Each year Conn Hallinan looks aghast at news stories and newsmakers that beggar belief.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, winner of the 2013 White Man’s Burden award. Image, Wikimedia Commons
The Creative Solutions Award to the Third Battalion of the 41st U.S. Infantry Division for its innovative solution to halting sporadic attacks by the Taliban in Afghanistan’s Zhare District: it blew up a hill that the insurgents used as cover.
This tactic could potentially be a major job creator because there are lots of hills in Afghanistan. And after the U.S. Army blows them all up, it can take on those really big things: mountains.
Runner-up in this category is Col. Thomas W. Collins, for his inventive solution to explaining a sharp rise in Taliban attacks in 2013. The U.S. military published a detailed bar graps indicating insurgent attacks had declined by 7 percent, but, when the figure was challenged by the media, the Army switched to the mushroom strategy*: “We’re just not giving out statistics anymore,” Col. Collins told the Associated Press.
A prominent psychiatrist and author unearthed yet another flaw in the principle of nuclear deterrence.
I posted recently about a 1985 article in Political Psychology titled “Toward a Collective Psychopathology of the Nuclear Arms Competition” by John E. Mack, the American psychiatrist and Harvard Medical professor.* Another insight of his runs something like this.
To make “the intention to kill off the bulk of the population” of the enemy in nuclear war morally able, the enemy that’s “created” (or demonized, as we might call it today) by the acceptable, the United States must be ― drum roll, please ― “monstrous to a degree virtually not experienced among the peoples of the human race.” Whether or not deterrence worked in preventing another world war, it’s apparent that many in the Soviet Union perceived the United States as ready and able to launch a first strike as it had in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Indeed, as Mack writes
A French re-militarization of Africa, under the well-worn pretext of humanitarian intervention, is in the making.
Cross-posted from the Colorado Progressive Jewish News.
Tensions Revive in Kidal, Northern Mali
A mere nine months after a French-led military intervention supposedly stabilized the country, Mali is once again in turmoil. Despite Paris’ claims that all of its military would leave, more than likely the 1,000 remaining French military personnel in Mali are there for “an enduring mission.”
At the same time, at present, momentum for another major French-led military intervention in the Central African Republic will result in more permanent French troops on the ground elsewhere in Africa, joining those already there in Chad and the Ivory Coast, just to name a few. A French re-militarization of Africa, under the well-worn pretext of humanitarian intervention, is in the making.
They alternately disdain and demand them.
In a new report for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Usha Sahay and Kingston Reif cite President Obama’s June 19 speech in Berlin. The President announced his intentions to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal an additional 1,000 or more warheads below the level required by the New START treaty. When he stated that these cuts could either be “pursued through formal agreements” ― treaties ― or “parallel voluntary measures,” 24 Republican senators immediately wrote him to the effect that “any further reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal should only be conducted through a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.”
The problems that drones pose are legion.
In a recent column at Foreign Policy in Focus, Conn Hallinan used the image of Pandora’s box to illustrate the limitless outpouring of problems that drones present. Most of the concern over drones revolves around, abroad, the deaths of innocents (not to mention the dubious ethics and legality of assassinations anywhere), and, on the home front, surveillance. But, in a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article titled Which drone future will Americans choose?, Hugh Gusterson outlines issues often gone unnoticed.
For instance, no other state uses weaponized drones. (Currently, Gusterson explains, Britain and Israel are the only other states in possession of them.) Hasn’t it ever occurred to anyone that if states such as Russia and China develop or acquire them, they might use them as we do? Gusterson:
If they decide to use their own drones outside the boundaries of international law against people they brand “terrorists,” the United States will hardly be in a position to condemn them or counsel restraint.
Since World War II, the United States hasn't let a day go by without a mortal enemy.
In a 1985 article in Political Psychology, which I recently found while browsing JSTOR, John Kennan was quoted by author John E. Mack.* Kennan, the political scientist and diplomat whose ideas informed the U.S. policy of “containing” the Soviet Union wrote (in “Letter to an American,” the New Yorker, September 24, 1984):
The habit of spending from two to three hundred billions of dollars annually on preparations for an imagined war with Russia ― a habit reaching deeply into the lives and interests of millions of our citizens both in and out of the armed services, including industrial workers, labor-union officials, politicians, legislators, and middlemen: This habit has risen to the status of a vast addiction of American society, an addiction whose overcoming would encounter the most intense resistance and take years to accomplish even if the Soviet Union had in the meantime miraculously disappeared from the earth.
Susan Rice presented a plan in her Georgetown speech on how to make a deal with Beijing.
Sending Caroline Kennedy, a household name in the United States, to Japan as the ambassador indicates that President Obama has realized there is no better choice than using the tension in East Asia to capture and retain the attention of the American public to his amazing skills in handling Asia. While the jingoistic heat may stay for a while, the White House will cool it down soon.
In 1940, the GDP (in US$ billion) of Germany, Japan, the UK and the U.S. amounted to US$387, $192, $316 and $943 respectively, with a ratio between the two Axis and the two Allied powers at 0.4599:1. In 2012, the GDP of China, Japan and the U.S. amounted to $8,358, $5,960 and $15,685 billion respectively, with a ratio between China and the U.S.-Japan team at 0.3861:1. The GDP per capita of the U.S. in 2012 was US$49,965 and that of Japan was US$46,720, but the Chinese figure was merely US$6,188 which was less than 7% of the U.S.-Japan combined total.
If Nelson Mandela were alive and an active revolutionary today, would he have been targeted for extrajudicial assassination?
Beyond the headlines surrounding the passing of Nelson Mandela lies another story. Before overseeing the historic transition of power heralding majority rule in South Africa, Mandela led Umkhonto we Sizwe, the militant wing of the African National Congress which was labeled a terrorist organization by the United States. The Central Intelligence Agency is suspected to have played a role in his arrest, having invested more resources in countering the African National Congress and other anti-apartheid movements than did South Africa’s own security services. It devotes a similar level of attention today to Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, where it has deployed drones to eliminate targets who are suspected of terrorism based on their patterns of behavior.
The United States Government’s public justification for drone warfare was defended by the current CIA Director and then top Presidential counterterror aide John Brennan, who argued that drone strikes are legal, ethical, and wise. The first two of these points are up for debate, but using targeted strikes against suspected terrorists is widely considered to be wiser, safer, and less expensive than attempting to capture suspects and bring them to justice. Brennan noted that the primary purpose of these strikes is not to punish targets for past actions, but to “mitigate an actual ongoing threat.” It is likely that the threat Mandela presented to one of the United States’ Cold War allies would have easily passed Brennan’s threat mitigation test for using drone strikes.
Human Rights Day is an ideal time to acknowledge that what is presented as a pure human rights project is, for oppressed peoples, actually sullied by politics.
This paper is an excerpt from a much longer chapter in the forthcoming book on People-Centered Human Rights.
“Ours is the age of rights. Human rights is the idea of our time, the only political-moral idea that has received universal acceptance.”
― Louis Henkin
This quote from Louis Henkin, the venerable international legal scholar and passionate advocate for human rights, represents both the promise and the contradictory limitations of the human rights idea. For Professor Henkin and most of the human rights establishment, the universality of human rights is uncontested. The dominant values, assumptions, legal framework, research methodologies, forms of advocacy, institutional expressions and norm-setting processes that developed over the last six decades of the “modern” human rights period are seen as a natural evolution of progressive global relations.
Few in the West know that Yemen is not just the only state in the Arabian Peninsula with a republican form of government, but it was the first to grant voting rights to women.
The Yemeni Revolution, 2011-2012. Courtesy Wikimedia Commons
Yemen. The very name of this country brings many thoughts to one’s mind. It happens to be one of the oldest centres of civilization in the region, and is currently the second largest country in the Arabian Peninsula. If that does not impress you, Yemen is also the only state in the Arabian Peninsula to have a purely republican form of government, and was the first country in the region to grant voting rights to women.
A nice resume, indeed! Sadly, of late Yemen has not made it to the papers for the right reasons. As harsh as it may sound, present-day Yemen is far from perfect.