Vietnamese and Chinese naval vessels squared off in the South China Sea when China installed an oil rig in disputed waters. No one was hurt in this confrontation, but several Chinese nationals in Vietnam were killed later, in response to the incident, when furious mobs of Vietnamese rioters attacked Chinese-owned factories. Thousands of Chinese citizens left Vietnam in the wake of the violence. The government cracked down on what it rightly called “hooligans,” but relations between the two countries remain testier than they’ve been in a quarter-century.

This recent conflict may well blow over, but the tension that sparked it in the first place is not going anywhere. Vietnam and China both claim the Paracel Islands, and the Spratly Islands farther south are claimed by yet four more countries in Southeast Asia, but China claims almost the entire sea, more than a thousand miles from its own mainland, well south of Vietnam, and nearly all the way down to the coast of Malaysia.

Chinese maps show a so-called “nine-dash line” that supposedly delimits these claims over the sea. The line is also known as the “cow’s tongue line” for its vague U-shape. The United States insists rightly that this line is inconsistent with international maritime law, but Washington takes no position on who owns either the Paracels or the Spratlys. I spent quite a bit of time looking into it myself and had to give up in frustration. There are no right answers. These are legitimate disputes that need to be resolved amicably.

Vietnam refuses to recognize China’s claim over the Paracels, but at least Vietnam recognizes that China is making what it sees as an invalid claim. China, on the other hand, doesn’t even recognize that Vietnam has an invalid claim, making peaceful resolution all but impossible.

Robert D. Kaplan’s latest book, Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific, describes maritime Southeast Asia as a major upcoming theater of conflict. “The composite picture,” he writes, “is of a cluster of states that, with problems of domestic legitimacy and state-building largely behind them, are ready to advance their perceived territorial rights beyond their own shores. This outward collective push is located in the demographic cockpit of the globe; it is here in Southeast Asia, with its nearly 600 million people, where China’s 1.3 billion people converge with the Indian Subcontinent’s 1.5 billion people. And the geographic meeting place of all these states is maritime: the South China Sea.”

Most modern wars are fought over power and ideology rather than resources, but a conflict in the South China Sea would be old school. It could begin and end with relatively minor naval skirmishes or it could escalate. Nobody knows. Either way, China and Vietnam are both growing economically and militarily more powerful, and they’re both expanding their presence in the South China Sea at the same time the United States is scaling back, creating a situation ripe with potential for a serious face-off.

“China makes us nervous sometimes,” says Huy Dang, a Hanoi resident from the south who works for General Motors. “Our common sense tells us not to trust the Chinese. We don’t use Chinese products. They’re bad quality.”

But what about the Chinese government and military? Do everyday Vietnamese feel threatened by the colossus to the north?

Click here to read the rest!

Criminal States Protecting Their Proxies at UN

On November 18, the United Nations Third Committee adopted a resolution recommending the referral of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court, alleging crimes against humanity. This was the first time a U.N. resolution recommended sending North Korea to The Hague.

The General Assembly is expected to accept the committee’s report next month and formally pass the matter to the Security Council.

 China and Russia, among the 19 voting against the Third Committee resolution, will undoubtedly use their Security Council vetoes to make sure the ICC does not get an opportunity to hear the case.

Europe: Deny the Vote to Putin’s Outlaw Regime

Earlier this month, the leaders of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)—the oldest and largest pan-European organization that brings together national lawmakers from across the continent—visited Moscow for talks with State Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin. The principal topic of discussion was the restoration of voting rights for Russian delegates, which were suspended in April following the annexation of Crimea.

The talks brought good news for the Kremlin. According to Andreas Gross, a Swiss lawmaker and the Assembly’s rapporteur on Russia, most leaders of the European parliamentary body want to see “a full restoration of the rights of the Russian delegation” at the PACE’s upcoming session in January. The next round of negotiations will be held in December in Vienna.

If this agreement takes shape, it will represent one of the biggest acts of hypocrisy in the history of the Council of Europe.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - blogs