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 Snowden came to the conclusion that his interests superceded that of the United States and the exercise of his “conscience” outweighed the dangers in which he placed other Americans throughout the world.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. 

The One Truly Philosophical Problem

There are some topics that are hard to discuss – not so much because the topic is difficult but the readers have no frame of reference.  For example, how can an American audience relate to the selling of children into prostitution because it brings money in for the family?  How can an American audience relate to the killing of government opposition in order to quell dissatisfaction?  Even more difficult is suicide as protest.  Sadly, Americans have plenty experience with suicide but only as it relates to mental illness – not as a form of protest from one of “sound mind and body.”  There was an interesting article in Foreign Policy on the psychological components of a suicide protestor, highlighting differences between sanguinary and communicative objectives but it is fair to also consider the effectiveness of the tactic.

My article is not a moral argument but more a practical one.  The two main types of suicide as protest (as also highlighted in the article) are suicide bombers (sanguinary) and suicide by self-immolation (communicative).  While both profess to do the same thing (attempt to alter a present condition through self-sacrifice), they are radically different in their approaches and in how others perceive the acts. 

The suicide bomber is largely seen negatively from a western mind-set because the protest involves the death of others (typically, innocents) and the motives are not always pure.  Studies done on the subject show that seldom are these “martyrs” ideologues.  Though these acts are not approved of, they are effective.  Suicide bombings have changed the course of European governments and have compelled them to accept what was generally considered antithetical to their beliefs.  Examples include Spain’s quick withdrawal from Iraq after the Madrid bombings and the condemnation over cartoons depicting Muhammad negatively instead of defense of free speech.  It would be one thing if these governments presented an argument that defined their policies separate from the bombings, especially in the case of Spain, but more typically, the hope is that by deferring they can avoid the possibility of bombings in their country. 

Never mind that we are talking about European countries and other western democracies responding to the actions and beliefs of a few, but ultimately, it might not matter.  Consider the recent violence between Israelis and Hamas.  The Palestinians fire rockets from schools, hospitals and other civilian centers.  They admit this in press conferences.  When Israel responds, world news outlets characterize the measure as brutal and criminal.  When Palestinian and Hamas leadership say they “must” fire from these locations, no one challenges their near-complete lack of rationale nor challenges their assertion that in the same breath, they blame the Israelis for killing their civilians.  This is in conjunction with suicide bombers sent into Israel but the actions are the same.  The use of sacrifice to make and implement a point but on a much larger scale than an individual bomber.  The sacrifices are working as Palestinians are gaining in international support. 

On the other hand, we see a recent uptick in self-immolation by Buddhist priests, a resurgence of an old tactic from the Viet Nam War era.  The most famous of these suicide protests was done by Vietnamese monk Thích Quẚng Dức in protest of the Ngo Dinh Diem government in the South in 1963.  These measures, most recently seen in Burma and Tibet, are universally admired and register with people because of the self-sacrifice, without other casualties, against a repressive regime.  There is also something to the pain and suffering that goes into the sacrifice, separate from the instantaneous and otherwise painless sacrifice of suicide bombers.  There is also a widely held belief that the sacrifice is being done by one much more aware and dedicated to their cause.  However, they are the least effective.  Neither the South Vietnamese government nor the more modern Burmese government was shaken by the protests and it was not what brought down these regimes.  Tibet activists have made little headway against China though they have gained world-wide support. 

What we hate, we respond to and what we appreciate, we ignore.  Part of this is due to China’s prominence in world affairs, as opposed to many Middle Eastern countries who largely play little economic role internationally.  With each suicide bomber, we witness the death and destruction and, for some, there is a permanent change in the perception of Islam as a faith of extremism.  To make matters worse, we validate and value that perception by how we respond.  We back away from time-honored liberties and rights while twisting our world view to accept the paradigm of terrorists.  In doing so, we also give no help to those who seek to right the ship and take back the core of Arab and Islamic values. 

A Tragic, Chinese Summer

It was a sweltering summer in Beijing, China in 1900.  Not only were the temperatures at record levels, but so were the political tensions.  The previous December, two missionaries were hacked to death in a rural area outside of the Chinese capital.  The culprits were labeled as members of a secret organization called the Boxers.  It was an organization that had begun as an anti-dynastic group but over the last couple of decades, it shifted its focus against the presence of Europeans and other outsiders in China.  

In late June of that year, the Boxers surrounded the foreign legation quarters in the capital and began a siege that would last until August.  The British, a leading power in the world, represented the main leadership of the foreign powers and organized their defense.  The French, the Americans and the Japanese also served in a leadership capacity in their attempts to defend the foreigners in the legations.  In addition to the foreigners in danger, the legation quarters were also sheltering a slew of Chinese converts to Christianity who arrived from various beleaguered missions in the surrounding mountains and fields.   

Through those summer months, a waiting game ensued as the legation defenders and their Chinese “guests” attempted to hold out against an increasingly hostile, emboldened and imperial-sponsored rag-tag group of fanatics while at the same time, waiting for a relief force made up of the world powers coming from Tianjin, a port city to the southeast.  As the allied forces made their way to the capital, the defenders fought day and night, they ate increasingly inedible food and slept very little.  Among the military and diplomatic officials who helped in the defense, missionaries also helped in the fight while the wives of missionaries served as nurses to the injured.  In mid-August, the legations were finally saved, the Boxers were defeated and the Qing Dynasty given a fatal blow. 

Over the course of the siege, westerners were already speaking of the legacy of the event.  Missionary William Martin melodramatically suggested, “this siege in Peking (Beijing) will undoubtedly take rank as one of the most notable in the annals of history.”  Sarah Conger, the wife of the U.S. minister to China, had a more level headed assessment.  In a letter to her nephew, she wrote, “What do you think of the history that is being made?  Only a small portion of it will ever be handed down for future generations to ponder.”  Sadly, history has fallen into favor of the minister’s wife.  There was one film made on the subject called 55 Days in Peking back in the 1950s but in the last decade, new scholarship has been conducted on this forgotten period of Chinese and U.S. history.   

I was first drawn to the uprising because so many knew so little about that Chinese summer.  That is actually what motivates my current research interest.  I hope that my article has stoked a level of interest within the reader – perhaps, one might even do a little research themselves.  History is replete with these types of struggles; the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya, the Biafra revolt in Nigeria, the Kampuchean revolution in Cambodia or the Zapatista Revolution in Mexico.  The researcher will learn two things – one, there is much more to history than previously thought and two, history is much more interesting than the same stories told every year.

 

The Gathering of Storm Clouds

There are a series of events that are transpiring that could quickly destabilize various regions around the world.  In the past, the United States played a large and influential role in settling situations and calming fears – allowing for “cooler heads to prevail.”  In the past, the United States displayed a leadership that could convince otherwise truculent world leaders to compromise or stand down.  Critics of American foreign policy denounced the overbearing and bullying democracy.  President Obama feels that the U.S. has inappropriately and insensitively projected itself on world affairs in the past and promised not to follow that same path.  Activists around the world applauded the declaration.  Yet, in the Middle East and the Far East, things are quickly deteriorating and it begs the question if a stronger president could not have stemmed the tide. 

A while back, I worried that Syria was turning into a Rwanda.  Today, the international community has allowed a government to butcher its own people on a massive scale.  In the absence of international action or leadership, organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood have moved in to help the rebels.  However, the bloodshed continues and the government remains unrepentant even as its structure crumbles around them.  A new envoy, Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, now has the unenviable task of convincing a government who has ignored international pressure for over a year to put aside its aggression on its own people with little tangible outside help from the Americans and Europeans. 

To the southwest, Israeli leaders have given up hope of the international community rendering aid and are in the process of considering, if reports are to be believed, a strategic attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Israel has, unfortunately, needed to take this path before when it attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nascent nuclear reactor in 1981.  Recent reports on Iran’s nuclear capabilities suggest it is further along than anyone thought.  Not only does such developments threaten Israel but it is reasonable to suggest that predominantly Sunni Muslim countries are also at risk – not to mention western Europe and other U.S. allies.  While many international activists chastise Israel and despair of its “militaristic” tendencies, Israel might be forced to do what years of diplomacy have failed to accomplish. 

On a group of Japanese controlled islands, a bit of opera is playing out between the Japanese government and activists from China. The Senkaku islands are the center of a debate as to who controls the area. When the Japanese Coast Guard detained and questioned the activists, Beijing issued a strong condemnation as anti-Japanese protests erupted through the country. At stake for these islands south of Okinawa and just north of Taiwan are a litany of gas fields and a heavily traveled commercial shipping lane. China declares ancient rights to the islands but Japan has controlled them since the late 1800s.  To what extent China would be willing to fight over the islands is uncertain but two obdurate, tradition-rich and stubborn countries at odds is a point of concern.  Unfortunately, no one outside the region seems to notice.
 
Any one of these incidents can, by themselves, create the kind of foreign policy headache that risks the lives of tens of thousands. A strong and influential hand has traditionally been sought out from the United States but at present, it appears to be absent. As time goes by, the European Union grows increasingly pre-occupied with holding its economic structure in place. The Arab League has proven, to date, to be as ineffective and toothless as the organization it was patterned after – the United Nations. The world community releases one paper condemnation and outrage after another but things continue to deteriorate.

The president is pre-occupied by the coming election as any president would but Mr. Obama also needs to understand that he cannot focus solely on November. The boldness he displayed in ending the Osama bin Laden threat is required once more but he seems reluctant to enter the fray. If this is what we can expect from the president with an additional four years, perhaps we should take a longer look at Mr. Romney. Sadly though, if talk is to be believed, some of the situations could collapse long before the November election.