Troublespots in 2015

As we enter 2015, here is an obligatory look ahead of some of the major issues that the United States might deal with over the next year.  Hopefully, it is not only the U.S. but given the trend over the last decade or so, international cooperation has been difficult to secure.  For those who blamed the overly aggressive approach of President Bush as being divisive, President Obama’s overly conciliatory approach has won fewer friends.  In fact, many countries have lost faith in the U.S. and it is a faith that will be further tested over the next year.   

Even as it was happening, many observers thought Vladimir Putin’s reach for Crimea and eastern Ukraine was an attempt to divert the Russian public’s attention away from the downward spiraling economy.  It is an economy that has grown progressively worse over the last six months.  With the recent collapse of the ruble, the Russian economy could be sinking at depths that even the nationalistic land grab of Crimea and the Ukraine might fail to obfuscate.  That means, providing that Mr. Putin does not engage in a complete change in thought process, the large Russian minority population in the Baltic States could make the countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the next susceptible targets of Russian aggression.   

A second hot spot is an oldie but a goodie – the Middle East.  Just as Tunisia selected recently its first democratically elected leader, other members of the now defunct Arab Spring are examples of dictatorial and ruthless leadership hanging on.  Whether one is talking about Iran or Syria or Yemen (and there are many others), the Middle East will remain a tinderbox in the foreseeable future.  There seems to be a growing albeit still incompetent voice in the Arab world against the ISIS of the world and their death fetish vision of how society should develop.  However, the horrific crimes of ISIS as well as the ghastly attack on the school in Pakistan by the Taliban are bringing new attention to a region and its acceptance (tacit or otherwise) of such tactics. 

On the continent of Africa, there are several incidents brewing that could lead to disastrous consequences, whether the U.S. finds an interest to intervene or not.  The situation in South Sudan is a cauldron of hatred and seemingly unresolvable conflicts that have resisted strong efforts from the U.S., China and the occasional self-aggrandized actors who have tried to sponsor one peace effort after another.  An even worse situation is that in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  Its lack of control in the east, the lack of follow through with promises of reform by President Joseph Kabila and Hutus and other forces from Rwanda have made this country one on the precipice.  The African Union is not keen to interfere and the worsening miasma threatens the entire region.  This does not even mention other problem spots, such as the terrorist-laden Nigeria. 

Of course, the usual suspects like China, North Korea and Iran et al. are a perpetual threat to regional and world peace.  In short, there are plenty of things that could cause the death and suffering of millions and certainly, the U.S. need to make their voice heard throughout the world and make a stand for our philosophies.  The president feels reluctant to play a larger, stronger hand in world affairs but previous presidents had warned against isolationism.  In a quote strangely enough quoted by President Obama in his book The Audacity of Hope, Theodore Roosevelt said “We have no choice…as to whether or not we shall play a great part in the world.  That has been determined to us by fate, by the march of events…All that we can decide is whether we shall play it well or ill.” 

The Original Evil Empire

Watching the Olympics as I have over the last week, one could be forgiven for not knowing the nature of the Soviet Union.  As Jonah Goldberg recently wrote for the National Review, the sins of the Russian past are casually dismissed by the network and writers covering the Games.  Yet, Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire for a reason.  One does not acquire a moniker of “evil” unless it is truly earned.  From the oppression of the masses to the persecution of the dissidents to the slaughter of the innocents, the Russia that exists today has distanced from the past but the Soviet Union of old can still be seen in the rear view mirror. 

From a czar to a premier, Russian history has been a story of one dictatorial ruler after another.  Vladimir Lenin was the first leader in the aftermath of the revolution and the defeat of the anti-Communist White Russians.  As leader of the Soviet Union, he spent most of his early years crushing any dissent within his party while taking measures to ensure the longevity of his new government.  So horrible were his policies against those he originally led, he faced an assassination attempt and wide spread discontent from all over the country.  However, as ruthlessly pragmatic as Lenin was, he could not compare to the man who would follow after his in 1924 – Josef Stalin. 

A man of humble beginnings, Josef Stalin proved his cruelty by eliminating those who sought to lead the country after Lenin’s death, including most famously Leon Trotsky.  He wiped out the peasant farming class, who hoped to make profits from their efforts.  Afterwards, he introduced the shockingly destructive economic policy of the Five Year Plan which collectivized Russian farms, forced millions into horrible factory conditions and destroyed any semblance of religious authority or devotion.  Stalin was fearful of the Russian Orthodox Church’s hold on the population.  Simultaneously, he established a secret police force to spy on the populace and purposefully created wide-spread starvation.  His special gulags for political prisoners were infamous for its brutality and conditions.  It is widely estimated by historians that Stalin represents one of the greatest mass murderers of his century – though that might be too limiting a characterization.  Numbers of those who died by his policies range from the millions to the tens of millions.  

Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, its leadership created a society that dwarfed the worst imaginations of George Orwell.  Soviet society was one based on fear and suspicion.  Depravation and drudgery defined lives spent in factories and in lines for disappearing supplies.  So complete was the hold the government had, when Mikhail Gorbachev sought to loosen the binds that tied the Russians into intellectual paralysis, many did not trust it.  So paranoid of the government’s intention were the Russians, they simply could not believe the change.  Literature and art, music and style were regimented and society was browbeaten into conformity.  Soviet society was so damaged, it was constant fodder for Hollywood films and historical studies.   

All of this said, the Russians have something for which they can be justly proud – themselves.  Seldom in human history has a people endured and ultimately thrived after such oppression.  The fact that Russian culture remains at all is a minor miracle.  While it has traditionally been characterized as backward and primitive, it has nevertheless achieved great things in spite of the barriers and limitations placed before them.  And as for those obstacles, they represent one of the worst, most dangerous, deadliest governments ever conceived.  Despite the attempts at whitewashing Russian history, its crimes are incontrovertible.  Facts do have a nasty way of getting in the way of revisionism.   

What Is In a Name?

From an early age, I was aware that not all was as it seemed.  According to my family, I was Jewish but in accordance with most authorities on the subject, I was not.  The problem was my mother – a southern shiksa who married a Jewish Yankee from Baltimore.  Because my mother is not Jewish, rabbinic authorities declare that I’m not either.  For me personally, it is not an issue and I can dismiss the controversy with a Talmudic shrug.  For Israel, it is a larger issue with much wide-ranging implications.    

There are two sides of the much debated topic.  On the Orthodox side of the equation, there are the rabbis of Israel.  When Israel was created, the government bestowed upon the religious authorities the responsibility of all religious matters which included marriage and questions of Jewishness.  The only time the government infringed on this duty was in the parameters for the Right of Return and Israeli citizenship, requiring only one Jewish grandparent of an immigrant (or their spouse).  However, according to the religious authorities, only one of a Jewish mother or one who has passed through traditional conversion can claim to be a “Jew.”  

On the other side of the argument are the liberals who see the question mired in the difficulty of answering, “What is a Jew?”  Outside of Israel, so many Jews (particularly young Jews) are marrying outside the Tribe, lines are blurring at a dizzying rate.  There is even a growing number of Jews who feel a belief in God is not necessary to be a Jew.  Additionally, there are the problems that arise from such a narrow view of “Jewishness” as seen in the Jewish Ethiopian immigrant controversy in Israel in the 1980s and their Hebraic bona fides.  Compounded with the omnipresent uncertainty of Eastern European/Russian Jews who grew up with no religious knowledge under an atheistic regime and the question grows more convoluted. 

Both sides raise troubling consequences to the other’s position.  The Jewish race, not to mention the faith, has survived largely through a measure of self-preservation and agreed-upon identity.  In the face of historic animosity, they have persevered through a measure of isolationism.  The more vague the traditional concepts of identity become, the greater the threat of the word “Jew” not meaning anything.  Particularly offensive to Israeli rabbis is the concept of a secular Jew without religious conviction.  However, a growing number are in that category or have switched religious affiliation altogether.   For a people who have endured immeasurable oppression, the loss of this identity is traumatic.   

From a modernist point of view, the narrower the term “Jew” is defined, the more likely the faith will die out as prospective converts consider other options.  Ethiopian and Russian Jews do not consider themselves any less so but, in Israel, endure constant suspicions to the contrary.  It is tough enough to convert to a faith in a world that increasingly disrespects such standards.  One can accept such criticism but to have it come from within?  Israeli rabbis have frequently blamed American and other western rabbis for watering down the standards but the reality for these leaders is quite different.  The level of pluralism in western societies make adherence to Israeli standards suicidal.

There is a story of an atheist who tells a rabbi he does not believe in God.  The rabbi responds, “What makes you think God cares?”  I don’t think the question of “Jewishness” can be settled on the basis of religion.  It is an ethnicity and, like God, the belief in the Almighty should not be of primary concern.  However, the rabbis have a great deal vested in maintaining the power to determine this and though liberals in the Knesset are trying to push their agenda, it will take some time.  The Diaspora has broadened the concept of who is and who is not a Jew and there is little point in re-arguing the issue.  One thing is for sure – a protracted argument does no one any good and certainly, is not advantageous for Israel.  I would think it has enough on its plate. 

The Effect of Weakness

I have learned to hate all traitors, and there is no disease that I spit on more than treachery.
            Aeschylus

Edward Snowden was not a member of the National Security Agency but a contractor who worked in intelligence.  As he was a contractor of the NSA, Mr. Snowden was put through a screening process and was notified that the information he work with would be of a secret nature and therefore, any release of said information would be in violation of the law.  No doubt, as a condition of his employment, he took a vow or pledge to uphold the security of the United States and abide by the NSA’s rules and regulations regarding secret information.  Then, like Daniel Ellsberg and the release of the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Snowden came to the conclusion that his interests superceded that of the United States and the exercise of his “conscience” outweighed the dangers in which he placed other Americans throughout the world.   

Since the Second World War, there has been an emphasis on the importance and right of members of any government to not follow orders which contradict their moral beliefs or their sense of right and wrong.  Edward Snowden, upon entering the National Security Agency was shocked, shocked to find spying going on and in rather hypocritical righteous anger, took it upon himself to release secret documents that not only embarrassed and put at risk the goals and objectives of the United States but also put in danger the men and women tasked with carrying out those directives.  I claim hypocrisy because here is a man who willingly entered a service known and created for the purpose of collecting intelligence, among other things.   

Given the stated purpose of the NSA, Mr. Snowden’s claims of a conscientious drive to unveil the actions of the United States rings hollow.  There are two possibilities at play here.  One, Mr. Snowden was not aware of the nature of espionage and of the core objectives of the NSA.  This seems rather strange that one would go through all the rigmarole of passing through background checks and applications and the like without any real understanding of what he was signing up to do.  The second possibility is that his intention was more heinous – that he went through the laborious process and worked his way into a delicate and sensitive area of intelligence for the sole purpose of revealing it.  In short, he is either one of the more naïve people formally of the U.S. government or a spy of the worst character.   

There are many who are shocked by the Mr. Snowden’s activities and stance, as well as the actions of Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange and Army Private First Class Bradley Manning.  People are even more dismayed at their attitude, ranging from blasé to defiant, about their actions.  Famed author C.S. Lewis once said, “We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”  This is an example of what happens when we culturally dismiss the notions and ideas that created our country.  Some commentators have suggested we are the Rome of 200 CE.  At times, it seems we stand at a precipice.  What was valued is no longer and our country seems to be more directionless than ever.   

However, I honestly believe that is an illusion.  I believe that the majority of Americans out there still value honor, valor, loyalty and patriotism.  However, as a society, we have allowed certain elements to creep in and fester.  Mr. Snowden needs to be held accountable for his actions.  How this will be done, I’m not sure.  He is playing a “catch me if you can” game and the Russians, a bit secretly, and the Chinese, more blatantly, are reveling in our inability to get at him and the embarrassment he is causing.  His father is announcing that demands need to be made before his son could comfortably surrender to American authorities.  I hope the Obama administration does not allow a potential traitor and his father to dictate terms.  This man is charged with one of the worst crimes that can be committed in espionage and putting at risk the lives of Americans serving abroad.  He needs to be treated as such.    

The Threat of the Hermit Kingdom

Toward the end of World War II, Adolf Hitler had quite obviously gone mad.  It was a process that began years ago.  Some of his generals remarked that he was moving around units on a large map that no longer existed.  He was screaming out orders to destroy enemy units and resources but no longer had the manpower to do so.  Generals were afraid to tell him otherwise and merely affirmed his orders and left.  Since those last days of that horrible war, a singular man controlled the northern part of the Korean peninsula – Kim Il-sung.  Today, his grandson, Kim Jung-un, has continued the tradition of global provocateur that has further isolated a nuclear pariah. 

Over his time as sole dictator and quasi-deity, the father of what would later be termed the “hermit kingdom” worked as an agitator.  As an extension of the Cold War maneuvering, Il-sung enjoyed the protection of Russia and China and therefore, his reckless behavior culminating with the Korean War was supported and his image at home reinforced.  His regime was also responsible for, conservatively, over one million killings.  His death in 1994 brought to power his son, Kim Jung-il.  While his time in control of North Korea contained gestures towards its southern neighbor and even talk of re-unification, it was difficult to take these overtures seriously.  As party secretary prior to 1994, South Korea blamed him for ordering a bombing in Rangoon, Myanmar and the downing of Korean Air Flight 858 in 1987.  Now, his son is playing a dangerous game with nuclear weapons.  His nearby enemies (namely South Korea and Japan) are nervous, as are his “friends” (namely China).   

On one level, there is no evidence that North Korea has the technology to strike the United States.  However, the U.S. has long standing alliances with South Korea and Japan and because of this relationship, we are obliged to help in the event of a North Korean attack.  The president has wisely ordered various maneuverings in South Korea using stealth bombers and it is assumed that enhanced missile shields are forthcoming.  All of these are defensive and reactionary in nature.  There will be a time when the president will be forced to consider a pre-emptive strike upon intelligence that North Korea is prepared to do something.  If Jung-un appears to be ready to act upon his countless threats, the U.S. will need to decide if it should truncate the threat potential.  Japan’s military is defensive in nature and not equipped for a pre-emptive strike.  South Korea possesses a large military with plenty of weapons to destroy its northern neighbor but history has not shown that it is willing to take chances.   

It is uncertain what explains this recent round of saber-rattling.  Perhaps it was Dennis Rodman’s fault.  However, Pyongyang has made a habit of this over the last couple of decades – threaten nuclear war or missile attack, pleas from the West asking him to relax and donate supplies and food to make the point, North Korea backs off…for a while.  What generally helps the United States and a president decide how to address a crisis is an underlying trust that the opposite leader will not do certain things.  Those types of assumptions are dangerously played with regards to North Korea.  Israel, faced with a similar threat, took the initiative to destroy nuclear power plants in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007.  Israel is not in a position to allow for diplomacy to run its course – its existence lies upon the blade of the sword.  If Japan or South Korea is not willing to do it, it would be a safer option for the U.S. to strike first than to respond.   

China has lost control of its younger, demented communist brother and even it and Russia have supported increased sanctions by the United Nations.  However, the combination of North Korea’s dangerous abilities and the unknown factor of the newly appointed Kim Jung-un is a bad combination.  North Korea is more dangerous than even a country like Iran.  Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is countered by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.  Where Iran has that religious check on secular power, North Korea’s cult of personality combines the political with the religious.  The hold that this type of government has on its people is dangerous and only increases the volatility and danger of a country. 

From Russia with Confusion?

I’m a bit surprised at how little Americans are aware of Russian politics. Much of my surprise is based on growing up during the Cold War. More so than any other country, I knew who the Soviet premier was, I was aware of what the Soviet Union was doing and in general, the happenings within Russia were more top of mind to the average American. Other countries and other peoples have now pre-occupied the American attention span. While Russia has escaped our consideration over the last decade or so, it has not stepped away from the international stage and therefore, still worthy of our time to read about and keep track of.

Russia is mired in various things at the moment. A Ukrainian court has jailed its former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, for the crimes of overstepping her authority. Her crime was an oil pipeline deal with Russia that decidedly favored Moscow. Her prison sentence has been criticized by nearly everyone who has a stake in the oil supply, from the Americans to the Swedes, and Russia has declared the verdict “anti-Russian.” It can certainly be argued that the verdict has as much to do with Ms. Tymoshenko’s abrasive and combative personality, particularly with her political opponents. However, whether this deal goes through or not, the U.S. and its Western European allies will be greatly affected. The European Union has stepped up the pressure by suggesting the Ukraine is jeopardizing its potential candidacy into the EU. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich will have the chance to make amends when he meets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev next week.

However, the biggest upcoming story out of Russia is the election in March 2012 that will, if reports are to be believed, return to the position of president, Vladimir Putin. The reason why this story should be of interest to the United States is what the move means for Russian democracy. As it is, Russia has proven quite obdurate over the last decade in actions against North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya. Worse, its rationale seems more to do with gumming up the works on the international scene than being based on any core beliefs or national interest. Now, the fear that international observers had with the presidency of Mr. Medvedev, a puppet that was keeping the seat of power warm until Mr. Putin could work around the Russian constitution, seem validated. What must the Russian people think? The Economist calls the situation farcical and it is hard to disagree with the assessment. This comes at a time when investors are leaving the country, government spending is up to make up the difference and oil revenue could certainly use the boost the Ukrainian deal would provide.

The Putin/Medvedev deal is not democracy – not even potential democracy. Granted, the U.S. took a while to improve their process but Russia seems headed in the opposite direction. What will the Russian people do when their frustrations with the economy are compounded by a shaky and disingenuous democratic system? Will they turn to something more radical and potentially dangerous or will they rise up to reiterate their demand for true democratic reforms? Whatever happens, it will be interesting and worthy of American attention.