Biden’s OpEd

 Biden’s OpEd / Tongue in Cheek or Foot in Mouth?

In case you missed it President Biden wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post on the settler violence in the West Bank against Palestinians. Here is a quote,

“I have been emphatic with Israel's leaders that extremist violence against

Palestinians in the West Bank must stop and that those committing the violence must be held accountable. The United States is prepared to take our own steps, including visa bans against extremists attacking civilians in the West Bank.”

That's tellin'em Joe!

So let me get this straight:

• In 1947 the UN presented a plan to divide Palestine into two states one Jewish and one Arab-Palestinian along wholly unjust lines of allocation.
• The Jewish community 'seized the day' and ethnically cleansed all of Palestine except the West Bank and Gaza. With those facts on the ground Israel was recognized as a new state and member of nations in May1948, while 700 thousand Palestinian refugees were stranded in camps in the surrounding region. No Arab-Palestinian State was ever established.
• In 1967 Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza as well and have held those territories under occupation ever since.

Then,

• Hamas broke out from the open air prison that is Gaza on October 7 and admittedly committed atrocities against Israeli civilians along the periphery of the Gaza border. The United States then announced support for Israel in its 'right' to defend itself against terror attacks.
• Israel then commenced a ferocious military campaign which appears to any independent observer as a campaign of genocide against Northern Gaza. They have done so with the support of U.S. military munitions.

Now,

• Illegal Israeli settlers on the West Bank have been conducting increased attacks on Palestinians there with apparent impunity.
• And, Joe wants to talk tough and revoke visa rights for those settlers guilty of the violence.

Forgive me but calling this a double standard sounds like a euphemism!

Thoughts on the Ukraine War: Latent Perspectives

 Ukraine War: Latent Perspectives

 

It’s easy to blame Russia for the war in Ukraine. After all the war began when Russian troops crossed the border into Ukraine. But headline news rarely provides a comprehensive analysis of geopolitical conflicts. It is indeed rare in human affairs that blame lies solely with one party. Interstate relations are always complex. And it is crucially important that we examine all aspects of such complexities in an effort to arrive at an accurate assessment of the context. Without such an in depth assessment attempts to mediate the conflict and achieve a stable peace will be futile. My goal here is to examine the roots of this conflict as deeply as possible.

 

Unprovoked War?

The consensus opinion is that Russia’s invasion into Ukraine was not only unjust but also entirely unprovoked. That consensus does not stand up to scrutiny, however. There are several facts which undermine the consensus opinion. The one counter argument that is relatively well known is that of NATO expansion. At the end of the Cold War, when German reunification was being negotiated, then Secretary of State James Baker made a commitment that NATO would not extend one inch further to the East. That promise was of course not kept as two successive waves of expansion took place. As the European Union expanded to the East, it effectively required new member states to join NATO before admission to the economic union. Essentially Russia drew a red line with regard to further expansion to include Ukraine. In fact this question was openly debated prior to the war.

 

A second factor to consider is the status of Crimea and the Donbas region. The West never accepted the annexation of Crimea into the Russian Federation in 2014 following the Maidan uprising in Kyiv. Crimea was incorporated into Czarist Russia under Catherine the Great more than two hundred years ago. The Russian base in Sevastopol is a key part of the Russian Federation’s defense structure. Following the break up of the Soviet Union when Ukraine became one of the newly independent states (within the CIS) Russia entered into a long term lease of Crimea in 1997. The West has portrayed the annexation of Crimea as an illegal invasion and has never recognized the plebiscite which was held, despite clear evidence that the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of accession. The West and Ukraine repeatedly indicate that Crimea is a central goal of the current war in disregard of history, Russia’s security situation and furthermore the will of the local population.

 

The Donbas region is a messier situation. The first thing to consider is that Ukraine, as constituted under Soviet rule and later as a member of the CIS, is divided along ethnic lines. In the eastern area the populace is largely Russian speaking while the western area is largely Ukrainian speaking. This division had been visible in elections in recent years with the East favoring pro-Russian policies and the West pro-EU. The Maidan uprising occurred out of anger over President Yanukovych’s decision to backtrack on a plan to negotiate entry to the EU. When Yanukovych was ousted and simultaneously with the annexation of Crimea a popular counter uprising began in the Donbas in favor of secession from Ukraine. That sentiment was indeed fueled by a decision of the Ukrainian Parliament to recognize Ukrainian as the sole national language. A civil conflict ensued within the region that was mediated by France and Germany. Those accords foresaw autonomy for the Donbas within Ukraine. All evidence indicates that Russia fully intended to respect the accords, but that Ukraine never intended to implement the agreement. Tellingly, Angela Merkel stated recently that the Minsk Accords were negotiated with the intent to buy time.

 

A third, less-known fact is that the US had the explicit intention of provoking Russia into an invasion of Ukraine. The Defense Department commissioned the Rand Corporation to prepare a study on ways to “overextend and unbalance” Russia. That study was published in 2019 during the Trump Presidency. The intent was to consider ways to weaken Russia, which is described as a peer competitor (evidently from a military and not an economic perspective). A prime recommendation was to embroil Russia in Ukraine. As part of that strategy the US had increased its military aid to Ukraine and had refused to negotiate on Russia’s demand to ensure Ukrainian neutrality and exclusion from talks on NATO membership. Given this fact as well as the previous historical perspectives it is apparent that Russia was most certainly provoked. The conclusion that is closer to reality is that Russia took the bait and proceeded launched its invasion.

 

Conduct of the War

War is always tragic. The idea of intelligent bombs and surgical strikes is a contemporary myth. Once a war begins suffering is ever present. That has certainly been the case in the Ukraine war. Artillery and missile strikes by both armies have caused civilian casualties. Millions of refugees have fled west from Ukraine and east to Russia. Nonetheless the evidence suggests that Russia’s goals so far have been to establish a land bridge between Russia and Crimea, which they achieved fairly quickly, and subsequently to adopt a more defensive posture within that captured region. Russia did not initiate hostilities with a shock and awe bombing campaign. Rather the invasion began with limited troop numbers to approach Kyiv and advance in the East and South to secure the land bridge. Until today Russia has not launched a major campaign to seize all of Ukraine. 

 

During the early days of the war Ukraine and Russia initiated negotiations. We now know that the two sides initialed a memorandum of agreement to end hostilities. That draft peace agreement was then abandoned by Ukraine, Russian forces withdrew from positions around Kyiv, and Ukraine prepared for counter offensives against Russian army positions in the southeast with substantial military and economic support from the West. Hence, once again an opportunity for peace was lost following the failure to implement the Minsk Accords and the avoidance of substantive negotiations prior to the Russian invasion. 

 

A further observation with regards to the conduct of the war offers insight and confirmation of US goals. The continuation of hostilities ‘for as long as it takes’ is consistent with the Rand study, i.e. to weaken Russia. Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense, said precisely that early on. It is also indicative that Ukraine has now concentrated its military effort toward severing the land bridge while simultaneously targeting Crimea with missiles and drones. Clearly Ukraine and the US are intent on seizing control over Crimea and weakening Russia’s naval presence in the Black Sea. The goal of capturing Crimea is a major obstacle to peace, since it is a direct challenge to Russian defense and security. And, tragically this Ukrainian offensive was poorly planned with the result that the Ukrainian army has suffered huge losses with little success on the ground.

 

One of the more distasteful observations is that the US political establishment has repeatedly expressed satisfaction that the war is a great success. While ignoring the ongoing suffering in Ukraine Lindsay Graham and others have said that aid to Ukraine has been well spent, since it kills Russians without US casualties. 

 

Follow the Money

Cui bono is always a relevant question. In this case it is perfectly evident that defense industries in the US and to a lesser degree in Western Europe are enjoying extraordinary sales and profits. Again some politicians in the US are cynically boasting that a large share of the military aid to Ukraine circles back to the US. That is certainly true, but only half the story. Ukraine is, of course, unable to pay for the military shipments it is receiving. Rather, the shipments are paid through increased Federal debt and so will ultimately fall upon taxpayers. But an even more sinister reality is in play here. The weaponry that the US and NATO countries are sending to Ukraine is often old materiel and equipment. The result is that Ukraine has been fighting with outmoded weaponry in limited supply, while the US and other NATO nations are replenishing their armaments with upgraded specifications. 

 

Summary Thoughts

The war is an ongoing human tragedy. While Russia is absolutely culpable, the US and NATO share in the blame. An end to the war is urgently necessary. The longer the war continues, the greater the human suffering. Furthermore, the risks of escalation increase virtually every day. If Ukraine were to successfully threaten Crimea, it is very likely that Russia would respond with a full scale response against both Ukraine and likely the nations that have been facilitating Ukraine. A more likely forecast is that Russia will seize additional territory as Ukraine’s losses mount and its army faces fatigue. In that case the terms of a final settlement will become still more difficult for the West and Ukraine to accept.

 

The parameters of a settlement under current circumstances are fairly clear. Ukraine will need to accept a loss of some territory including that of Crimea and such agreement will need to be internationally recognized. A thornier issue has to do with security guarantees for the remaining Ukrainian State. Russia will undoubtedly demand that Ukraine remain permanently outside NATO. Ukraine for its part will require some manner of security, but without a NATO umbrella. Negotiations will be difficult to be sure, but the alternative both for Ukraine and the world is fraught with far greater risks. 

 

At the heart of this war and the growing confrontations between major powers lies the question of hegemony. At the end of the Cold War when the Soviet Union collapsed the US became the sole, major power. Since then China has continued to rise economically as well as militarily. Russia meanwhile has stabilized. While Russia is now far weaker in economic terms, it remains strong militarily. Consequently the unipolar moment for US world hegemony has passed. The question now is whether to accept that global politics has entered a new phase of multi-polarity or whether to resist that trend. The evidence suggests that US policy has chosen confrontation over acceptance. While NATO is purportedly a defense organization, it’s continuing expansion would seem to be a contradiction, particularly given the weakened state of its historical opponent. Meanwhile the US has been actively strengthening alliances in Asia in confrontation with China. Confrontations to weaken adversaries and plans for encirclement are simply not a wise policy choice. Diplomacy and acceptance of multi-polarity represent a far better choice in the pursuit of peace.

Israel and Palestine

 Israel and Palestine

 

I have no hesitation in condemning the attack by Hamas on October 7. The execution of the attack unquestionably entailed terrorism of civilian targets. However, the narrative that the attack was unprovoked is simply wrong. The Palestinian problem has deep historical roots and that history is broadly absent from most reporting on the conflict. At the same time we ought to equally condemn Israel’s onslaught against civilians in Gaza. The conduct of Israel’s Defense Forces has been unmistakably disproportionate and inhumane. Moreover, the policy, as stated by the Defense Minister, to cut off water and electricity and to warn civilians to evacuate northern Gaza represents an open admission of an unfolding war crime. In a parallel vein I absolutely decry all acts of antisemitism within the US and other Western countries. Attacks on Jewish people and synagogues are criminal acts. Hate crimes against Jewish people living remote from the Israel-Palestine conflict is an inexcusably reactionary response. Having stated these points let me now proceed to delve more deeply into historical background and a critique of policy positions of Israel, Palestine and the US. 

 

The nation of Israel has for myriad reasons enjoyed a pass in terms of historical coverage, media reporting of ongoing events, and accountability with regard to enforcement of past UN decisions and international law. The result is a series of glaring double standards whenever one looks objectively at the facts. In 1947-48 Israel became established as a new State following an advisory vote at the UN General Assembly. The vote recommended implementation of a UN proposal to divide the land of Palestine, then being administered by the United Kingdom under a mandate granted at the end of WWI. The plan granted 56% of the land to a new Jewish State despite the fact that the Jews were a minority of the local population and held title to a mere 7% of the land. Why is it that such an unfair plan was put forward? Why was a Jewish State even proposed, when the prevailing political ideal favored liberal democracy and respect for minority rights? Indeed what about respect for majority rights? 

 

The Palestinians refused to accept the plan. Demonstrations broke out. The Jewish community in Palestine was ready. Its armed forces, the Haganah, launched an offensive which effectively razed villages and ethnically cleansed all of Palestine except for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This civil war ended with the formation of the State of Israel in May of 1948 which coincided with the end of the British Mandate. How is it that this ethnic cleansing by Israel was not condemned? Why was the State of Israel recognized as governing far more territory than envisioned in the original (unjust) UN plan? In 1967 during the six day war Israel conquered Gaza, the West Bank, and Sinai. (Sinai was subsequently returned to Egypt.) Despite a UN resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from the newly conquered territories of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel continues to control these occupied territories. It has also pursued a policy of seizing land from Palestinians and building Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank. The occupied people of the West Bank have never been granted political rights and are subjected to what has become apartheid conditions. Why was apartheid condemned in South Africa, but has largely been ignored or denied in the US and Western Europe?

 

The Palestinians have unquestionably been the losers in this 75 year history of support for  the Jewish State. Furthermore they continue to live in occupied territory within greater Israel or in refugee camps within Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The Palestinian resistance movement has gone through various phases. The most effective was the first intifada which employed relatively peaceful demonstrations against occupation and culminated in the Oslo Accords. Upon the signing of the Oslo Accords there was a great deal of optimism that a two state solution could be implemented and that peaceful coexistence might be achieved. However, Prime Minister Rabin was later assassinated and Israel pursued its illegal settlement program of the West Bank. The failure to implement a two state solution provided an opening for the rise of Hamas. Subsequently most media reporting seizes on acts of terror committed by Hamas and other groups, while the Palestinian Authority has progressively lost popularity due to its inability to deliver on the promise of the Oslo agreement. While media coverage emphasizes Hamas’s terror tactics, Israel’s continuing breach of international law is either ignored or shielded within the Security Council by US vetoes. Over the years the scale of violent deaths weighs overwhelmingly against Palestinians. Far more Palestinian youths have been killed and maimed by the IDF than Israelis killed in terror attacks. In recent years Palestinians in Gaza had initiated peaceful demonstrations approaching the barricades along the border with Israel. They were calling for the right of return to the villages where their ancestors lived prior to 1948 and to an end to confinement in the open air prison that Gaza has become. The response of the IDF was to shoot those approaching too close to the fence. 

 

One often hears pundits offering advice to Palestinian leaders to employ methods of civil disobedience in lieu of terrorist tactics or armed resistance. That is certainly wise advice. One can bemoan the fact that Palestine has yet to produce a leader like Gandhi or Mandela. But we also should question whether such a leader could even be effective. Such a strategy would only work if coupled with continuing pressure on Israel to accept a Palestinian State, to withdraw its settlements from occupied territory and to allow the new Palestinian State to enjoy open borders. Instead Israel has been allowed to stall any such progress and to continue building new, illegal settlements. The proverbial international community has failed Palestinians. And the dream of a Palestinian Mandela has been dashed by the West’s callous indifference.

 

The US has been the most guilty party within the international community. Despite its huge amounts of aid, both economic and military, to Israel it has failed to apply leverage toward a solution to the conflict. On the contrary the US has continued to exercise its veto powers to shield Israel from censure. Over the years the US has been more focused upon dislodging Soviet influence in the Middle East and later launching military incursions toward establishing a Pax Americana in the greater region. More recently US policy has focused on efforts to bring about the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab nations, ignoring Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands. One wonders how  such policy directions can possibly reflect US strategic interests?

United Nations Decision Regarding Ukraine War: A Parable

                                                                 

United Nations Resolution

A Parable

In the interest of World peace and in an effort to avert further escalation of the Ukraine War the General Assembly has convened and passed the resolution below. We, the majority of countries represented in the General Assembly, consider our decision valid and enforceable, the Security Council being unable to take appropriate action due to its charter and the veto rights of permanent members. The permanent members in question are in fact parties in the conflict. Hence, those States veto rights as well as the authority of the Security Council are hereby considered null and void.

Decision of the General Assembly regarding the Conflict in Ukraine: 

1. We call on all parties to immediately accept a cessation of military engagement in situ and to begin negotiation toward the resolution of hostilities. These negotiations will be directly between the governments of Ukraine and Russia but will be monitored and facilitated by representatives of India, Senegal, Tanzania and the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, who shall be released immediately from incarceration. 

2. The parties to the conflict will negotiate in good faith to resolve differences to include at the very least: the rights of ethnic minorities within Ukraine’s prior borders, the status of Crimea in consideration of the 2014 referendum, an assessment as to why the Minsk Accords were never implemented, and the question of Ukraine’s neutrality or alignment. 

3. In case the parties, Russia and Ukraine, are unable to reach an amicable agreement the facilitators in the peace negotiations will draw up a decision based upon the minimal points above and presentations by the parties during the course of discussions. The decision of the facilitators will be binding upon both parties.

4. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall be disbanded immediately. The expansion of that organization had no purpose following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The European Union may implement its own security arrangement in future, but without the participation of the United States. In that case we encourage the EU to consider inclusion within that new security arrangement of both Russia and Ukraine. However, either both Russia and Ukraine will be included or both excluded. Consideration should also be given to the inclusion of Türkiye. The EU led security arrangement is to be a defensive only agreement meant primarily to settle issues between the States of Eurasia. Membership in the European economic union is not a precondition of participation in the security organization. 

5. The Nord Stream pipeline shall be repaired immediately and discussions shall ensue to resume deliveries of natural gas. The cost of repairs to the pipeline shall be borne by the party guilty of sabotaging the pipelines. Russia and the United States shall jointly bear the cost of rebuilding war damage to infrastructure, ports, and buildings within Ukraine. Russia is evidently culpable directly for such damage and the United States (as well as certain EU countries) for the escalation of conflict. Both the US and Russia are required to issue statements of profound regret over the loss of life during the conflict. 

6. All claims for prosecution of war crimes shall be dismissed. War is a dirty business and always results in irreparable damage. In order to prosecute war crimes, however, it would be necessary to determine the causes which led to this war. We are of the opinion that the causes are multiple and widely shared. It is therefore impossible to assign guilt to one country and assigning responsibility to a multitude of countries will evolve into a futile process. It could also raise calls for investigations of prior conflicts such as the second Iraq War. The goal must be to resolve the present conflict immediately and to nullify the possible goal of both sides to prevail in the conflict and to thereby impose a Victor’s Justice. Impartiality is essential to a lasting peace and impartiality requires the abandonment of such accusations. 

As noted in the preamble the General Assembly has taken the decision to issue the above resolution given the inability of the Security Council to enact its own fair decision. The action we have taken, while not foreseen within the UN Charter, is most certainly necessary in the interest of World Peace. The action shall be considered valid and enforceable and shall be accepted as establishing legal precedent. In this regard we furthermore recommend a revision of the UN Charter to cancel all veto rights of the permanent members of the Security Council. We also recommend the enlargement of the Council and the adoption of enforceable decisions agreed by a two thirds majority. Failing such amendments to the Charter the General Assembly reserves the right to take action whenever and wherever conflicts arise.

Charting a Policy Response to Trump over Turkey and Syria

Turkey is now several days into its incursion into Syria. It has been planning this military foray for years, essentially since the outset of Syria’s civil war. The newsworthy item of course is that President Trump essentially gave President Erdogan a green light to proceed with those plans. Now, the media and politicians of various colors and ideologies are shouting condemnation of Trump for his decision. As one opposed to continuing military intervention, as well as a political foe of Trump, I see an obvious need to provide a clear analysis and a rational policy response to this crisis. Moreover, we need to dull the cacaphony of voices screaming foul and cheering for a policy reversal with little or no explanation to back up their calls for fresh intervention.

Point One: The US military bases in Syria were never authorized. They were established illegally under international law and are illegal still today. The evacuation of all US military personnel from Syria is absolutely an appropriate decision.
Point Two: The President of the US has no authority whatsoever to authorize a green light to any nation, whether an ally or not, to initiate an offensive incursion into another nation’s territory. Such decisions can only rightfully be taken within the UN.
Point Three: The Kurdish civilians living along the Syrian border with Turkey are evidently at risk as a result of Turkey’s military advance. Again, this is a matter for the UN. And, post haste the members of the Security Council should pass a unanimous decision calling on Turkey to cease its military action and repatriate its troops. US meddling via VP Pence’s visit to Turkey is not the appropriate response.

The civil war in Syria has continued for far too long. It began with demonstrations against the Assad regime. However, it quickly developed into an armed conflict and civil war. The US, Turkey and the Gulf States all supported the armed conflict. Weaponry and jihadist fighters were funneled into Syria largely across the Turkish border, although also through Iraq. The US government openly called for the overthrow of the Assad regime. Turkey supported jihadist / anti-Assad groups itself. Again, all of this activity was then and remains illegal. The activity worsened a civil conflict and led to an extended human tragedy and millions of refugees. Most of those refugees remain stranded in Turkey and Erdogan says he wishes to resettle the refugees within a 20 mile strip, ‘security zone,’ within Syria along the border.

During the worst phase of Syria’s civil war the jihadist offensive that had been unleashed by the US, Turkish and Gulf States took a disastrous turn. The most radical elements coalesced around ISIS and founded the Islamic State across Northeastern Syria and Northwestern Iraq. The Islamic State went on the offensive in both regions and began attacking Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq and along the Syrian border with Turkey. One of the worst attacks was on the city of Kobani, which Kurdish fighters defended at huge cost. During the fighting there Turkey sealed its borders to the Kurdish fighters because of its own ongoing political conflict with Kurdish separatists. The US entered the conflict directly at that point, establishing its illegal bases and providing arms to Kurdish fighters. Then, the Kurds in Syria and Iraq took the fight to IS. The Iraqi army also attacked the IS stronghold from the South. The result was a military upgrade of Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq.

The crucial take away from the events surrounding Syria’s civil war and the rise and fall of the Islamic State is that the events were fueled by US interventionist policies. Many of the politicians calling today for the US to not abandon its Kurdish allies were the same ones who bear responsibility for inflaming the conflict from the outset. Turkey is also guilty on this score. Throughout Syria’s civil war Turkey supported paramilitary groups and jihadists. It appears that they are now giving such groups free rein to attack Kurdish villages and to create yet one more human tragedy.

Those calling for US troops to remain in Syria are promoting the same old policy of US intervention across the world and especially in the Middle East. This permanently prevailing policy whereby the US intervenes at every opportunity, whether to undermine unfriendly governments or to ‘protect’ human rights must cease. The US was never elected as the world’s police force. It’s motives are never neutral. Rather we must transition to a world where such actions are decided by a consensus within the UN. That has historically been impossible due to the structure of the Security Council and the veto rights of its permanent members. The most guilty party with regard to the exercise of such vetos has been the US.

Those calling for the US not to abandon the Kurds, our ally in the fight against the Islamic State, need to resolve a sequential policy problem. Continuing to support and arm the Kurdish YPG fighters is tantamount to providing support for Kurdish independence. That raises a major international policy issue. An independent Kurdistan would require the redrawing of borders and would strip away land not only from Syria, but also from Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Yes, the state borders in the Middle East were artificially established. Yes, the Kurdish question has been ignored and postponed for decades. And, the Kurds have been oppressed by all of the countries mentioned since the end of WWI. However, a call to support the formation of Kurdistan cannot be taken lightly and is not a decision for the US to take unilaterally. There are alternative scenarios. Support for the respect of Kurdish minority rights and a process of devolution of political process is one such alternative. Again, such a process does not fall within the sole purview of the US. Such matters should be pursued peacefully and through the building of international consensus through the UN. Arming and protecting Kurdish rebels is inconsistent with a proper diplomatic policy.

Brexit, the European Union and Historical Crossroads

Brexit, the European Union and Historical Crossroads

The United Kingdom voted in favor of revoking its membership in the European Union. The process for implementing that vote is now in shambles. It is anyone’s guess how the process will finally play out. The deal that PM May negotiated with the E.U. admittedly falls short of the goals of Brexiteers. And, the idea of Brexit is equally regrettable in terms of a rational vision for geopolitical trends. Open borders, trade and peaceful coexistence remain, at least in my view, worthy destinations. Yet, if we analyze the way the E.U. has evolved, we can recognize crucial failures. The E.U. has passed numerous crossroads in its rendezvous with history and has fallen short consistently.

What were these crossroads and how do I define the EU’s failures? First, here is a list of what I consider to be the key issues and then following I will provide some analysis of each.
1. The creeping process toward a transition from a customs agreement toward political union.
2. The introduction of the common currency without establishing an institutional framework first.
3. The expansion of the E.U. into Eastern Europe in the wake of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Comecon.
4. The response to the debt crisis which hit the peripheral countries of the Eurozone after the 2008 financial meltdown.

Creeping toward Union
Sadly the EU has become increasingly bureaucratic and less responsive to direct democracy. The direction of the EU’s structure and policies has been toward ever closer union and ever greater control over laws, national budgets and taxation. And yet, there has been far too little preparation and open discussion to educate the populace to fully embrace this course. Few referenda were held to endorse the course toward union. When referenda were held the results were mildly in favor (petite oui) or negative. When several nations rejected aspects of the process, they were asked to vote again. What has transpired, as a consequence, is what I have called a creeping transition toward political union with little or no regard to public opinion. This is not the appropriate way to build a consensus in favor of a new emergent super state. The result has been a backlash against the EU and in favor of nationalism. This backlash to a large degree explains the UK vote to leave the EU. But, such backlash is visible in numerous other countries as well.

The structure of EU institutions is indicative. The major bodies that govern the union are three, The European Council, The European Commission and The European Parliament. Major strategic decisions are under the purview of The Council. This is a body which meets quarterly or more frequently to resolve crises. It is composed of the heads of member states plus an appointed President (currently MrTusk) and the President of The Commission. The heads of state are of course democratically elected. However, delegating strategic decisions to this moderate sized gathering removes those decisions one additional level away from participatory democracy. The Commission is where the EU bureaucracy really thrives. All of the members of The Commission are politically appointed and not elected directly. Yet, it is within the Commission that policy questions are researched, debated and formulated for adoption. The third body, that of the European Parliament, is the sole institution within the EU that is elected directly by the people. However, this institution is the least powerful of the three. Something is amiss here and it is common knowledge. As a result participation in elections to the European Parliament is always less than participation in national elections. And this is the case across the board.

The Common Currency
The Euro was introduced after years of planning in 1999 as a virtual currency and in 2002 in the form of notes and coins across the group of nations adopting it. Despite the planning, there have been serious adverse consequences. Economists immediately pointed out two flaws. First, it is inadvisable to implement a common currency without having first established adequate institutions in support. The EU began building those institutions after the fact rather than having them established and fully operational before hand. Second, the use of a common currency would be problematic without having achieved economic conversion and providing backstop safety nets such as a single insurance scheme for unemployment benefits and integrated pension plans.

The Maastricht Treaty was supposed to be the antidote to these shortcomings. The Maastricht agreement required that countries joining the Euro should demonstrate a competitive level of economic development. The countries were also have a debt to GDP ratio of less than 60%, annual deficits below 3% and tamed inflation rates. Again economists pointed out flaws. They noted that individual countries going through recessions would be in a straight jacket, unable to respond to their economic doldrums through a flexible fiscal policy. When the Euro was finally introduced not only had the EU failed to address these limitations, it relaxed the criteria for economic conversion and admitted countries with vastly disparate levels of economic development. In hindsight today it is sadly easy to see that economists criticisms and predictions have proven to be accurate. (More on this issue below.)

EU Expansion
In 1990 the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. Gorbachev’s attempt to implement Glasnost and to reform the Soviet Union and its allied states failed. The Berlin Wall was torn down and governments across Eastern Europe collapsed. This event presented a political opportunity as well as a humanitarian responsibility. There was a clear need to provide economic support to allow the countries of Eastern Europe to stabilize politically and to transition to more efficient modes of production and economic organization. To a degree the EU did respond to the challenge. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was set up to support investment and the transfer of expertise. A few of the countries have made relatively successful transitions.

On the geopolitical level, however, the EU failed miserably. When German unification went ahead the US and the Russian Federation agreed to permit reunification with the understanding that NATO would not expand to the east. This was a perfectly sensible agreement. It was time for a peace dividend after decades of Cold War. And yet that agreement was ignored. The US pushed and the EU caved. As the EU began the process of expanding into Eastern Europe it required new applicant nations to join NATO first and then begin the process to join the EU. From the US perspective America was seizing an opportunity to expand its empire. But from the EU perspective this was acquiescence pure and simple. The EU squandered the opportunity to spend the peace dividend.

During this period a significant policy debate ensued within the EU. The idea of political union was already on the table and being discussed. Everyone at the table, however, knew that the transition to political union would be difficult. At precisely the same time the need to respond to the political vacuum in Eastern Europe arose. The result was a debate over whether to expand the marketplace or to deepen the union among existing EU members. Deepening the Union was to include efforts to establish an independent foreign policy. As we reflect on this debate today it is not difficult to discern that the EU decided to do both simultaneously, but both haphazardly. And worst of all, the EU decided to accept the continuation of life under the wing of the American Empire. All discussion of creating an independent foreign policy remained just that, discussion.

Debt Crisis on the Periphery
In 2008 global capitalism was rocked by the subprime mortgage loan crisis in the US. The cause was a complete failure in banking supervision. As ripples ensued across markets and borders, the EU faced its own crisis. The introduction of the Euro had created the expectation that national economies within the Eurozone would converge. (Recall from comments earlier that the Euro was introduced without adequate infrastructure and despite disparate economic development.) As a consequence debt markets in Europe did converge with interest rates across the Eurozone moving toward parity. This decline in interest rates in peripheral economies produced an explosion of debt. Then, when markets crashed over US subprime debt, the ensuing lack of liquidity in European markets led to a second thought on economic conversion. It suddenly became painfully clear that economic conversion had not occurred. Instead peripheral economies had simply become over indebted.

Capital and investment across the Eurozone should have been recycled to establish sustainable economic development across the zone. Instead liquidity had recycled as debt across the zone producing a sovereign debt crisis, Europe’s own subprime problem. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and later Cyprus all displayed various symptoms of an over extension of debt within their national economies, whether private or public sector. The response from the EU was misguided and inadequate. The EU did finally set up additional institutions such as had been needed from the start, banking supervision and a European IMF (the EFSF). But the medicine administered to resolve the crisis was austerity programs. This choice was one that stemmed from the German philosophy of political economy and a fear of inflation and / or the weakening of the Euro currency. What was needed as explained above was a recycling of capital and investment to offset the debt explosion that had occurred. Instead, by implementing harsh austerity programs, capital flows shifted towards safety, i.e. back to Germany. In lieu of a Marshall Plan for the periphery, the EU implemented what was in effect a reverse Marshall Plan. The economic disparity within the Eurozone is now greater than it had been prior to introduction of the Euro. And so the crisis within the Eurozone lingers.

Summary
Certainly all of the analysis here is up for debate. My point is precisely that. All of the points above should be on the table for debate. I term the above points failures. Others may reply that they were pragmatic policy choices. Still, the fact remains that there are significant obstacles remaining within the structure of the EU. It is still an open question whether the EU can move successfully toward a stronger, deeper union. In fact it remains entirely uncertain whether the nations within the EU even want a closer union. Without political union and a true movement toward economic convergence, however, the common currency will face continuing crises in future. And unless the EU develops its own political identity and an accompanying foreign policy, it will be held hostage by US interests. It is already evident what this will mean. A hard border will exist between the EU and Russia. In future this may also apply to relations with China. And NATO will call upon the EU to support regime change wars across the Middle East and beyond.

Now, to come back to the question of Brexit, how does the above analysis help to to explain the Brexit gambit and the ensuing shambles? The Brexit vote should not have come as a surprise. Sentiments against the EU had been prevalent throughout all along. The UK had been one of the nations least inclined to political union. It had refrained from entering the common currency and steadfastly cultivated a special relationship with the US. Nonetheless, Cameron took the gamble to call a referendum. Surprise! He lost. The popular vote was marginally in favor of leave. On the other hand, as we have witnessed in voting within the House of Commons, the MPs are marginally in favor of the remain option. Hence, there is a standoff which raises additional risks to the process itself and even the future of the UK. Ideally I would like to see the UK remain within the EU. In doing so I would hope that the UK could be weaned from its special relationship with America. I would also like to see the EU reformed in favor of greater direct democracy, so that we might see progress against the failures I analyzed above. But we all must appreciate that the transition will be a long and bumpy ride.

Atheist or Agnostic

Atheist or Agnostic:
I just read an interview with the physicist Marcelo Gleiser. Several years ago I read one of his books, The Dancing Universe. I later included that book in the bibliography to my own philosophical book, The Bridge. Professor Gleiser has just been awarded the Templeton Prize and he was interviewed by Scientific American. The link to that interview is here: https:// www.scientificamerican.com/article/atheism-is-inconsistent-with-the-scientific-method- prizewinning-physicist-says/? utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly- review&utm_content=link&utm_term=2019-03-27_featured-this- week&spMailingID=58849609&spUserID=NTM5ODMzNzM1MQS2&spJobID=1603563188&spRep ortId=MTYwMzU2MzE4OAS2
There are two interesting themes that Gleiser responds to in the interview. The first is from the title, which is the idea that atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. The second is a warning that there is a danger of hubris among scientists, particularly those scientists who are seeking a ‘theory of everything.’ As it happens I dealt with both of these themes in my book, The Bridge. So, I want to take the opportunity to discuss them myself briefly.

Let me start with the second theme, the danger of hubris in science. I devoted a full chapter to this matter, On Science and Hubris. The risk is quite real. We are likely a very long way from anything remotely resembling a theory of everything. Gleiser talks about the boundary between what we know and what is beyond our current knowledge. I discussed this issue as well. In fact I coined a phrase by borrowing from a concept in contemporary physics. Astrophysicists today have discovered matter that can be detected but has not yet been seen or described. Similarly they have observed energy within the universe that they are unable at present to explain. They call these dark matter and dark energy respectively. I used this terminology to describe what we don’t yet know or understand dark knowledge. It is quite simply impossible to comprehend the relative balance between the body of knowledge we have acquired to date and the body of dark knowledge. And so, it is simply hubris to imagine that we are close to conquering the realm of dark knowledge.

The first theme on the other hand is, I think, misguided. Yes, it is true that we don’t understand all of the laws of the universe, nor all of the complexities of biology or the workings of the human brain. We can however, if we choose, understand the concepts of religious beliefs. We can trace the emergence of such beliefs within the historical period. We can read the religious and philosophical debates that took place historically over salient questions of religious belief. And, to a degree, we can speculate on the origins of concepts of gods and spirits that eventually developed into the various religions that exist today. If we examine all of these religious beliefs rigorously, we can safely say they are all demonstrably false. I would therefore argue that it is not hubris at all to state simply and with conviction that such beliefs are indeed false. Hence, if an atheist is one who rejects the beliefs currently and historically espoused by one and all existing religions, then that is an entirely defensible position. Now Professor Gleiser may counter that atheism is itself a creed. And that the atheist creed is guilty of hubris, since it stakes out an absolutist position which is based on the assumption that science has answered most of the important questions of the universe. I won’t argue with such a perspective, but I suspect that Professor Gleiser is arguing here against a straw man. I also recommend that he read my poem, Atheism, from my poetic drama, The Story of our People.