Informed Comment: Global Affairs

Resurgent Arab Islam need not be unsettling

2011-12-11T22:56:00.002-05:00

By Emile Nakhleh and Augustus R. Norton

[Cross-posted with "From the Field" and Boston Globe's "The Angle", where it was first published December 11, 2011]

In the wake of the youth-directed “Arab Spring,” which rocked the Middle East to its core and felled autocratic governments in several countries, Islamic political parties are poised for an historic resurgence across the region — and that is neither surprising nor necessarily alarming.

Popular mass demonstrations, “Days of Rage,” have been the hallmarks of the season that dislodged dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, and exposed the fragility of fierce but unpopular regimes across the Arab world. Youthful demonstrators in quest of dignity, hungry for jobs, and fed up with corruption formed the vanguards.

But because Arab rulers did not allow serious opposition parties, the best organized opposition groups were often Islamist movements. While they did not launch the Arab Spring, they lent resilience and discipline to the demonstrations. These movements are deeply insinuated in the contours of daily life in Arab societies, and now are emerging as early victors in what Arabs are calling al-sahwa (the awakening).

The successes of Islamic parties inspire consternation and alarm in some US policy circles. Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution worries that these parties will not embrace democracy. Like former Israeli defense minister Moshe Arens, he suggests that the Arab Spring is likely to become a long Arab Winter as Islamic parties gain power and then thwart hopes for substantial reforms and freedom. But these groups are not the extremists that critics fear, and Islamist political parties deserve the opportunity to deliver on the mandate they’ve been granted at the polls.

It is crucial to note that mainstream Islamic parties in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco are not your grandfather’s Islamists. Their views about human rights, toleration, and the legitimacy of democracy have evolved in encouraging directions in the past two decades.

Serious debates about earlier episodes of both failed and successful political change have been wide-ranging in Islamist circles. These include reflecting on the army coup that thwarted an Islamist victory in Algeria nearly two decades ago; the failure of violent jihadist tactics, not least by the widely despised Al Qaeda; and the exemplar of non-Arab Turkey, where a democratically elected Islamist party has been in power since 2002. While there are certainly radical dissenters, the mainstream is politically pragmatic and fully capable of embracing the give and take of democratic life.

Electoral victories of Justice and Development in Morocco and al-Nahda party in Tunisia confirm the powerful resurgence of political Islam in post-autocratic societies. And results from the first round of Egyptian elections for two-thirds of the seats in the People’s Assembly indicate the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice party obtained 36.6 percent of the vote.

This means the Brotherhood’s party will lead a coalition government in Cairo when the complicated three-stage election concludes in two months. The religiously conservative Salafi al-Nour Party got about a quarter of the vote, which surprised party leaders and many Egyptian and foreign analysts. But the Muslim Brotherhood said it would form a coalition government only with liberal parties, not with the Salafis.

Many Egyptian liberal activists, including presidential candidate Muhammad ElBaradaei, have expressed apprehension that by getting almost a fourth of the vote in the first round, the Salafis might push for a conservative social and political agenda — banning music, liquor, and certain types of literature, and restricting minority and women’s rights.

ElBaradei also said that, with over 60 percent Islamists, the new People’s Assembly is not a true reflection the Egypt that toppled the Mubarak regime. Election results made it obvious the Freedom and Justice Party was well-organized and campaigned effectively whereas the liberal coalition, including the “generation of the uprising,” was woefully splintered and ran an unconvincing political campaign.

The struggle now shifts from party politics to the writing of the Egyptian constitution. The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists are demanding that the People’s Assembly should form the committee charged with writing the constitution. Liberals, like ElBaradei, are leaning toward having the generals who now wield political power play a larger role in shaping the constitutional committee as a countervailing force to the Islamists.

As the Arab revival surges on, it is likely that Islamic-inspired groups will gain a major share of political power in Yemen and Syria — and perhaps even in Jordan and Bahrain. Despite the strenuous efforts of Saudi Arabia to stem the tides of change through influence and money, the pathology of authoritarian rule suggests continuing vulnerability to mass protests and resistance.

But now, having won elections, these parties will need to govern. The challenges facing popularly elected governments in the Middle East are formidable, especially job creation and economic needs. Chanting “Islam is the solution” will not do the trick.

Of course, there will be a political honeymoon for these new governments — a “night of honey,” as Arabs call the wedding night. But there will be no bliss unless the victors can deliver. This means the new governments often will be obliged to embrace compromise and deal-making — or face repudiation by an electorate that now knows how to institute political divorce.

Arab publics are repudiating a strong executive — whether president or king — in favor of parliamentary democracies. In presidential republics, the 2011 upheavals have signaled a desire to replace a powerful president with an independent prime minister and a parliament with legislative powers. They also have demanded a civilian government, an end to the mukhabarat (security) state, and constitutional reform. Even the privileged status of the military now is being questioned — especially in Egypt, where the prerogatives of the generals had been off limits for debate.

The transition to democracy in Egypt could face several risks that could derail it. They could come from terrorist organizations and radical Salafi groups, which do not believe in democracy, or from entrenched militaries ready to thwart any attempts to undercut their economic and power status. Sectarianism, which has been fomented by regimes in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, poses still another potential risk on the democratization path.

Yet, despite these looming hazards, mainstream Islamic political parties that remain committed to pluralism, inclusion, and civil rights are poised to play a constructive role in combating sectarianism, radicalism, and militarism. They should be afforded the opportunity to do so.

Emile Nakhleh is former director of the political Islam strategic analysis program at the CIA. Augustus R. Norton is a professor of anthropology and international relations at Boston University.

In the Desert of American Politics

2011-11-20T15:37:00.001-05:00

Murat cem Menguc

Something universal isalso particular, for it applies to all particularities, universally. Incontrast, something particular remains particular, for it does not applyuniversally. This seems to be the most important lesson history can teach us,as in his 1964 lectures titled Freedomand History, philosopher and a founder of the New School in New York,Theodor Adorno argues so. Adorno postulates that until people become a victimof history, that is, until they are taught a universal lesson about themselves,they do not realize they were living in a vacuum. Such big lesson rarely comesin a non-violent form and the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protest camp at theZuccoti Park, which lasted for two months, was one such precious lesson.

The OWS protestsstarted in September 17, when about 1700 people marched to voice theircriticism against the Wall Street. These men and women were greeted by a heavypolice presence, and a group of people sipping Champaign on a balcony acrossthe street from the New York Stock Exchange, mocking the protest. A handful ofthe protesters who had earlier decided to camp in the Chase Plaza, from whichthey were barred, cleverly moved to the Zuccoti Park, were they set a camp. Iwas blessed with the fact that Zuccoti Park was where I transferred from subwayto bus during my daily commute, and started to interact with the camp threedays after it was formed. In the beginning there were about two dozenprotestors and on twitter, they amassed less than 2000 followers (todayapproximately 200,000 people them on twitter, and on November 17 they were ablemobilize 32,000 people, whose protests were watched on live stream by over650,000 people).

Initially, I wassurprised by the lack of media coverage of the protest and I joined them afterbeing disturbed by an image the New York Timespublished, which depicted it as a juvenile orgy, or a summer rave. I emailed afew columnists about this and asked why they could not talk about the protestrather than mock it with such images. Clyde Haberman wrote back “Actually,we’ve covered them every day, in the newspaper on Sunday and every day on CityRoom, our on-line blog. Aren’t we endlessly told that on line is where youngpeople read these days?” So, according to Mr. Haberman, this protest was about youngpeople, to whom his newspaper catered electronically, whereas the printreaders, who were presumably older, did not need to know about it. GiniaBelefante was more articulate, stating that she was working on a large piece tobe published on September 25, and asked me if I was involved or observing it fromafar. I am an occasional visitor, I replied and she quickly assured me that theprotest was not as relevant as I believed, and if I had spent enough timearound it, I would have realized that they were an aimless bunch. When Ipointed to her how the Guardian hiredAmy Goodman to write a column about it, she replied that they got their factswrong. When I asked her which facts and who got them wrong, the Guardian or Amy Goodman, and suppliedher with a list of facts that I was familiar with, such as the harassment andthe arrest of dozens of activists and the confiscation of recording devices andcomputers from the camp by the New York Police Department (NYPD) which startedfrom day one, she stopped responding. The day before Belefante’s essay waspublished, NYPD kettled, beat and arrested numerous protesters and journalists.It also used pepper spray, illegally. Upon the publication of her essay,Belefante was heavily criticized for her lack of consciousness, understandingand solidarity with the movement, for she still insisted that the OWS was auseless rant.

I have never been a fanof the New York Times, and subscribeto it because my wife thinks it keeps me away from my laptop. The OWS episodemade it obvious that they too lacked a clear understanding of what was takingplace. At that time, the OWS was partially organized by a group of alternativemedia/internet activists, who were the creators of an very successful magazine titledAdbusters. This anti-commercialistjournal of activism generated decent advertising revenues to support itself.For the initiation of the OWS, Adbusters joinedforces with the Internet activists (or hactivists as they became known) the Anonymous. This coalition constituted analternative media and network team far from incompetent or aimless. One oftheir participants whom I have interviewed for our Occupy Wall Street OralHistory Project explained that the main goal of the protest was to start a paradigmshift, to make masses question the virtue of capitalism and unregulated marketeconomy. The fact that they were able to talk about a paradigm shift aloneshowed how articulate they were, and that they knew a peaceful movement had toestablish its strength via discourse. From the very beginning they treatedInternet and independent media was their best options for spreading themovement and organizing something both local and international. They also knewthat the spirit of revolution was everywhere, from Bahrain to Detroit.

During the followingweeks, the OWS became a New York tourist and celebrity attraction. Beingcriticized for his handling of the Brooklyn Bridge protest, where 700protesters were kettled and arrested, Mayor Michael Bloomberg was humiliated.In that environment, the camp attracted the presence of Naomi Klein, SlavojZizek, Cornel West, Michael Moore and Al Sharpton. Noam Chomsky paid tribute tothem, and Paul Krugman wrote several columns praising their economic focus. Allalong the profile of the average protester remained diverse. On a regular day,the overnighters rose from their sleeping bags, around 10 am, and hit the linesfor free cigarettes, coffee and breakfast. Children came with their parents, to do painting and reading workshops.A crowd of public yoga and meditation enthusiasts rolled their mats near thedrum circle. Working group meetings about finance, small business and legaladvice attracted punks with mohawks as well as men in suits. Around earlyafternoon, almost without fail, a celebrity made an entrance. Crosby and Stillsplayed a set. The tent that housed the library was donated by Patti Smith.Russell Simmons dragged Kanye West into it. Most days came to close with a bigdinner and the 7 pm General Assembly. Afterwards there was live music, the drumcircle and other casual late night gatherings. The media team of the OWSrecorded almost everything and made it available, often live through Globalrevolution TV. New Yorkers joined the occupation at their convenience. Thecivil disobedience was the new black, as they said. Some spend their lunch hourthere, making friends, talking politics or simply hanging around. Others cameafter work, for the General Assembly or the party. On the weekends, there werelarger marches, like the one on October 15 that took over the Times Square.

All along, the NYPDcircled the park resembling a pack of wolves, looking for a lonely sheep whowondered far from the herd. I saw a woman being arrested for writing “Goodmorning NYPD” on a sidewalk across the street from the park. A police officertold three protesters that if a fourth person who also wore the Vendetta maskjoined them, they will be all taken in. Yet, nobody was intimidated. Except thechief of NYPD, Raymond Kelly, who loved to brag about his men’s capability ofshooting down planes and whose son worked as a local Fox TV anchor that hatesthe OWS. Except the mayor Bloomberg, the 12^th richest men in the USand whose girlfriend sat at the board of trustees at the Brookfield Propertieswhich owns the Zuccoti Park. Except the Wall Street and its close servants likethe Wall Street Journal and the NewYork Post.

During his address,Zizek told the protesters “communism is dead, but the commons are alive,” andhe was cheered full heartedly. In a televised interview, the Republican hopefulMitt Romney declared the OWS was “class warfare,” and banners were raiseddeclaring that yes, he is right, this is class warfare. My favorite sign read“Screw with us, we multiply.” A week after the Brooklyn Bridge arrests, and twodays after some 50,000 protesters flocked the Foley Square, on October 7,Friday, the irony of watching Bertold Brecht’s Threepenny Opera at the Brooklyn Academy of Music wasn’t lost onthe New Yorkers either. When Macheath delivered his final speech on the thirdact, declaring he was only a small criminal in comparison to the bankers andindustrialist who took the society they lived in as a hostage, the audiencetreated him with a strong applause.

We started the OWS OralHistory Project in this environment. The first person I interviewed was ananarchist and an MIT drop out, who described himself as an activistphotographer. He had an untamable energy. All my life I have been told I wassmart, he said. But I found myself a family for the first time in here and Iwill never walk out on them. Another interviewee was a female priest from NewJersey, who brought vegan food to the protesters for dinner. Many of them arevegetarians, she informed me, and many are vegans. She said after deliveringthem the food, she collected memorabilia from the camp and send them to her sonwho had to move to China, because there were no jobs in US. One woman was flownin from California by legal marijuana growers who were disappointed with thefederal law that banned their practice. They promised to fly me to every singleOWS protest in the country, she said, so that I can communicate their support.On the night of November 15, I met an iron worker from California. He came toNew York for a short term contract, because there were no jobs where he lived.I rented an apartment in a noisy neighborhood, he joked so come to OWS to findsome peace and quiet. He said he missed his Harley Davidson and going fishingthe most, but it was time to protest.

When I left the park,there were hundreds of people. Some were returning from their daily assembliesand workshops, and heading for the food line. The library was packed. Six orseven hours later, in a coordinated federal effort, with the assistance of FBIand CIA, some 18 different OWS camps around the US were attacked by the police(and about which the President Barak Obama was most probably briefed). Iwatched the NYPD raid the Zuccoti Park, get it washed with Clorox, pressurehose the whole scene and surround it with barricades, on my laptop. Although ajudge ruled against this eviction, the mayor Bloomberg up held it until hefound another judge to rule in his favor, and guarantee that there will be notents or tent like structures. By 3 pm, a great crowd had gathered outside thepark, waiting for the final verdict. On the Internet, the activists’ camerafocused on a group of police officers and private security guards who strollthe empty park, along with a half a dozen of pigeons. This negative image ofthe previous day, where by the people of the camp were kept outside and thepolice of the outside were gated in, was an extremely disheartening thing tolook at. Where once lived and grow an alternative political life, now stood aclean concrete desert. It was as if liberty wondered off, and we were left towonder if it will ever return and in what shape.

On November 17, the liberty returned, andaccording to the NYPD’s estimates, it was 32,000 people strong. Those of us whobecame involved knew that the OWS was not about tents and sleeping bags. In NewYork, at the aftermath of 9/11, the experience of political inclusion becamefragmented especially for the liberal minded. Since 9/11, New York resembled adisjointed puzzle, which struggled to keep itself together, as popularconservatism and gentrification tore apart its multicultural fabric. The USmainstream media perpetuated an appalling ignorance of the World’s people,economy, politics and history. Like Zuccoti Park, many public spaces wereprivatized, patronized and patriotized, often with blunt expressions ofAmericanism that had outright fascist tones. Political solidarity became apersonal matter, meaning that it had to be experience behind closed doors, andonly in the company of one’s immediate family and friends. The OWS camp at theZuccoti Park changed that. Here, political solidarity did not go home, andstayed in the public sphere. It refused to be privatized. For those of us whowere caught in its orbit, who kept going back to meet with more people, exchangedpolitical ideas, and paid respect to the hundreds of men and women who slept ona concrete floor for two months in the name of something they believed in, thiscamp was a liberty square. Its existence proved that in the desert of USpolitics, someone rode something as distinctly American as a Harley Davidson,and he was our brother. Today that experience must be put on paper in the pasttense, which confirms that something happened. Many of us believe that it wasfor better.

Kurdish Spring (zanga zanga)...

2011-11-12T11:48:00.000-05:00

Manipulated Irish Spring soap box cover, 1998, by Murat Cem Menguc.

Most of the Turkish rulingelite, meaning the Turkish Military, the state servants and the business elite considerthe country an exceptional place. This sense of Turkey being an exceptionalplace is something they share with other countries, with whom they identify themselves.In other words, there is a global sense of superiority, an illusion of thinkingoneself above and beyond the influence of history and Turkey is part of it.[1]One could suggest that this is a late NATO superiority complex, shared by the rulingelite of USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece,but in a very similar fashion, the communist block also believes they now livein a historical epoch that the past is past and done with.

What some called as theend of the marriage of democracy and capitalism, and the beginning of a nasty divorce,or bringing of the crony capitalism and neo-liberalism to their knees by massprotests and uncertain markets, makes the global illusion Turkey suffers from aneven more unmaintainable fiction.[2]

Added to this, as Ihave argued in my previous entries, Turkey also suffers from a sense of reverseorientalism; its ruling elite consider Turkey to be a subject of an ongoing colonialism,led by US and EU.[3] Thisreverse orientalism helps Turkish ruling elite to undermine the influence ofhistory further, for it deliberately erases the historical fact that Turkey hasbeen a colonial power itself, and has occupied other people’s lands, from theconsciousness of its citizens. State supervised institutions, such as TurkishHistory Association and its practices are a prime example of this attitude. Butnot only the secular and Kemalist, as well as the conservative and Islamistpolitical establishment position Turkey as an Oriental victim of the Occident, althoughcross dressing it like a European state whenever it fits their agenda.

The intellectuals in Turkeysee the country as a place far superior to the Middle East, and almost always postulatetheir theories about this from their comfortable flats in the Western citieslike Istanbul and Ankara. Observers from other nations, be it journalists ordiplomats, almost always do the same. Yet Istanbul is like nothing that onewould find in the rest of the country, and more than half of Turkey’s territories lieto the East of Ankara. It is therefore not a surprise that this East of Ankara iswhere the Turkish ruling elite always reminds Turkey that it is not beyond theinfluence of history.

Take a ruler and put iton a Turkish map, choosing Bingol, where the most recent suicide bomb attack bythe Kurdish separatists took place as your first reference point.[4]Then align your ruler with any of the following predominantly Kurdish cities,Urfa, Biyarbakir or Erzurum. What lies to the East is where the Occidental Turkeycolonized and massacred many Orientals, be them Kurdish or Armenian. The socalled Kurdish issue, or problem, meaning what the gutless Turkish politicians andtheir followers cannot call the Kurdis insurgency or revolution, represents a nightmarein this context.

Among those who sufferfrom the above mentioned and possibly NATO induced self-superiority, being historicallyexceptional means having beaten the threat of communism, hence risen above thethreat of people’s revolution. Yet, Kurds, as we all know, are very fond of PKK,which is a communist party. Kurds are popularly socialist, since 1980’s, andthe last three decades convinced three generations of Kurds to adopt asocialist discourse for their independence.[5]

AKP can imagine itselfas the ruler of the Turkish colonies, but its history in Kurdistan only adds upto a decade. Until very recently, AKP was also considered a tolerated party,rather than an elementary political institution, hence owing its existence tothe disappointments of the general population with the existing politicalparties rather to the virtues of AKP.

Since June 2011, ethnicconfrontation in Turkey, the Turkish occupied parts of Cyprus has become adaily fact. To top it all, AKP started to harbor a Syrian opposition movement, armingthem against Assad, within the Kurdistan.[6]One wonders where the PKK will end up in this chaos. In the past, they haveconsidered Syria an ally.

In short, it is nolonger a question whether it is zangazanga time in Kurdistan. A Kurdishspring is being talked about already.[7]In the age of civil disobedience, there will be those who taught greaterlessons. Don’t be surprised if the exceptional Turkey falls prey to a not so exceptional conflict.

[1]A recent essay by Radikal columnist Cengiz Candar discussed this issue in asimilar vein. http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalYazar&ArticleID=1069159&Yazar=CENG%DDZ%20%C7ANDAR&Date=12.11.2011&CategoryID=97&Rdkref=6

[2]In the following interview, Slavoj Zizek mainly voices these opinions. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/10/2011102813360731764.html

[3]http://icga.blogspot.com/2011/03/reverse-orientalism-of-turkish-left.html

[4]http://www.todayszaman.com/news-261412-mother-saves-dozens-of-lives-in-bingol-suicide-bombing.html

[5]A good example is the Firat News, one of the most popular Kurdish news sites atthe moment. http://www.firatnews.org/

[6]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/world/europe/turkey-is-sheltering-antigovernment-syrian-militia.html?pagewanted=all

[7]http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2011/10/2011102272338493300.html

Who is to Occupy Wall Street?

2011-10-25T14:31:00.001-04:00

As far as I am concerned, a revolution could not have started in a more convenient spot that this. Liberty Plaza is where I transfer from my train from New Jersey to my bus to Brooklyn. I go there almost every other day, for about 15 minutes to half an hour. On the weekends, I take my daughter to watch the drummers, before hitting a posh play ground around the Battery Park condos (or highly selective rentals, as the residents would like to call them). On Wednesdays, I interview people for an oral history project. Last night I came out of the Path train with a woman who was carrying aluminum trays which obviously contained hot food. I asked her if she was heading to the protest as well, and she said yes. As I helped her carrying the food through the crowd of tourists and downtown workers coming out of their offices, she told me she was a priest, and she had cooked something vegan for them. When we arrived at the kitchen of the protest, we exchanged contact information and good wishes, trying to quickly get out of the way, for the line of the hungry had grown long. Later I met a student from the Columbia University who was finishing her anthropology degree and looking for a job. She told me she spent most of the day at home or at school, but at night she came over to help with the information desk, and sometimes she slept at the park, although she did have an apartment at Washington Heights. This is a great place to encounter people, she said, but even a better place to see a seriously mixed crowd is the bathroom line at the Mac Donald's across the street. On Sunday, I chatted with a mother from Los Angeles who was in the city for a short period, and decided to sleep at the park in support of the protest. She did not know for how long, because she had no gear. As we spoke, another protester, a college student form New Jersey informed her that at 6 pm there will be a free sleeping bag handout. This morning when I saw her again, she told me she decided to stay until Thursday.So, who is to occupy Wall Street? Looks like everyone..

SUPPORT THE WALL STREET PROTESTS

2011-10-04T10:13:00.001-04:00

Hello readers,

I am happy to report from New York that there are signs of positive social change in late imperial America.

The photos accompanying this post were taken by the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1, 2011.

I've been in China for the last few months and unable to update this blog because Blogger is blocked by Beijing.
Although Chinese internet controls can be a nuisance, or worse, block vital information that citizens need to understand and improve the society in which they live, I don't really dispute the right of a sovereign nation to block data-mining products that collude with the US government.

The surreptitious statistical surveillance conducted by Google, Facebook and other "darlings" of late-era US imperialism takes the joy out of technological innovation and erodes trust on the creative commons of the Internet. As such I refuse to post on Facebook and am winding down my use of Google products; as attractive as some of the technology is, the company is not to be trusted.

Please look for future posts on Wordpress under my name, or by my internet tag, jinpeili.

Phil Cunningham

Who is to Occupy Wall Street?

2011-09-28T15:49:00.001-04:00

OccupyWall Street is a 12 days long protest taking place at the Liberty Plaza,New York, not very far from its original target. On occasion the crowd there getsorganized and stages walk outs, circling the sidewalks near and around what hadbecome the symbol financial corruption in the United States. I am blessed withthe fact that the Liberty Plaza is where I transfer from the metro to the expressbus, twice a week. Thus far I was able visit the protest more than 10 times, mostlyaround the hours of 7.30 am and 7.30 pm. In its initial beginning, the protestdrew thousands of people, but afterwards only a handful of participantsremained in the park. Throughout the week their numbers ranged from as littleas a few dozens to several hundreds, depending on the call they were able tosend out, and the response they were able to gather. When I started to followthem on the twitter, they had around 3000 followers; today the number isswelled into 14,000 and steadily growing. Originally I was surprised how littlemedia coverage the protest received, but this is no longer the case. MichaelMoore, Susan Sarandon, Rosanne Barr and Cornell West have visited theprotesters and it has been mentioned by the media frequently since last Sunday,when a police officer used pepper spray on a group of peaceful protesters.

Last week, when themedia coverage was still low, I saw a rather disturbing picture of the protest inthe paper, depicting it almost like a juvenile orgy. I emailed a few columniststhere, complaining about it and asking why they could not talk about it ratherthan condescendingly portraying it with such images. The ensuing email exchangesinspired me to write these paragraphs. Only Clyde Haberman and Ginia Belefante respondedto my emails. Clyde Haberman’s reply was near condescending. He wrote “Actually,we’ve covered them every day, in the newspaper on Sunday and every day on CityRoom, our on-line blog. Aren’t we endlessly told that on line is where youngpeople read these days?” In his view, so it seemed, this protest was about the youngpeople, to whom the New York Times cateredmainly electronically, whereas the print readers did not need to know about it(presumably because they were old), except, of course on the weekends, when theAmericans notoriously read the least amount of newspapers. Ginia Belefante wasmore articulate, and wrote that she was working on a large piece to bepublished on September 25, and asked me if I was a grounded supporter orobserving from afar. Finding out that I was an occasional follower, she ensuredme that this protest was not as relevant as I believed, and if I had spentenough time around it I would have realized that they were an aimless bunch. WhenI pointed at how the Guardian hiredAmy Goodman to write a column about the protest, she argued that they got someof their facts wrong. When I asked her what these facts were, and gave a listof the facts that I was familiar with, such as the harassment and the arrest ofdozens of activists and the confiscation of recording devices and computers,she stopped responding to my emails.

On September 25, Sunday,the day after the police arrested a larger number of protesters and usedteargas, the New York Times still went onwith their scheduled essay by Ginia Belefante. Not to my surprise, she was heavilycriticized for her lack of consciousness, understanding and solidarity. To behonest, I have never been a big fan of the NewYork Times, and subscribed this year, because my wife insisted on it. Theabove incident made me think that it is a newspaper that lacks any desire topromote change or progress in our country, and mainly stands as a relic of theold media erected to support the Democratic Party, which has become a co-opted institutionserving the financial elite. However, there was something shocking going on. Asa media giant, the New York Timesfailed to recognize what was the true strength of this protest.

Occupy Wall Street is organizedby a group of alternative media/internet activists. They are the creators of anextremely successful journal titled Adbusters,which attacks commercialism and capitalism, while generating seriousadvertising revenues to support its self. Moreover, in this public protest, theyjoined forces with the Internet activists known as the Anonymous. Together, the Adbustersand the Anonymous constitute a mediateam far from incompetent and aimless. As one of their participants explainedit to me, their main goal is to start a paradigm shift. They want people to questioncapitalism and unregulated markets. They are not romantic visionaries. Theywant a grassroots socialism generated by people for the people. They wantpeople to understand that the form economy we are practicing is flawed.

The fact that they aretalking about a paradigm shift shows how smart they are. They seem to have readtheir Michael Foucault and Noam Chomsky, learned that a peaceful movement mustestablish its strength via discourse, and aware that the Internet andindependent media is their best option to organize something both grassrootsand international. And, history tells us that a paradigm shift is no smallthing.

A few hundred yearsago, the transformation of power from the oligarchs into the middle and upperclasses, which was initiated by the American Revolution and French Revolution,also relied on a paradigm shift. Both revolutions used pamphlets andnewspapers, what was the independent media of their time, to raiseconsciousness and support. During the following century, many kings and sultanswere replaced by the abstract notion of nationand national sovereignty. Today, it is rudimentary that we live in a nationstate, with its preferred interpretation of citizenship and history. It isrudimentary that we live in a nation state where the economy and politics aregoverned by the middle and upper classes.

Down at the LibertyPlaza, a group of Americans are busy on a media desk, trying to grow theirprotest base. Like their forefathers, they know they are not acting in avacuum. They know the spirit of revolution is everywhere, from Bahrain toDetroit. Like their forefathers, they know they are young and privilegedsubjects of a global economy. They know they are exceptionallylucky. They are mixedbunch, who also believe they lack liberty and self-determination, and they are brewingalternative economic ideas. Some old fashion newspapers think these kids are not worth much attention.

Turkey, Israel and Kurdistan?

2011-09-13T10:33:00.000-04:00

By Murat Cem Menguc

Theleaders of the European Union must be grateful that they never allowed Turkeyto join. The recent crisis between her and Israel could have easily transformedinto something humiliating for the conservative governments of France, Germany,Italy and United Kingdom, which is pretty much the Europe that would havemattered. Imagine what would have happened if the Italian Prime Minister SilvioBerlusconi sent the Israeli envoy back to Tel Aviv and stated that from now onthe Italian army will escort aid flotillas to Gaza. Or better, try to visualizehim visiting first Cairo, and then crossing the border into Gaza to shake handswith a few members of the Hamas. It was about to happen in the Turkish case andright before the United Nations is going to vote on recognizing Palestine as astate.

Duringthe recent scuffle between Turkey and Israel, one thing became clear; Turkey isa regional asset far bigger than even it could have imagined. Its stableeconomy puzzles and generates jealousy among the European states who arestruggling with serious monetary crises, like Greece, Portugal and Spain. Itsblunt unilateral relations with the US are one of kind among the Muslimnations, making many envious and infuriating Israel. Its democratically electedgovernment’s capability of dictating its will on the historically arrogantTurkish Military invokes admiration and discontent, both at home and abroad.

Whowould have thought that once its secret service aiding Turkey to capture the leader of the Kurdish insurgency, today Israel could draft a Plan C to aid the Kurdish insurgency and destabilize Turkey, so we all can return to the previous epoch of friendly alliance? Who could have thought that Kurds, despised by Turksat all levels, still fighting to express themselves in their own language, stillfighting to name its own children in its own language, and considered anuisance to the political establishment of the entire region burning withrevolutionary upheaval deliver Israel what it needs? Who could have thought inthe grand scheme of things, the Israeli Foreign Ministry would pull the Kurdishcard so it can “normalize” its relations with its strongest regional ally? Inall honesty, only a schmuck like the Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liebermancould have imagined such fantasy. Surely, all our old friends whose houses weset on fire return to us as friends again.

Oneof the major lessons of the Hebrew Bible appears to be lost to Prime MinisterBenjamin Netenyahu’s lot: times change and one must adapt to change. Israeliconservative political elite, having grown used to considering itself beyondthe influence of history, is ignoring what is happening at their door step. TheMiddle East is no longer what it used to be. The same can be said about Europeand the US. The economic system which drives our daily lives, which used torely and support the well-established local and international meritocracies, isin trouble. Even the top practitioners of capital accumulation aredisillusioned with the world we live in today. The unequal distribution ofwealth is grotesque, and everything in the news suggests that the masses arediscontent. Everyone wants to live in a better world, where there is affordablefood, housing, education, healthcare and natural environment. Enter Israel,where an out-of-date political elite is perpetuating a dangerously out-of-touchvision. One wonders if Netanyahu really thinks the Arab spring is a uniquelyArab phenomenon. Is the irony of the recent protests wholly lost on the Israeliconservative elite, that a nation, which is illegally occupying the land ofanother nation, was protesting that it cannot afford its own homes? More terribily, what was the Plan D? What were they planing to do if using the Kurds wouldn't work?

Zanga Zanga Kurdistan?

2011-09-05T17:40:00.000-04:00

By Murat Cem Mengüç

The expression zanga zanga(alley by alley), coined by the dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi, is strikinglyaccurate in terms of the nature of not just Libyan but most of the MiddleEastern uprisings. Whether he will become the winner or the loser of theconflict in Libya, Qaddafi seems to be well aware of his battlefront, i.e. thealleyways. The first time I heard the expression zanga zanga,I could not help but remember a harrowing paragraph from Franz Fannon’s TheWretched of the Earth:

“The town belonging to thecolonized people, or at least the native town, the Negro village, the medina,the reservation, is a place of ill fame, peopled by men of evil repute. Theyare born there, it matters little where or how; they die there, it matters notwhere nor how. It is a world without spaciousness; men live there on top ofeach other, and their huts are built one on top of the other. The native townis a hungry town, starved of bread, of meat, of shoes, of coal, of light. Thenative town is a crouching village, a town on its knees, a town wallowing inthe mire. It is a town of niggers and Arabs. The look that the native turns onthe settler’s town is a look of lust, a look of envy; it expresses his dreamsof possession – all manner of possession: to sit at the settler’s table, tosleep in the settler’s bed, with his wife if possible. The colonized man is anenvious man. And this the settler knows very well; when their glances meet heascertains bitterly, always on the defensive, “They want to take our place.” Itis true, for there is no native who does not dream at least once a day ofsetting himself up in the settler’s place.”

Neither with the intention ofoffending nor with a desire to put words into anyone’s mouth, I quote Fanon’swords simply because they encapsulate a reality far too important to beignored. What we are witnessing in the Middle East today, even though thehistorical context could suggest we are somewhat beyond colonialism, is revoltsspringing from native towns. So far, in the Egyptian, Tunisian, Libyan, andSyrian revolts, there are no dominant insurgent groups who are long timeopponents of the existing dictators, who have lived in the wilderness foryears, and who finally, with popular support, begun to descend into the citysquares. There are no Havanas, Moscows, or even Tehrans here, where the finalconfrontation between the ruling elite and a popular organized group to beshowcased. Peasants are not involved, we are told by the Egyptian sociologists.Besides the mercenaries, the soldiers are reluctant, we are informed by theLibyan eyewitnesses. This is a people’s movement, we are informed by Syrianobservers. And, from Tunis to Damascus, the oppositions are made of notideologically indoctrinated young men and women in guerilla uniforms butcomposed of city dwellers, such as vegetable vendors, unemployed accountants,teachers, housewives and doctors.

For most of the Middle East, thenext big curiosity is how the situation in Syria may unfold. For the Turks, onthe other hand, a new front is opening, and zanga zanga. Since thebeginning of the summer, slowly but surely, the Kurdish liberation movementstarted to resemble its neighboring revolts. Before the June elections, Kurdishpolitical leaders warned the Turkish government of this possibility, and gaveor delivered a deadline, June 15^th, to either normalize therelationship with the insurgents (regarding the issues of amnesty and return),or face a new phase of confrontation. The government’s response was grotesque.First the Kurdish party was banned from the elections. Then, its 60 or somembers, who ran and won as independent candidates, were individually forbiddenfrom politics. Presently, attacks by the Turkish nationalist street tugs on theKurdish population are a daily occurrence too. In other words, what used to bea war between the Turkish military and a communist guerilla movement isbecoming an ethnic confrontation. In the cities like İstanbul, Ankara, Izmir orBursa, communities are turning against each other.

The ruling AKP, having won theelection, became bolder, it seems, and it has so far remained unresponsive ormocked the suggestions that the state should bargain with Kurds. Furthermore,emboldened with having brought the Turkish military under their yoke, the AKPgovernment is acting arrogantly. Recently, they have announced a full-fledgedwar against the Kurdish guerillas, in what appears to be a joint program withthe Iranian authorities. A respected politician from the opposition party CHP,Sezgin Tanrıkulu, described the new phase of the confrontation as thefirst civil war in the history of the Republic, given that for the firsttime in Turkish history, a democratically elected government decided to wagewar against its own citizens. Turkish military have hit insurgency positions inboth Turkey and Iraq, since the guerillas have ended their cease-fire agreementafter the June 15^th deadline.

Those who are familiar with thehistory of the conflict would know that jabal jabal (mountain by mountain) rather than zangazanga best applies to the previous epochsof the insurgency. However, in the past, the conflict was between theautonomous Turkish military, who rarely paid any heed to the Turkishgovernment, and a Kurdish communist guerilla movement. Today, it is not clearwho is hit where, and some Kurdish communities have jointly set themselves ashuman shields against the all out assault on their militants. During theprevious decades, the conflict sometimes drew near to the historically Kurdishcities, but it was also a known fact that the guerillas refused to battle in theirhometowns while the Turkish military used them as centers of scare tactics andpropaganda. However, there have been several incidents in these cities, in therecent past, and the present campaign is threatening to transform them intozones of conflict. Unlike the Western cities, like Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir andBursa, these cities are native towns, in the most Fanonian sense of the word.The natives who have been, for many generations, dreaming of taking thesettlers place, inhabit them. Moreover, organized armies are notoriouslyineffective in city centers, and the Turkish military failed for over 30 yearsto subdue the Kurdish insurgency when it was a mountain phenomenon. As acritique of Qaddafi’s dictatorship in Libya, or Assad’s totalitarianism in Syria,as well as a fervent supporter of the Egyptian revolution, the leaders of theTurkish democracy should know better than bringing this ethnic confrontationinto the town squares.

The Kids Are Alright?

2011-05-01T19:49:00.002-04:00

By Murat Cem Mengüç

Last week in Turkey was marked by the celebrations of the Turkish National Sovereignty and Children’s Day (April 23), a combined holiday which celebrates the transfer of political sovereignty from the Ottoman Sultanate to the Turkish people and acknowledges the orphans of the nation’s martyrs. During the same week, political campaigns for the coming parliamentary elections took off as well. Fought with nasty retorts and personalized attacks, political campaigns are always more suitable for the gossip driven front pages of the Turkish media, and judging from the headlines of April 23, they surely stole the spot light. Trusted polls still indicate that AKP (Justice and Development Party) is due for its third landslide victory, but the scene is far more polarized than the previous elections. Also, the events surrounding the election campaigns suggest that the classic institutions of CHP (People’s Republican Party) and MHP (Nationalist Movement Party) no longer fight the Islamist conservative AKP by themselves. Opposition to AKP has become an intimidating block, and some polls suggest that MHP and CHP are the leading parties in the three major cities. Beneath them, a tacit coalition operates loosely and tries to destabilize AKP on a regular basis. TKP (Turkish Communist Party), SDP (Socialist Democratic Party) and BDP (Peace and Democracy Party) all joined in to create an environment in which they could carve a piece of the electorate at any cost.

A recent example of this tacit coalition was the general outcry arguing AKP was cracking down on journalists. Having become a meritocracy of its own, AKP is long accused of silencing is critics. This time the occasion arose with the banning, by the Turkish court, of an unpublished book. about Islamist leader Fetullah Gülen and his influence on Turkish politics. Gülen’s followers are dear to AKP, but it was not clear if AKP was involved at all. In the heavily charged Ergenekon trials, trying to explain the paramilitary activities of the Turkish State against its own citizens in the Kurdish East, the book became evidence because its author was arrested in connection to the trials. Rightfully so, the media and citizens united against the banning of a book yet to be published, and the common finger pointed at AKP, without a valid discussion of the reasons why the court may have benefited from keeping an unpublished document unpublished, suggesting that most of this criticism was reactionary.

A similar event was the protests staged by angry college students who believed a cheating formula for the state university entrance exams was circulated. This centralized exam is an archaic institution and determines the future of all students who wish to study at government universities. The cheating formula was never unearthed but TKP and SDP mobilized the youth, holding banners and chanting slogans that accused AKP for having masterminded a cheating formula to benefit its own meritocracy.

Later came the banning of 12 independent candidates from the approaching election lists, 7 of whom were Kurdish. This last incident caused widespread street protests in major cities; one person died, a number of post offices and banks were set on fire, and AKP headquarters and public busses were stoned. BDP and PKK sympathizers organized demonstrations, while banners and slogans argued this political ban was designed to benefit the AKP. However, there was no clear sign at all that AKP was involved.

The election campaigns began in this climate, and the leader of AKP and Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdoğan stated that he was ready to bring thousands of people to the streets to counter these nonsense protests against his electorate. In response, Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the MHP, stated that he could confront Erdoğan’s people with his grey wolves (the mythological symbol of Turkish fascism, here referring to his youth groups). Erdoğan’s answer retorted that Bahçeli’s “dogs” would run for their lives when confronted by the will of people. Then, an eyewitness video in which the police officers from Sivas were shown chanting a fascist march on the streets and identifying themselves as the grey wolves was circulated widely. A bystander was seen making the grey wolf sign to celebrate their courage as well. The city of Sivas has been a hub of political confrontations between the religious conservatives, fascist nationalists and Kurdish fractions for many years.

Obviously, AKP has become more confident and feels cornered at the same time. The party is nervous and thinks that it is indispensable as well. It forgets that it is a tolerated, not fully supported institution. It is permitted to do politics as long as it doesn’t turn up the volume of its ideological discourse.[1] Of course, where the arguments are personal and the media is thirsty for sensation, this is a hard task. Thus, Zaman (the leading religious daily) argues that jamaat (religious community supporting the AKP) is being turned into a scapegoat for anything that goes wrong.

This year, Turkey celebrated the 90^th anniversary of its national sovereignty as a country where the media loves sensation, the military is on trial in civil courts, the police officers chant fascist slogans, the Kurdish minority burns banks and post offices, and the mass graves of recent history are being excavated reluctantly. While a coalition against AKP jumps at any chance of being in the headlines and pointing its finger at a democratically elected government, they lack reflection. Obviously, one day, the AKP government will be ousted, most probably by a confused coalition. However, the ultimate victims of this ousting may be the Turkish democracy and the reactionary Turkish youth, herded into the streets by opportunist politicians. The last national holiday celebrated the Turkish children but generated little interest. The next national holiday is May 19 and is dedicated to the Turkish youth. Economic data, the unemployment rates, rising food and oil prices, constant news of revolution in the Middle East, and the escalating tone of Turkish politics suggests a perfect atmosphere in which this year's youth may become next years tool for a collision. If the politicians are to drive them into the streets in ever growing numbers, the Turkish Military may become involved as well. Some politicians think that the military is too busy to do this, but they may be wrong. The Turkish military has its own agenda and is ready to seize the best opportunity to put an end to the Ergenekon trials, which ruined its reputation.

[1] Readers might like the following essay on this subject. Hakan Yavuz, “Is There a Turkish Islam? The Emergence of Convergence and Consensus” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 2, October 2004.

Important piece on Saudi Intervention in Bahrain

2011-04-13T18:38:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted with "From the Field"

Caryle Murphy provides interesting detail on the March 16, 2011, intervention in Bahrain by Saudi Arabia. There are a variety of notable elements in the piece:

King Abdullah and company have been riled by the U.S. embrace of reform in Egypt and in Bahrain.
They signalled this in several ways, including refusing to receive Hillary Clinton and Bob Gates.
Hardliners in Bahrain have been intent to sabotage active reform efforts by the Bahraini crown prince, and the hardliners have willing collaborators in Saudi Arabia.
Once "requested", the Saudis were glad to lead the charge into Bahrain and launch a wave of repression and thuggery against the majority population in Bahrain.
Reading between the lines, there is good reason to question how much freedom of action the Bahraini leaders truly enjoy. The Saudi godfather is not easily ignored, especially given the financial dependence of Bahrain on the KSA.
Notable for it absence from Murphy's account is any mention of a significant role by Iran, which has the poppycock peddled by King Hamad in recent weeks.

The Reverse Orientalism of the Turkish Left

2011-03-31T23:57:00.002-04:00

by Murat Cem Mengüç

During a recent workshop entitled “Violence in Ottoman Anatolia” at New York University, Christine Philliou summed up the emergence of the Turkish Republic and its leading architect Mustafa Kemal Atatürk with an allusion to Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. She rightfully suggested that Atatürk resembled Hobbes’ Leviathan, who was in search of bringing order to a chaotic environment. The richness of this allusion is obvious to all of us who are familiar with the history of late Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic. Hobbes’ prominence in European Enlightenment literature and his usefulness for the intellectual construction of Western imperialism make it an even more captivating metaphor.

As we all know, Hobbes’ description of the human political realm as a chaotic environment sprang from not just his belief that human beings were evil by nature, but also from the fact that he was writing during the English Civil War (1642-1651). Similar ideas and similar epochs of history furnished many other intellectuals to cut clean slates for their favorite authoritarian rulers. But, in the Turkish case, depicting the early Turkish Republican regime and particularly Atatürk as legitimate leviathans of their people also helps generate, what I will call for the lack of a better term, a reverse orientalism. This reverse orientalism, especially, helps official Turkish historiography to depict Atatürk and his people as the subjects of a chaotic environment, which resulted from the evil nature of other people and argues that they were rightfully fighting to create a zone of order, stability and self-expression. Most primary and secondary schoolbooks in Turkey to date narrate the Turkish Independence War (1919-1923) accordingly.

The most convenient aspect of this reverse Orientalist narrative is the fact that it transforms the Ottoman Turks into subjects of Western imperialism, making them a part of the so-called Third World, which lost its sovereignty and had to fight for its freedom from the yoke of Western Imperialism. In doing so, the Ottoman Turkish genocide of the Armenians, as well as the prosecution of other civilian masses like Kurds, Greeks and Arabs, become either fabrications of Western imperialism, or isolated episodes of an Hobbsian chaos that was about to swallow the Turkish nation.

On another level, the same reverse orientalism also allows the Turkish intellectuals to comfortably navigate diverse ideologies. In fact, some of the expressions encountered in the Turkish media regarding the recent Middle Eastern revolutions suggest that the old camps of the Turkish progressive left and the Turkish republican left can be easily altered in the radius of this reverse orientalism. For example, a leading columnists of the progressive left, Ahmet Altan, from whom we would expect a more careful language and a deeper sympathy towards the developments in the Middle East, openly writes that “Turkey is not like the other countries in the Middle Eastern garbage heap.”[1] This statement indicates that the status of Turkey is somewhat different than its underdeveloped neighbors who continue to live in political slums. Similarly, a leading columnist of the republican left, Banu Avar, argues that the recent NATO supervised war on Gaddafi is nothing less than a European imperialist project designed to subjugate the innocent Muslim masses.[2] Avar is outrageous enough to quote the Lybian state television as a viable source for her claims and show that her heart beats for the Muslim masses of the world, as long as they do not run for the government in her country. It seems that Hobbsian expressions of chaos not only speak about the absence of clear ideas and ideologies, but also may lack clear ideas and ideologies in themselves. Ignoring the legacy of the Ottoman Turkish imperialism in the Middle East, Turkish opinion makers of the progressive and republican left carve special statuses for themselves, whether hiding behind fake statuses of oppressed masses or distancing themselves from these masses by thinking that they have achieved something better already.

Interestingly enough, the Turkish Islamist political camp, the camp that is most deeply dedicated to the legacy of the Ottoman Empire, does not suffer from such an identity crisis. Not only that it openly supports the NATO actions against Gaddafi, but also it keeps winning elections.

[1] http://www.taraf.com.tr/ahmet-altan/makale-misir-baskanlik-cinayet.htm

[2] http://www.ilk-kursun.com/2011/03/banu-avar-yazdi-bugun-libya-yarin-kim/

JAPAN QUAKE SHAKES TV

2011-03-27T22:18:00.004-04:00

by Philip J Cunningham

When the biggest earthquake in memory hit Japan at 2:46 PM on the afternoon of March 11, 2011, it took less than ten minutes for the bright, cluttered screens of Tokyo top six stations to be drained of color, commercialism and fun. With a disaster unfolding, TV stations were under intense pressure to change the tone of their broadcasts and offer news and safety advice.

To review broadcasts from that afternoon, is to be transported back to a turning point in which everything suddenly changed. The state of TV, as it existed at that precarious moment, good, bad and banal as it might have been, is now a broadcast relic, the last gasp of normalcy before the earth shook Japan to its core, the sea swept the Northeast with tsunamis and a nuclear crisis broke the easy access to electric power that has been a hallmark of modernity in Japan for decades.

For an illustration about how the 3.11 quake is changing life in Tokyo, with particularly focus on the airwaves and the energy-guzzling lifestyle promoted on TV, please view my latest piece at http://www.japanfocus.org/-Philip_J_-Cunningham/3506

WORDS ON THE JAPAN DISASTER FRONT

2011-03-15T17:16:00.001-04:00

by Philip J Cunningham

The world of information made possible by Twitter technology is vast and fascinating, but what really rises above the Twittering noise, random comments and repetitive multiple posts of second, third and fourth hand material is the work of an intrepid individual, sharing, in short installments, an eye-witness view of an evolving situation. It is a take on the news as old as the news itself, first person testimony, offering a degree of coherence and individual fidelity that stands head and shoulders above the random, aggregate posts of a busy Twitter feed.

In a matter of just a few days, one of the most privileged, affluent societies in Asia has been hit and laid prone with multiple disasters, and though the worst may be over, it's far from over yet. Japan, indeed the world as a whole, will feel the influence of the deadly March 11 earthquake, tsunami, related aftershocks, eruptions and subsequent damage to nuclear power plants and more generally the economy for years to come.

The following is the tweet record of an American reporter, now an Asia correspondent for VOA, with 18 years experience in Japan as he covers what could be fairly described as the biggest news story of his career

The reporter is Steve Herman and his twitter tag is W7VOA.

Steve Herman and I worked together in the International Division of NHK in 1990-1, sharing a Tokyo office while working as televison producers on Asia Now and China Now respectively.

Even then, long before he became a radio correspondent for CBS and later President of the FCCJ, I thought him the epitome of a newsman, one who was living and breathing news round the clock. A solid reporter with an excellent understanding not just of international news issues but the minutae of how things work in Japan, Steve is a good guide to a big breaking story.

The veteran reporter happened to be out of Japan when the big quake struck but managed to get back in country, despite disruptions at airports and rail lines, within a day. His posts chronicle a journey across Japan as he seeks access and interviews in the three hardest hit areas, Fukushima, Miyagi and Iwate prefectures.

His intial entries in this informal online diary commence with short notes about news he is reading and re-tweets of posts made by other journalists he is following on Twitter, reacting to news rather than reporting it, and appropriately enough, as it takes him the better part of a day to get on the scene. RT is short for re-tweet and sometimes he posts links to published articles that he likes or makes reference to.

Once he’s on his way to the scene of tsunami damage and dysfunctional nuclear power plants, the second-hand news and reactions to the news are gradually replaced by first-person anecdotes, sensations, interviews and reporting. When the earth starts shaking, he describes it. Then he finds out more about the quake or aftershock, and tweets the best information available to him at the time.

Sometimes it's an earthquake warning with no earthquake, sometimes an earthquake without warning.

The constant tickertape flow of tweets by him and other people on the scene start to be incorporated into news updates which are also tagged, retweeted and made reference to on the Internet, TV and radio.

In short, by looking at a series of thoughtful on the scene tweets, one can get a feel for how information travels, how information is culled and selected and how it is then broadcast and repeated until it becomes the received understanding of an event.

This sort of tweet diary is interesting even when second-hand and third hand information is collated and forwarded, but it really is at its best when it shifts to the first person, and the tweeter on the scene is telling us about things he or she sees, hears, wonders about and analyzes in an original way.

Following his twitter reports in real time is to be transported into the urgency of a breaking story in the company of a cool, seasoned guide who does not flinch in the face of obstacles or bad news. Even with the haiku-like discipline of writing in short bursts, there is narrative arc and a building sense of drama as the reporter moves onto the scene and traverses difficult, sometimes outright dangerous territory.

For all their news value and dramatic impact, tweets are also snippets of personal conversations put to print. In Steve’s case, as he makes a dash from a safe part of Japan to an area at risk, his friends on Twitter urged him not to go, to consider the dangers, to which his response was simple and firm.

“It's my job.”

Here, then, a record of informal tweets from veteran Asia correspondent Steve Herman as he does his job. While investigating a tough, multifaceted breaking story, he took the time to tweet updates about things he saw and heard and gleaned from official sources. His short, abbreviated observations were informative enough that within a few days time he had ten thousand “followers” reading and re-tweeting his posts, including fellow journalists, all the while filing formal, in-depth reports for Voice of America.

The posts here have been copied from his twitter history, and thus are in reverse chronological order. To better sense the drama of an unfolding story in which each subsequent development is unknown, one might browse his posts by scrolling from the bottom up.

Steve Herman
@W7VOA ÜT: 37.373258,140.371634
Voice of America (VOA) Bureau Chief/Correspondent, based in Seoul, mainly covering NE Asia (Korean peninsula & Japan)

(TO READ IN FULL, PLEASE CLICK HERE)

COMING SOON: TO EACH NATION, ITS OWN INTERNET

2011-03-12T11:55:00.003-05:00

by Philip J Cunningham

When reveille sounds, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

The US military is now thinking of ways to block and segregate the internet into smaller ‘‘cyber nations’’ which would be easier to monitor and control.

During this era of incessant online babble, blogs, tweets and cacophonous concatenations, the internet has become a virtual Tower of Babel, an ambitious, overloaded unitary structure breaking at the seams. It's only a matter of time before it crumbles.

That, in a nutshell, is the view put forward by a group of US military thinkers in the latest issue of Strategic Studies Quarterly, who see the breaking up and "Balkanisation of the Internet" as natural as it is inevitable, and not without public benefit, assuming that the 'Net reorganises along traditional, nationalistic lines.

Theirs is a clarion call to end the utopian, universal stage of internet development and instead to hunker down and build national bunkers.

The internet has been imbued with a feel-good idealism since its inception, despite it having been a quasi-military invention. It was developed by a generation familiar with John Lennon's utopian lullaby Imagine, dreamily invoking the idea of a world with no countries. And some cyber utopians took a cue from that, driven by the concept that "information wants to be free", a formulation first given voice by Stewart Brand and dramatically acted out more recently by Julian Assange.

But even if information wants to be free, there are the vagaries of human nature that have to be taken into account.

Just as a handful of hijackers can burden millions of jet flyers, in the communication commons the bad behaviour of a few can change the rules of the game; trolls lurk in comment sections, spammers clog up your inbox, data-miners violate your privacy, hackers close your system down.

These problems are being addressed on an ad hoc basis, mostly by the private sector, to make the cooperative, interdependent venture known as the internet safe for commerce and communication.

And then there is the US military, which has bigger fish to fry.

Entrusted with the keys to the world's biggest nuclear arsenal, bound by social contract to guard the nation with vigilance, it should come as no surprise that military thinkers are more worried about information control than information freedom.

The US Cyber Command, which works closely with the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies, is tapping technology organisations such as Google, Intel and Microsoft for help with cyber-defence, integrating traditional concepts of military preparedness and defence of the state with new borderless technologies.

If military thinkers tend to be more orthodox in their regard for the sanctity of national borders, it is in part a reflection of the role they assign themselves to play as defenders of the nation.

Where a tech geek might revel in faster computation speeds and an advertiser might obsess over ways to get more clicks, and academics might demand unfettered freedom of expression, it is natural that military thinkers should want to consider the same technology with an eye to violations of sovereignty and security, especially with regard to command and control systems and energy infrastructure.

Inspired by the folk wisdom that good fences make good neighbours, there is a school of thought in the US military that posits a not-so-distant future in which the worldwide web will be divided up along national lines.

(TO READ ARTICLE IN FULL, PLEASE CLICK HERE)

(as published in the Bangkok Post, March 12, 2011)

Turkish Islam and the Middle Eastern Revolution

2011-03-01T12:57:00.000-05:00

At a recent panel discussion, a Palestinian colleague pointed out that when a dictator falls, with him disappears his imagined enemies. The fact that the Egyptian, the Tunisian and now the Lybian revolutions did not have Islamic fundamentalism as their common denominator suggests that most of this so called global Islamic fundamentalism was in fact imaginary. Historically speaking, global Islamic fundamentalism was similar to the phenomenon of the Eastern Question, meaning that it was mainly cultivated in the Western minds and turned into a practice with Western financial aid in order to fend off socialism and communism. When the Cold War ended, the economic and political data still indicated that the cooperation of capitalism and democracy wouldn’t be tenable forever. Western civilization was forced to re-imagine itself in this conjecture, unfortunately with a renewed emphasis on domestic authoritarianism, so as to hush and tame its native critics. At that stage, global Islamic fundamentalism emerged as a newly discovered evil half brother of global capitalism. It became the leading hero of all fear factors and justified domestic authoritarianisms.

Among the critics of the West, Muslim thinkers always had a special status. They challenged the most central tenet of Western civilization, its so-called secularism. Muslim thinkers argued that democracy was not exclusive of religious expressions of morality, and the idea of secularism was an illusion. They were pretty much right on both accounts, since most Western governments maintained capitalistic alliances with the religious institutions of their citizens and allowed room for religiously motivated parties to take part in democratic elections.

The explicit attack these Muslim thinkers waged on Western civilization made them ideal candidates to become the new nemeses of the West. Many of them were educated in the West, developed their theories with a mixture of Western ideas and grew into strong ideological lobbies through the financial help of British, Israeli and US authorities. They did not represent the majority of the Muslim people among whom they organized themselves but readily accepted to be pitted against the socialist and communist fractions of their native communities.

It is in this context interesting to listen to the ongoing argument in the Western media, that there is something called Turkish Islam, and it is a valid alternative to global Islamic fundamentalism. ‘What is Turkish Islam?’ one wants to know. When did it become an antidote to other Islams? And, at a time when a number of revolutions proved that global Islamic fundamentalism is not the common denominator of popular discontent in Muslim societies, who needs an Islamic antidote?

To begin with, the argument that a Saudi Arabian, Egyptian or Tunisian community should practice Turkish Islam is akin to suggest that these people do not need their customs and reason. In my classes, to explain the process of Islamic jurisprudence and its Ottoman/Turkish variants, I often refer to Abu Hanifa, an 8^th century orthodox Muslim jurist from Iraq. It is reported that Abu Hanifa refused to eat things that Qur’an and the Hadith didn’t approve. Given that he was a truly orthodox judge, and text oriented, it is reported that he never relied on local tradition or speculative precedents either. Thus, it seems, he never consumed a watermelon in his life, which must have been a remarkable feat in a place like Iraq. Abu Hanifa’s teaching also argued against the consumption of shellfish, based on very similar grounds. Today, the majority of the Turkish Muslims describe themselves as Hanafi, the Sunni sect founded upon the teachings of Abu Hanifa. However, they regularly enjoy watermelon, and a deep fried clam sandwich made with fresh bread and tartar sauce is one of their most popular late night snacks. This raises no controversy among the Turkish Muslims because the practice of sharia allows room for local customs and speculative reason to be practiced as well. For obvious reasons, it would be ridiculous to ban shellfish in a country surrounded by Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Similarly, watermelon, which arrived to Egypt in second millennium BC and soon afterwards made itself to Anatolia, is traditional delight in Turkey.

Meanwhile, what is called Turkish Islam in the Western media is nothing more than a metropolitan conservative middle and lower class religiosity. It is not a theological school but a pseudo-ideological stand, cultivated in reaction to the Turkish state nationalism. Although most nationalist movements embrace the religious sensitivities of the masses they desire to represent, Turkish nationalism was of a different kind. For example, to my knowledge, Arab nationalism, in all its forms, was more willing to recognize its mainly Muslim profile. Turkish nationalism, on the other hand, emerged in confrontation with the Ottoman Empire’s Muslim religious imperialist image, which the sultan/caliph used fervently. In its various forms, Turkish nationalism always argued that it was a modern and secular nationalism. This was particularly so for its state sponsored variant, which used the separation of religion and state as the central tenet of its ideology.

This so called Turkish Islam is a conservative religiosity, postulated as a viable ethical alternative to conservative nationalism. It is a substitute for nationalism, and it appeals to the Turkish speaking middle classes who are tired of state nationalism. These middle classes are not theologically superior moderate citizens; they are religious conservative consumers who follow the Western economic recipes for capitalist prosperity and happen to be Muslims. Thus, anyone who is familiar with the history of Islam should know that all Muslim societies have their own version of this so-called Turkish Islam. What they do lack is the pro-capitalist democracies in which their moderate religiosity could imagine itself as a voting block.

At a time when we are witnessing a chain of revolutions, arguing that Turks have invented an ideal Islamic model highlights the fact that the West is still looking for an Islam of its own version rather than observing the existing trends. Those who argue that a moderate Islamic conservatism is an antidote against fundamentalist Islam, and want to export it to the Muslim people should take a look at the European outlet stores in the Middle East or observe the duty free liquor stores of their home town international airports. Most Muslims already live their lives according to their customs and speculative reason. Orthodox men like Abu Hanifa remain the kings of their own dinner table. Most importantly, revolutions do take place for moderate reasons

No longer thwarted: Egypt's Hizb al-Wasat finally gains legal status

2011-02-20T15:53:00.001-05:00

Cross-posted with:
From the field: No longer thwarted: Egypt's Hizb al-Wasat finally gains legal status
Links for AR Norton's study of Hizb al-Wasat are on From the Field.

The Egyptian people have toppled Mubarak, an extraordinary moment, but the regime has not been toppled, not yet.

2011-02-11T13:57:00.000-05:00

The military has taken power, but in reality the military has--even since the 1952 coup-- held the balance of power in Cairo.

The Egyptian military has always lurked in the shadows of the Egyptian regime. The levers of influence were seldom exposed to view. Yet, when senior civilian politicos, such as Osama al-Baz, reflected on the regime and its prospects for reform, they often pointed to the powerful role of the generals and vetoes they held in their back pockets. For years, as expectations grew that Husni Mubarak's son Gamal would succeed his father, it was the military veto that thwarted him.

Now the power of the generals is in the sunlight. There are some reasons to be optimistic: the army generally showed commendable discipline in its response to the last three weeks of demonstrations, and the demonstrators--whether intuitively or shrewdly--embraced the soldiers; the officer corps is highly professional, promotions are based on merit not connections, and no officer or soldier wishes to be seen as an oppressor of the nation that it is pledged to defend; a skilled group of opposition figures is poised to negotiate a transition, and the Ikhwan have wisely forged consensus with the non-Islamist elements while also remaining in the background; and, the actions and misactions of the military will be in full international view.

Nonetheless, the senior officers have a big stake in the existing system, not least economic interests. In retirement, many senior officers move to industries dominated by the military, and others move into the thriving private sector. But many others infiltrate the civilian branches of government. They will want to protect their prerogatives. The military leadership will prove cautious about dramatic changes, and they will be nervous about permitting a powerful civilian government to challenge their privileges, or hold officers accountable for their misdeeds. The deep suspicion of the Ikhwan will not be erased, so the generals will want to be assured that the Ikhwan (still an illegal entity) will gain no more than a marginal role in politics.

When Presidential elections are held, you can be sure that the military will have satisfied itself that its interests will not be jeopardized. It is too early to determine who all the contenders for the Presidency will be, but it is now clear that Amre Mossa, is a front runner. He is widely respected, and, indeed, is a man of integrity. He was the popular Foreign Minister of Egypt, so popular that Mubarak that "promoted" him to become Secretary General of the Arab League in order to keep him well distant from Egyptian politics. But a lot may happen in a year of transition, and many secrets will be exposed, so keep your bets in your pocket for now.

EMBRACING THE OPPOSITION

2011-02-06T19:57:00.003-05:00

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

A powerful regime, facing a rare moment of vulnerability, is all of a sudden interested in reform and willing to talk. It invites its arch-enemies to the negotiating table. But once the crowds are gone, what guarantee remains that the police state will not regroup and retrench and strike back with a vengeance?

Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman met with members of the opposition over the weekend. What remains unclear is if the Mubarak regime is sincerely extending an open hand of peace to the opposition, or trying to draw them in close enough so they can be slapped or lured into a trap. Is the inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood a heartfelt bid to hear all sides or a plan to sow division in a protest that to date has been notable for being leaderless, secular, spontaneous and youthful?

Given the low esteem with which the Muslim Brotherhood is viewed in Israel, Europe and the US, extending an olive branch to the banned, radical opposition might seem paradoxical at first. But it is sometimes easier for entrenched power to deal with its arch-enemy, the enemy that it knows, and not only knows, but probably needs, as an existential doppelganger. On a certain functional level it may be easier for a ruthless power to deal with, if not respect, another ruthless, tightly organized entity, rather than deal with a random mass of peaceful moderates without a hierarchical political organization.

Certainly in other places, at other times, this paradoxical embrace of the opposite can be seen in effect. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US found it easier to work with Japan’s old wartime elite than the communists, pacifists and trade unionists who opposed Tokyo’s war on Asia. In recent decades, Beijing’s rulers have found it easier to engage the Communist Party of China’s arch-enemy represented by the KMT party on Taiwan, rather than deal respectfully with rag-tag individuals such as Liu Xiaobo, and many thousands of others, who demonstrated at Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Thus, what appears at first glance a gesture of inclusion on the part of the Egyptian regime might in fact be a bid to exclude the moderate core demonstrators and keep the focus on mutually antagonistic extremes instead.

(TO READ THE FULL TEXT, PLEASE CLICK HERE)>

EVERY UPRISING IS DIFFERENT

2011-02-04T18:29:00.005-05:00

Philip J Cunningham

Every uprising is different. But given shared human strengths and weaknesses, the dynamics of crowd behavior, crowd control, and crowd chaos play out in ways that strike a common chord. Having written about popular protest, cultural clashes and street marches in East Asia for two decades now, there are certain commonalities that come to fore as the events in Cairo, as reported by Al Jazeera and other Internet sources, unfold in real time on my computer screen.

-Truth is an early casualty of any conflict, and the media comes under pressure almost immediately. Competing media narratives diverge wildly, usually the storytelling of the government pitted against the storytelling of the protesters. Distortions to the truth range from outright lies and censorship, to mudslinging, misdirection and deliberate prevarications. There is obfuscation and startling clarity. There are also moments of heartfelt expression, courageous calls for change and sometimes shocking clandestine reports from the frontlines of the conflict.

-Television stations are a coveted resource for those seeking political control. State television, even when it is reduced to producing propaganda, is such an effective transmitter of information, (including mis-information, mis-direction, taboos and telling silences) in regards to an escalating crisis that it can inadvertently help fan the flames of nationwide protest. Even when the details of a mass incident in progress are garbled or distorted by heavy-handed censorship, the fingerprints of the heavy-handedness are visible for all to see. The odd, Orwellian quality of manipulated news, what with its revved up nationalistic fervor, glaring contradictions, threatening reassurances and a rather too loud pleading of innocence, is politically charged enough to betray meta-truths about the abject nature of the regime.

-Reporters and citizen Journalists are at risk. Be it for their truth-telling capacity or simply a vengeful way of blaming the messenger, journalists often get roughed up as public disturbances unfold. Journalists are detained and denied access to key locations, often in the name of safety. Western journalists are especially easy to find as they tend to hole up in luxury hotels where they are subject to surveillance, harassment, and confiscation of film, memory chips, cameras, etc.

-Al Jazeera TV. The upstart TV station based in Qatar has come of age, although it observes, like every news service on the earth, certain ground rules and avoids certain sensitive topics. Its unique take on world news is largely ignored by US cable TV providers, but luckily Al Jazeera Internet streaming can reach a truly global audience, providing a service to viewers whose television and cable service is tilted in favor of the national agendas of the traditional media giants such as CNN, BBC, Fox and ABC. In what might be understood as a backhanded compliment, Al Jazeera has been accused of meddling by the Egyptian government.

-The Internet. Online news services, specialist blogs, Twitter and social networking tools have helped get the story out as well. Advanced information technologies, and the costly, complex devices required to view the news on, are convenient when they work well, and they work especially well across borders at global distances, but remain largely out of the reach of the poor and can be rendered momentarily worthless when the plug gets pulled, as was the case in Egypt when the Internet was turned off. The technology itself is neutral, and there are various ingenious ways to get around blocking, but despite the freedom of expression hype, modern tools are no different from the printing press or radio in the sense that they can be used to further things good and bad and can be used to promote the cause of either side through skillful public relations and information control.

-Word of mouth. Fortunately, the information ecosystem is full of diverse platforms and incidental redundancies; if one technology fails, or is blocked, other ways of transmitting information remain. This includes everything from hardy, traditional technologies such as landline telephones and fax machines to hand-painted banners, chants, slogans and word of mouth.

-Rumors. Rightly or wrongly, rumors take the place of reliable information when reliable information is hard to come by. Rumors serve to excite people to action. The more severe information control at home, the more likely agitated citizens are to turn to the latest gossip on the street.

-Crowd dynamics. When a large crowd manages to gather and assemble, especially in an environment where political gatherings are generally banned and ruthlessly suppressed, success breeds success. If ten, a hundred, a thousand brave individuals get away with the impossible, it inspires others to follow.

-Something in the air. When a large crowd asserts itself in public space and coalesces on symbolic ground, a window is opened to possible political change, an opportunity not normally evident. An indefinable “something in the air,” combined with concrete opportunities for assembly, adequate channels for expression and a broad consensus that change is desirable if not necessary, helps kick-start a major public uprising. When this takes the form of staking out contested ground in the heart of the capital its significance is magnified in a way that enables a crowd to grow exponentially. Under the natural evolution of such circumstances, the crowd is likely to be diverse and composed of people from all walks of life.

-Safety in numbers. When the numbers soar to the hundred of thousands, not only do individual members of the crowd begin to feel uncannily safe –however illusory that protective aura might be – but it gives rise to a sense that a historic turning point is at hand. Suddenly, due to a confluence of rising frustration, mutual reinforcement, strength in numbers and chance developments, there’s a perception that an unprecedented and largely unexpected overhaul to the status quo just might be possible. It’s a bid to hit society’s reset button.

TO CONTINUE READING, PLEASE CLICK HERE

Hard truths in Hardtalk

2011-02-01T13:25:00.011-05:00

posted by Philip Cunningham

There's a telling moment in the February 1, 2011 BBC Hardtalk interview when host Stephen Sackur asks US publisher and billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman if he supports democracy. He does but he doesn't. The non-verbal shift of gears is comical, but the subject itself is not. The hypocrisy brings to mind another wealthy publisher, self-styled human rights activist and opinion leader, Robert L. Bernstein, formerly of Random House, who recently attacked Human Rights Watch, a group he himself helped to found and fund, for having the temerity to criticize Israel.

An excerpt of the exchange below sums up an attitude that permeates America's "democratic" elite.

Sackur: Do you believe in democracy?

Zuckerman: Totally...

Sackur: Totally?

Zuckerman: Without question.

Sackur: In the Middle East?

Zuckerman: Ah, well, no. The Middle East....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9383436.stm

Egypt: Sentiments vs. Advice

2011-01-30T21:40:00.004-05:00

[Cross-posted with From the Field]

“Some may argue that the events unfolding in the Middle East now are too unpredictable to warrant a wholesale shift in U.S. foreign policy, that transferring support from loyal satraps to an untested popular opposition may backfire if that opposition fails or is put down, that the U.S. needs reassurances of friendly allies (often at the expense of democracy). But America is not simply a bystander in all of this -- its actions and words will affect the outcome. They will signal to opposition and regimes alike how far each can expect to go in challenging -- or repressing -- the other. Opposition movements (and would-be opposition movements) secular or Islamist are not only waging a battle against authoritarian oppression -- but a battle against the ways in which the U.S. manifests its quest to secure its geo-strategic interest."

I know and respect the three authors (Amaney Jamal, Ellen Lust and Tarek Masoud) of this piece, but I do not fully share their prognostication. No doubt, the Obama administration like its predecessors has been complacent about the stability of Egypt, as a number of scholars and analysts have warned. Nonetheless, despite a few misstatements along the way, including by VP Biden and SecState Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration has handled the Egypt crisis sensibly, if not deftly. When the demonstrations began on January 25th, it was not clear how much momentum the protests would sustain.  It is unreasonable to expect the U.S. to turn its policy on a dime, and the administration would have been derelict to do so.

By January 29th (Saturday), it was clear that Mubarak would not survive, and official U.S. rhetoric began to reflect that view. The challenge for the administration now is to help support a transition in Egypt, a country where the regime has assiduously attempted to depoliticize civil society and to repress any serious effort at mounting a political opposition.

If George W. Bush erred by assuming that a couple of Thomas Jefferson aspirins at bedtime (e.g., democratic elections) would suffice to transform an authoritarian political system, then scholars err, even highly qualified ones, in assuming that "supporting those calling for democracy and knowing it is in our best interest" constitutes serious policy advice.

As the authors know, I have been a long-term supporter of political reform and democratization in the Middle East, and I have certainly been critical that stability has often been the drug of choice of U.S. administrations.  Yes, the U.S. needs to embrace reform not dictators, but its also needs to play a constructive role and not instill instability and chaos, as it did in Iraq.

Turning to the Egyptian case, the urgent question is transition. There are respected institutions in Egypt, including the judiciary, which has often proven its integrity and the judiciary stands ready for this historic moment.  The military remains an essential player.  Like it or not, the military infiltrates many segments of the government, and it is hard to imagine a stable transition unless the military plays a constructive role (so far, the restraint of the army has been commendable).  Any transition that does not take account of the military’s corporate interests is likely to fail. [See this smart piece by the widely respected Bassma Kodmani.] Of course, many players in Egypt’s rich civil society will need to have a role as well, including the vocal opposition parties, ranging from the Wafd, Tagammu and the al-‘Araby al-Nasseri, and others including al-Wasat, which has been seeking official status for more than a decade and a half.  The largest opposition group in Egypt is the Muslim Brethren, which despite being banned has sustained an impressive level of support in Egypt’s middle class.  (Ideas about excluding the Ikhwan are just plain naïve.)  In my view, the Ikhwan has demonstrated that it is willing to play by the rules of participant politics, but there are many other Egyptians who are suspicious of its agenda.  There is, in short, a lot to be discussed.

It seems that Muhammad Baradei enjoys a mandate from the Ikhwan and several other opposition groups to play a leading hand in negotiating a political transition, but the process of constructing a transition compact is going to take time and good will on all sides. [Added: Among Baradei's advisors is Osama el-Ghazali Harb who had a deep knowledge of Egyptian politics and also knows where many of the skeletons are hidden.]

In that regard, it serves no useful purpose for the U.S. to rush to publically pull the rug from Mubarak (as some academic colleagues urge), or to raise misgivings in the top reaches of the military.  And, by the way, what about all those NDP functionaries who have been beneficiaries of the regime? They will not—poof! —just disappear.

As for U.S. policy imperatives, I think the authors are not being particularly realistic in addressing the U.S.-Israeli relationship.  I may regret that the U.S. has allowed itself to become so entangled and ensnared with Israel's self-destructive polices, but the U.S. and Israel are tightly connected.  It is fine to argue that “real peace needs to reflect the interests of citizens in Tel Aviv, Ramallah and Cairo”; however, you cannot build a policy on that fine but difficult-to-realize sentiment.  It is a fact of life (and domestic American politics) that the U.S. will take into account its relationship with Israel. The U.S. will want to encourage any government that emerges in Cairo to respect the existing (but very chilly) peace with Israel.  As the authors know, if you put the Egypt-Israel peace treaty to a popular vote in Egypt, the results would not even be close; it would fail.

So, Ellen, Amaney and Tarek, here is my request: I might share your sentiments, but let’s get down to the nitty-gritty about how this transition will work.  We all know that it is going to be messy and probably disappointing in some respects, but the transition to post-Mubarak is an historic opportunity to address the legitimate needs and hopes of Egypt’s long-suffering people.  Slogans are fine, but let’s move on to the hard work and give policymakers some advice they can use.

Mubarak chooses a familiar general as the first Vice President in thirty years

2011-01-29T12:26:00.002-05:00

“My analysis is, the government will leave them until they reach a level of exhaustion---Abdel Moneim Said, who heads the state publishing house al-Ahram.

Egypt is in a moment of enthusiasm when the people are propelled by adrenalin, coffee and anger. Don’t stay up waiting for them to nod off to sleep in exhaustion. The Mubarak regime has relentlessly worked to depoliticize society, but the people are now highly politicized, meaning that they share the view, many of them at least, that there is a political solution—Mubarak must go.

One impact of the Days of Anger gripping Egypt is that the plotting to put Husni Mubarak’s banker son Gamal on the presidential throne has likely been thwarted. The demonstrators don’t want Mubarak, and they surely don’t want his son. [An report on al-Jazeera-Arabic reports that the two sons, Gamal and 'Alaa, and their families, have arrived in London. If true, Gamal's political future is bleak.]

General Umar Suleiman is the head of Military Intelligence and he has been at the nexus of U.S.-Egyptian relations. The 74-year old general has been deeply involved in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, especially in Gaza. Regime intellectuals have told me that Suleiman is disdained by Mohammed Hussein Tantawi the Armed Forces Commander in Chief and Minister of Defense. Tantawi views Suleiman as a subordinate who has been accorded undue prominence.

Suleiman is known to have worked closely with Suzanne Mubarak, whose major goal is to put her son Gamal in place as President. Suleiman’s appointment might be intended to eventually ease the way for an attempt to engineer the succession, but that scenario does not look very feasible. Suleiman has also been thought to have his own ambitions for the presidency.

The news that Mubarak, after waiting thirty years, has finally found a man suitable for the Vice Presidency (once held by Anwar Sadat), reflects several elements:

Mubarak is trying to insure his grip on power by appointing someone who the Americans can be comfortable with, while keeping in place his ambitions for Gamal's eventual ascension.

Suleiman is a general, but he is on the periphery of the army not from its core. It is widely suspected that the senior generals have so far thwarted plans to install Gamal. Suleiman’s appointment would be intended to fend off those generals rather than bringing them closer to the centers of power.

Most important is that Mubarak’s game has usually been to promise reform and then to renege when the pressure relents. This is evidenced by the repeated promises to lift the State of Emergency that has been in force almost every day of Mubarak’s tenure.

Real reform requires opening up political space in Egypt. This regime has suppressed legitimate political life and repressed civil society.

If we take President Obama at his word, this sort of resuscitation of political life will be a litmus test for Mubarak’s willingness to engage reform.

Fascism as a Family Affair

2011-01-05T22:58:00.001-05:00

by Murat Cem Menguc

A September 2010 Turkish referendum on constitutional reforms was an occasion for Turkish people to also express their political opinions outside the official polls. Internet based social networks like Facebook were swamped with posts in favor of or against constitutional reform. Some Turks argued the reforms would undermine Turkish sovereignty, and the US/Israeli alliance was using the Justice and Development Party (AKP), Kurds and the European Union and promoting constitutional reforms to achieve its own ends. Some people on Facebook expressed even more radical opinions, showing that Turkish fascism is still a force to be reckoned with. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of these expressions was that they came from friends and family.

Internet-based social networks put us in touch with the people we already know. Unfortunately, people act more open and edgy on the Internet.[1] Since 2009, my Turkish friends and family started to embrace Facebook, along with, I discovered, some of their radical political tendencies.[2] During the aftermath of 9/11, many people became unreasonably critical of the US.[3]

According to some Turks, events like Ergenekon trials, which were almost exclusively about Turkish internal corruption, were also designs of outsiders like the US and Israel. When the Mavi Marmara incident occurred, and Israeli troops killed nine Turkish citizens, it was further explained in these premises.

Also, most Turkish nationalists saw the September 12, 2010 referendum as an attack on their secular-national identity. During the build up to the referendum, many changed their Facebook profile pictures to the Turkish flag, an image of Atatürk or to the simple word Hayır (no), indicating that they were against the reforms. For example, my aunt M began to spend hours on Facebook posting nationalist literature denigrated AKP’s credibility.[4] Another trend was inviting people to join Facebook groups against the reforms. Most popular among these had around half a million members, a remarkable number if one considers that most popular Facebook games like FarmVille had less than 60 million players.[5]

During this time my friend T also changed his profile picture to the Turkish flag and started posting anti-AKP propaganda. T cross-listed anti-Kurdish Facebook groups and argued that the referendum was designed by EU to free Abdullah Öcalan and give unlimited legal rights to the Kurds.[6] He shared derogatory images of the Kurdish MPs, like Emine Ayna.[7] One of his favorite videos showed a group of Turkish soldiers beating a Kurdish man.[8] T’s friends celebrated these posts. When one of his female friends wrote, “This is not the right way to treat these people. It is too violent,” she was quickly rebuked. I saw that she eventually gave up under peer pressure and decided that the best thing to do was de-friend T. Under the video, I wrote that T was a racist, and we could not be friends anymore. T was very angry, accusing me of not knowing anything about Turkish politics. Perhaps having lived in the US for so long, he argued, I had become a sympathizer of the US/Israeli alliance. T had clearly forgotten that it was the US/Israeli alliance that handed to the Turks the most valuable trophy of the war against Kurds: Abdullah Öcalan himself.

By de-friending T, I realized that I had to be more careful on Facebook or I could lose access to my own words. When I cut myself off of his network, my words and name remained on his side of the conversation, but I could not see or edit them. Ironically, T could not erase my words either, unless he also erased the video and his friends’ celebratory remarks.

I was also disappointed for having lost my small window to Turkish racism. Luckily, I soon became friends with my cousin K, who described himself as a ırkçı/faşist (racist/fascist). I decided to act cautiously. K was a true family member and M’s son. He had previously told me that he considered me a role model and wanted to move to the US. I asked him why he considered himself a racist/fascist. He boldly wrote that he was not a universal racist; he only hated Israeli Jews. I told him social networks were not safe places to declare radical political opinions. After all, you are in the tourism business and want to come to US, I told him; if you want to reap the benefits of US capitalism, you have to renounce your racism and fascism. To my surprise, K agreed. He cleaned his profile; however, he continued to post announcements promoting a no vote for the referendum. K believed AKP and the Kurds, along with the EU, were pawns of a larger conspiracy designed to destroy Turkish sovereignty.

In the end, Turkish people overwhelmingly voted Evet (yes) for the reforms. I was relieved that these friends and relatives were a minority. M went back to playing FarmVille, and K started posting Rhianna videos. Meanwhile, I accepted the friendship request of F, another cousin. As soon as I clicked on F’s profile, I discovered two pictures of Hitler. I asked him what he liked about Hitler in particular. He wrote that in Turkey, it was not a crime to like Hitler. I let this comment pass and pressed him: Why Hitler and not Atatürk? He wrote that he liked many people, along with Atatürk, but his real hero was Hüseyin Nihal Atsız, a valuable historian of the early Ottoman historiography. Unfortunately, he was also a leading voice of Turkish racism. I told F that Atsız and Hitler were shallow political thinkers who did not understand that hating ethnic groups destroyed the culture and economy of multi-ethnic societies like the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. Atsız, I wrote, disliked everyone, including Boşnaks like us. My suggestion that he had Boşnak origins made F furious. He wrote that he was the grandchild of Ottomans and a true Turk. He argued that because I lived in US, I probably had Jewish friends and liked them, but one day they would surely betray me. My conversation with F died after this post, and my comments just lingered beneath the image of Hitler.

Obviously these incidents do not constitute a large enough sample group to analyze contemporary Turkish fascism, nor do they mean that during the recent months Turkish fascism gained a new momentum. Nevertheless, they underlined one irritating fact: When we become members of social networks, we also expose ourselves to the opinions of others. In the discourse of my Facebook account, Turkish fascism emerged as a recognizable strain of what Ernst Renan called “the daily plebiscite,” and AKP and Kurds represented a union of collaborators serving under a larger conspiracy designed to undermine Turkish identity. The same discourse shared common elements with its historical brother, European fascism; it was anti-Semitic and admired people like Hitler. Nevertheless, the hatred of the Jewish people and admiration of Hitler came as a reaction to a so-called covert US/Israeli alliance against Turkey. Most unfortunately, this discourse belonged to people whom I considered friends and family.

[1] Although it focuses on intelligent humor, following website underlines some of the general personality disorders found in Internet users. http://www.cracked.com/article_17522_6-new-personality-disorders-caused-by-internet.html

[2] Following website discusses the appeal and growth of Internet based social networks in Turkey. http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/01/23/turkey-the-land-that-embraced-facebook-friendfeed-and-startups/

[3] One interesting group in this respect was dedicated to accusing the leading pro-reform newspaper Taraf as an American spy organization. http://www.facebook.com/TarafIcimizdekiAmerikadir

[4] One of the most popular authors was Banu Avar. http://www.ilk-kursun.com/konu/ilk-kursun/banu-avar/
[5] http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Referandumda-HAYIR-Diyoruz/125815394100922
[6] http://www.facebook.com/#!/Kurtacilimiistemiyoruz,
[7] Following image depicted Emine Ayna with flies hovering over her backside, which was an obvious gimmick. www.network54.com/Forum/248068/thread/1276674790/1277331987/Confederation+of+Turkey-Kurdistan
[8] A search of the phrase “PKK leşleri”, which means PKK corpses in derogatory form brings up around 95 entries. Almost all of these entries are accompanied with hate speech.

.......THE POWER BEHIND THE CURTAIN.......

2010-12-01T11:20:00.007-05:00

by Philip J Cunningham

Wikileak's online dump of US State Department cables is interesting to peruse but not especially revelatory so far. From what documents have been made public to date, it looks like the messy work of diplomacy as usual. As veteran whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg pointed out on “Democracy Now”, the material comes from a database which has been given a security classification so low in the hierarchy of US intelligence briefings that he wouldn't even have bothered to look at it when he worked as a mid-level intelligence analyst, given the priority accorded to truly secretive and sensitive documents.

That’s not to say the data trove is irrelevant; it's the sort of raw material that makes diplomats cringe and historians intrigued. It's a random, grab-bag snapshot of official US thinking about friends and enemies, diplomatic challenges past and present. It has shed rather more humiliation than light, sort of like a bathroom stall being suddenly kicked open.

The unflattering material ranges from sordid to insightful, from Machiavellian finesse to blunt bullying, but it’s the methods of Hillary Clinton’s State Department, which call on diplomats to cull biometric data and engage in virtual stalking, that really raise eyebrows.

Much of the information is awkward but not at all secret, rather like transcripts of friends talking about friends behind their backs.A significant portion of the “statecraft” described in on-line posts certainly has an odor of hypocrisy and deception, but what foreign ministry could survive without a certain amount of double-speak?

In due time, the sheer volume of data to come may help to better determine as to whether the US government has so lost sight of its espoused ideals as to allow deception, petty thuggery and double standards to be the new norm.

The US State Department is quick to perceive skullduggery when dealing with others but it apparently cannot see the same in its own behavior.

(to read the essay in full, please visit Frontier International)

So what is new?

2010-11-28T16:26:00.002-05:00

FISHING FOR TROUBLE FAR OUT TO SEA

2010-11-05T12:38:00.002-04:00

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

China, Japan, Russia and America are vying to assert influence over a handful of disputed isles and islets lying off East Asian shores.

At first glance, the recent China-Japan spat concerning a boat collision followed by a Russia-Japan spat concerning a presidential visit to a remote outpost, seem like much ado about nothing; but they follow in the wake of a smouldering US-Japan conflict over the disposition of US forces in Okinawa.

Disputed islets may appear to be mere points on the map; but depending on which points you lay claim to and how you connect the dots, a nation's outline shrinks or swells far beyond its shores, its periphery defined by vanguard islets that extend territorial waters far out to sea.

The disputed islets are a cacophonous crossroads in the cross-hairs of powerful regional actors. Because the islets have changed hands and flipped political polarity more than once in the past, every claimant has at least a half-convincing story to tell.

The islets and islands in the news are not merely geographic markers staking out bold territorial claims in three dimensions; they are also historical markers staking out the fourth dimension: time.

It's hard to discuss any of the fiercely disputed islets that were once part of Imperial Japan without bringing back divisive memories of a war that took tens of millions of lives.

(to continue reading, please click here)

CHINESE PROPAGANDA

2010-10-20T00:46:00.001-04:00

by Philip J Cunningham

It's not easy being a propaganda chief these days. What with all the new-fangled technology, and talk of democracy, the spectre of yesterday's suppressed news keeps coming back to haunt you.

You shred a story and throw it down the memory hole and it bounces back with a vengeance - a hundred stories where there was once just one.

Your job is to serve the party, and the secretary-general of the party most of all. All sorts of people, inside and outside the party resent your influence; some even challenge your right to exist.

When you do your job skilfully, nobody notices. When you screw up, it's there for all the world to see.

Take the case of Liu Xiaobo.

You were under the impression it was your job to make the story go away, a mission impossible in PR terms. So, instead, you make yourself look foolish. Failing to suppress the news of a dissident getting the Nobel Peace Prize, you double down and go into over-drive. You attack the poor, imprisoned convicted criminal Liu, of course, but also castigate the arrogant award-givers. Then you attack the small Western country that is home to the handful of old, white men sitting on the committee that made the "blasphemous" award decision. Then you attack the Western world in general.

As was frequently the case during the Mao years, a vilification campaign is as hurtful as it is absurd, but ultimately it makes a mockery of its advocates and legends of those sorry souls it targets.

Those not destroyed by vilification often come back stronger than ever, emerging as influential figures in their own right, thanks to the initial drop-kick that made their name a political football in the first place.

The Maoist vilification of Liu Shaoqi and Peng Dehuai drove both men to early graves, but it turned them into the stuff of legend. Getting whacked by an endless stream of words ultimately enhanced the reputation of two hard-core communist operatives who were, until the moment of their fall, loyal henchmen of the party and Chairman Mao.

Deng Xiaoping, who was dislodged from power three times, and each time duly vilified in the propaganda organs of the day, not only emerged with a "name" but with a body of sayings. Even off-the-cuff quotes such as: "It doesn't matter if it's a white cat or a black cat..." that were once bandied about as supposed proof of Deng's perfidy, have been memorialised and become part of the legend of the man.

Zhao Ziyang was cut from the same cloth as his tough communist colleagues at the pinnacle of state power until his fall from grace, after which he assumed a largely undeserved democratic halo.

The way the Beijing authorities have fumbled the Liu Xiaobo case is enough to ensure that this mild-mannered academic, who was but one of many comparable dissidents, will now stand head and shoulders against the rest, eclipsing rebel elders such as Wei Jingsheng, who endured even greater suffering with even greater equanimity and resolve.

The Nobel Prize committee chose to turn the spotlight on just one man in a collective cause, casting a disproportionately large shadow, but it is China's flummoxed media czars, who, by overplaying their hand, are assuring that Liu Xiaobo will be seen as larger than life.

The Chinese Department of Propaganda hasn't always been so clumsy, nor has it always been on the wrong side of history.

It has played a role in maintaining civility in public discourse, especially in advance of, and in the aftermath of, the poisonous reign of "free" speech known as the Cultural Revolution.

In the early 1960's, one of the main functions of the central propaganda apparatus was to keep the doddering old Mao, and his increasingly insane ideas, in check.

Mao, hungry for some vengeful political action, famously complained that he couldn't get a word in edgewise in Beijing, so he had proxies such as Yao Wenyuan and Zhang Chunqiao publish in Shanghai the first of a long series of veiled vilifications and outright ad hominem attacks that launched the Cultural Revolution.

A wave of suicides, vigilante roundups, public humiliations, torture and extrajudicial killings convulsed the nation for years to come, bringing the life of individuals, and the nation as a whole, to a virtual standstill. Millions died, hundreds of millions were traumatised.

It's enough to make one wish that Beijing's mayor Peng Zhen and the propaganda chiefs had constrained Mao's "right" to free speech, and thus stemmed the tide of invective, winning the day for the silent majority.

While human rights organisations understandably see censorship as a unique threat to them and theirs, an idealistic egotism causes them to miss the point inasmuch as it's really not about them. At least half of the function of the propaganda department is to keep inner-party conflict out of the news, to keep Politburo rivals and wannabes from each other's throats and to prevent insider coups and political campaigns from ripping the country apart at the seams.

In more recent times, the much-maligned department served a stabilising role when the reigns of power were reluctantly handed to Hu Jintao by the ambitious and not-quite-yet-ready-to-retire Jiang Zemin.

By controlling access to the public megaphone, the propaganda department effectively reined in yesterday's leaders, thus enabling the changing of the guard. It's China's equivalent to term limits in US politics.

Were Hu Jintao to completely dismantle the party's propaganda apparatus tomorrow, we would probably learn more about Hu than we know now, but it would likely prove a hollow victory for the free press. Were it not for the restraining hand of the propaganda department, Jiang Zemin and Li Peng would still be in the news, and in the game, using prestige media to advance their coteries and causes.

Other powerful actors, who, by virtue of wealth and position, would come to hog the limelight, making an easy transition to a freewheeling press system that would allow them to exercise power by buying newspapers, TV stations and advertising influence.

But if the opening of the floodgates were so unregulated as to lead to an "anything goes" neglect of media standards, then the vilification, mud-slinging and poisonous hate speech that hurt China so much in the past, would return with a vengeance.

The ensuing chaos would give foreign reporters and local scribes much to report on and write about, but little security or social stability in which to enjoy the fruits of free expression.

Philip J Cunningham is a freelance writer and political commentator.

A new Israel-Lebanon war?

2010-10-01T13:00:00.000-04:00

A variety of intellectuals and scholars comment on the possibility and logic for new Israel-Lebanon war centering on the prospect that Israel will launch a new war. Contributors include Rashid Khalidi, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finklestein, Helena Cobban, John Meirsheimer, Mu'in Rabani, Michael Desch, 'Ashaf Kafuri, and me. The war would be a punitive campaign that enacts great punishment on Lebanon, but would be likely to strengthen not weaken Hezbollah, as well fomenting much anti-U.S. sentiment. There is also doubt expressed, notably by Meirsheimer, that the Obama administration would behave very much differently than the recent Bush administration in terms of preventing or ending the war.

As published in al-Akhbar.

Here is my contribution:

We can construct a very rational argument for Israel to maintain the status quo vis-à-vis Lebanon rather than attacking for the ostensible purpose of disarming Hezbollah. Notwithstanding the tree incident in early August, the border has been very quiet since the 2006 war ended. With the exception of contested areas of the occupied Golan Heights, notably the Shiba’ farms, the border area was also quiet from the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 until the July 2006. Since the 1990s the Hezbollah-Israel rules-of-the-game have been well understood and both belligerents have been generally measured in their actions (as opposed to their rhetoric) and reactions. July-August 2006 was an exception, of course.

Roiling inter-sectarian tensions, particularly between Shi’is and Sunnis, have erupted in deadly clashes, as they did this week between Hezbollahis and Ahbashis. Even so, Hezbollah’s resistance narrative is widely supported in the Shi’i community, even if it is derided in some other Lebanese quarters. The November 2009 ministerial statement that launched the current government embraced the right of “resistance”, while simultaneously and incongruously committing the government to the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. Although naïve commentary in the U.S. focuses on the need for the Lebanese Army to disarm Hezbollah, it is obvious that resistance to Israel is popular in the ranks and in the officer corps, and the prospects for Hezbollah being disarmed by the army are zilch.

If Israel were to attack Lebanon with the objective of weakening, if not defeating Hezbollah and destroying a significant proportion of the group’s arsenal of rockets and missiles, it runs the risk of falling short. If so, Hezbollah’s resistance narrative would not be undermined but validated, again. Israeli military sources have argued recently that Hezbollah has “bases” in more than 100 villages in the South. This suggests an Israeli campaign that would wreak even wider destruction than the 2006 war. A landscape of smoldering ruins across southern Lebanon is more likely to inspire not dampen support for Hezbollah.

In addition, Israel would not be unscathed. Withering rocket fire in northern Israel would cause the displacement of a million or more Israelis. If Hezbollah makes good on the promise to retaliate-in-kind for Israeli strikes on Lebanese cities then the dangers will cascade for Israel.

This adds up to a rational case for not attacking Lebanon.

Perhaps, but there is good reason for concern that the Israelis will not be deterred.

Israel—with very generous U.S. support—is committed to maintaining its military superiority over any combination of regional foes. In addition, Israeli strategic culture emphasizes the need for Israel to “maintain its deterrence”. This means that Israel’s foes will not seriously contemplate attacking Israel because their defeat is certain and Israel will inflict disproportionate military power should they try. The punitive campaign against Gaza in December 2008-December 2009 is an example of the latter.

Particularly in the case of Hezbollah, Israel faces a re-armed foe that flaunts its contempt for Israeli hegemony. Given a pretext or a miscalculation, it is not far-fetched to imagine an Israeli war plan premised on a fierce and rapid ground attack and an accompanying devastating air campaign designed to overcome Lebanese resistance in a matter of weeks. Israel would ostensibly demonstrate that it will not be deterred by Hezbollah.

If Israel launches an air campaign on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, it is axiomatic that a pre-emptive attack on Lebanon would be on the menu because it is assumed that the first wave of Iranian retaliation would come in the form of Hezbollahi rockets. Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have firmly counseled Israel against bombing Iran, and there is little enthusiasm in the Pentagon for starting a war with Iran.

Given Israel’s strategic culture and its fixation on “maintaining its deterrence”, an Israeli onslaught into Lebanon would also be justified as thwarting Iran’s hegemonial ambitions while reducing the threat posed to Israel by Hezbollah. In the Bush White House, Senior National Security Council officials actively encouraged the Gaza War. The Obama White House is far more likely to urge restraint on Israel, but this will not stop Israel from starting a new war if it elects to do so.

Prudent counsel may prevail, and the tense conditions along the Israel-Lebanon border may persist for some time to come. Unfortunately, unwise and counter-productive decisions by Israel have become increasingly common. Plus, Israeli officials have often succumbed to the fallacy that inflicting pain on Lebanon reduces support for Hezbollah. This usually does not work, and often has the opposite effect.

Crossposted with "From the the Field".

LOST IN TRANSLATION, LOST AT SEA

2010-09-25T01:25:00.002-04:00

An aerial view of one of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands in the East China Sea, claimed by Japan, China and Taiwan.

by Philip J Cunningham

From the moment a Chinese fishing trawler and pair of Japanese coast guard boats came into contact at sea on Sept 8, 2010, the waters were instantly muddied, not so much by the minor maritime incident itself, but by bouts of mutual recrimination.

Confusion and concerns raised by the incident were ramped up and amplified by the weight of history, fears about the future, and cultural differences.

Sino-Japanese relations remain sensitive and subject to sudden downturns due to the gravity of historical horrors that continue to haunt the present.

Each side's self-righteous response serves to further irk and annoy the other, setting off a chain reaction in the direction of a meltdown, if not outright conflict.

Accidents happen, as do "accidents on purpose". But even when no provocation can be proven, a collision at sea plumbs deep emotions. A calm, rational handling of the matter is elusive because the slightest misstep or chauvinistic statement resonates with painful memories of the past.

Chinese artist's rendition of the sinking of the chartered transport ship Kowshing by Togo Heihachiro's cruiser, the Naniwa

For example, Japanese naval luminary Togo Heihachiro became a "celebrity" in Japan in 1894, when he ordered his cruiser, the Naniwa, to fire upon, and sink, the Kowshing, a British-flagged transport ship chartered by China. The son of a samurai turned naval hero went on to humiliate the Russians at Port Arthur using a strategy of stoic stealth to defeat an over-confident and under-prepared enemy, which decades later inspired Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku to execute the1941 Pearl Harbour attack.

Admiral Togo was widely feted in his lifetime, not only in Japan but also in England and even in America, though he was understandably unpopular in China for having summarily dispatched a thousand Chinese young men to a watery grave.

Divergent cultural norms have a bearing on the disposition of such a case. Not following the rules _ in this case a demonstrable reluctance to surrender _ was a breach of order and propriety sufficient for the Japanese cruiser captain to perfunctorily blow a few big holes in the hull of the uncooperative craft and watch it drop beneath the waves.

One man's war hero, another man's war criminal. Arguably there was a method to Togo's mad lack of compassion, so much so that even the British, infuriated that a ship piloted by one of their own might be treated in such a fashion, reluctantly acknowledged that the Japanese naval man known as "Johnny Chinaman" during his studies in Britain, had scrupulously followed the rulebook the British themselves had written.

When Togo sank the Kowshing, there was no declaration of war between Japan and China, nor was the British-piloted transport ship in any position to attack. Togo, under instructions to intercept, destroyed the defenceless transport ship, not because it posed a palpable threat, but because it didn't follow orders.

Tasked with preventing the Chinese troops from reaching Korea, Togo followed orders with alacrity, offering a choice of sink or surrender, then bailing out of the water only the British captain and a handful of non-Chinese crew.

Japanese troops intent on taking control of Seoul subsequently overcame their woefully undermanned Chinese rivals, paving the way to the eventual takeover of the entire Korean peninsula and Manchuria.

The naval war that ensued ended with China ceding Taiwan and other territory to Japan. Over the next five decades, China and Japan descended gradually but inexorably into a protracted war that cost tens of millions of lives.

Seen from inside the norms of Japanese naval culture, Togo was not a cold-blooded killer, but a discriminating man, both patient and polite, obedient to authority and fanatic about decorum. Certain things simply had to be done a certain way _ hoisting signal flags, issuing formal salutes _ and he could see no two ways about it.

Togo's refusal to save the drowning Chinese was not viewed as a breach of naval etiquette, because the Chinese, growing mutinous, had proven themselves unwilling to follow the most basic rules as they even turned on the hired British captain, whom they suspected to be in collusion with the Japanese.

Protocol trumped emotion and the Japanese won, not just the one-sided battle to sink what was basically an unarmed ship, but the rather more complex trial in the court of Imperial British opinion and jurisprudence, which concluded that Togo had followed the letter of British-style law to a "T", a triumph of form over substance which left little regard for 1,000 human lives lost in the water.

The victims' lack of discipline, order and decorum presumably put them beyond the pale of naval compassion.

China's future strongman Mao Zedong was just a baby at the time, but he and future generations of patriots would find in the long sorry chain of such calamitous events the inspiration to restore China's pride with a vengeance.

The bumps and scratches of the Sept 8, 2010 Sino-Japanese boat collision incident are indeed trivial in comparison, but the subsequent arrest and detention by the book of the Chinese captain has inflamed the emotions of a Chinese public well-educated in the exploits of Imperial Japan and its predations against their homeland.

Once history is invoked, the wild card of public opinion has to be taken into account.

The United States, like England during the heyday of its imperial might, currently enjoys a strategic alliance with Japan.

Although there have been serious frictions in the US-Japan relationship as of late, due to onerous US military demands for operating space in and around Futenma in Okinawa, it is unlikely that the US will show much sympathy for Chinese sentiments about the contested waters around the Diaoyutai/Senkaku islets so long as Japan is an ally that remains largely observant of American-style military protocol.

As Greenpeace anti-whaling activists and other "emotional" opponents of contemporary Japanese maritime behaviour have learned to their detriment, common sense and compassion are not necessarily extended to those who fail to abide by protocol _ the law, as Japan sees it _ when encountering a Japanese vessel on the waters.

Anti-whaling activists have seen a catamaran craft rammed and capsized; the Japanese side claims it was an "accident"; while in 2008 the Lianhe, a Taiwanese fishing vessel, was struck and sunk by the Japanese Coast Guard patrol boat Koshiki, which managed to rescue the crew.

Similar near-clashes have been reported this month involving boats from Taiwan.

The potential wealth of the contested waters, rich in fish, with a seabed underneath that may well prove rich in oil and minerals, adds to the mounting tension.

Given the deep wounds of a past that saw Japan invade and wreak havoc on China, even the most minor of scrapes in contested waters is a critical event that must be managed with political care and cultural sensitivity.

Given the Japanese tendency to play it by its own rulebook and the Chinese penchant to play it out in public, each side predictably thwarts and infuriates the other.

If the two dominant powers of East Asia once again find themselves on a collision course, history suggests that things will get much worse before they get better _ and no one wins in the end.

Still, it's not too late for all claimants to the contested waters to step back, put aside seemingly intractable claims, and take the long view.

Instead of shedding blood over rocky islets, give back to nature the sea and the seabed until future generations can equitably sort out what belongs to whom.

(first published in the Bangkok Post, September 25, 2010)

Philip J Cunningham is a free-lance writer and political commentator.

OUT OF HISTORY AND INTO THE PRESENT

2010-08-20T22:36:00.004-04:00

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM
(from the Bangkok Post, August 21, 2010)

There is the story of a provincial politician, unique to his time and place but universal in resonance, who came to electoral prominence by rousing the poor and trampled-upon into a veritable political army.

He talked the provocative talk of the populist, if not the demagogue; one could even say he talked his way into power, but he made good on some of the promises. He recognised the latent power of the poor, though not always in good ways or with the best of intentions.

Neither handsome nor heroic, he was likeable in a corny, folksy way.

Despite his gift of gab, he was not a good listener, but he didn't drink and he worked hard and went to great lengths to get his name in the paper. From the start, he treated rural areas as his rear base and the media as a hand-maiden to personal ambition.

When he first announced his desire to lead, he was ridiculed and scorned by the established elite and their henchmen. When he vowed to deliver free health care and access to education for all, he caused panic among vested interests.

He had his lucky breaks, but was also supported by powerful establishment figures who did not see the bold maverick as a threat. He had a crack staff of assistants, including media minds, paid agents and security muscle.

He travelled the hinterland by train, bringing the drama of government to remote places where a face-to-face between leaders and the led was known primarily by its absence.

"Make 'em cry, make 'em laugh, make 'em hate you," his advisers urged, anything to keep him at the centre of public attention. He wanted fame and power badly, yet acknowledged it was something deep inside him that even he did not fully understand.

As his circle of power and influence spread, flames of populism were fanned. There were fiery speeches, huge gatherings in public places, torches being waved in the night.

He ran a modern, media-savvy campaign, and liked to have journalists in his pocket, not just to dominate the newspapers and airwaves but to conduct "research" on his political foes. He kept a black book on the vulnerabilities of others to keep them in line. Some could be bought simply with money, as in absolving a bank debt; others could be gradually entrapped in the web of their dreams, by exploiting their passion for ideals.

He could be generous, bestowing wealth, privilege and power on his loyal crew, and he could take it away at whim.

Posters bearing his likeness were everywhere, his witty slogans distributed widely. At rallies one could expect a carnival atmosphere with free food, giveaways and entertainment.

(PLEASE CONTINUE READING HERE)

Populism, the political opiate of the people

2010-07-06T08:52:00.002-04:00

(from the Bangkok Post, Published: 29/06/2010)

by PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

Populism pits the "people" against the "elite" in order to foment change. Demagogues use half-truths, truisms and outright lies to make it happen.

For better or worse, populism has been on the upswing in Thailand in the last 10 years, roughly corresponding to the rise and fall of Thaksin Shinawatra's rule.

Although Thailand has seen populist behaviour before, most especially under the boot of Plaek Phibulsonggram who was a contemporary of Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, and who was to some extent influenced by the rabid populism that transmuted into fascism at the time, it wasn't until Thaksin's arrival on the national stage that the Thai term prachaniyom was coined to replace the English-loan word for populism.

The good news for a Bangkok establishment fearful of red shirts taking to the streets again is that populist movements tend to fall apart rather quickly, typically due to the lack of sustainable infrastructure and hard-to-resolve internal contradictions, or, more simply, just by becoming unpopular.

Even populist leaders such as Thaksin who managed to scale the heights of power tend to fall, and fail, rather quickly, because taking over the top slot instantly converts them into a symbol of a new, unjust elite, an easy target for a fresh wave of resentment on the part of those who feel betrayed or excluded from the spoils of power.

The bad news for the establishment is this. Populism isn't conjured up out of thin air or pulled out of the ether. It is rooted to the earth, a reflection of real and perceived problems on the ground. It clings to pre-existing fault lines, makes claim to them, manipulates them, exacerbates and explodes them, in the hopes of triggering a seismic shift in power.

(full article posted here)

Israel's announced modification of its blockade of Gaza

2010-06-18T12:14:00.001-04:00

Cross-posted with "From the Field"

Israel's decision to adjust its punitive blockade of Gaza is mainly intended to deflect international pressure that has grown since May 31st, when Israel commandeered the aid flotilla in international waters and killed nine activists. The Israeli announcement, incidentally, came in English and was not repeated in Hebrew according to Haaretz.

The blockade has been severely criticized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The ICRC is an organization that goes out of its way to maintain a neutral stance, which it feels allows it to function effectively in conflict areas. When it does take a position based in international law, it does so in a measured way. Thus, the ICRC's finding that Israel vis-a-vis Gaza is not meeting its responsibilities under international humanitarian law, and is practicing "collective punishment" is important. Furthermore, the ICRC has reiterated its position that the blockade is not merely a humanitarian issue. Israel's "closure" of Gaza denies the people living there the opportunity to sustain normal economic opportunity and development.

Of course, the blockade of Gaza was progressively tightened following the electoral victory of Hamas in 2006 with significant encouragement and support from the U.S. government. The point was precisely to undermine the credibility of Hamas and sow discontent among Gazans. After the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006, and especially after Hamas thwarted Fatah's (U.S. supported) effort to topple it from power in 2007, Israel was even more invested with keeping the blockade in place.

Israel is now betting that by adjusting the arbitrary terms of reference for the shipment of food and consumer goods into Gaza, and by permitting limited construction to occur, it will be able to keep the blockade in place. Perhaps so.

My own reaction to Israel's decision is quoted in part in the Washington Post. My full comment follows:

Israel's government is attempting to retain the blockade of Gaza by allowing international NGOs to import some raw materials while denying Gazans the materials they need to reconstruct their simple homes, to move out of tents and hovels into barely adequate homes. If Israel was serious about improving the living conditions of Gazans, it would stop preventing the exports of agricultural goods and allow the strip's simple manufacturing sector to resume making and selling everyday essentials. This latest decision by Israel is an arrogant in-your-face to the US and other concerned members of the international community. Watch the US government spokespersons for their reaction. If they commend Israel, then you may discount Obama's commitment to Middle East peace making heavily.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, described the newly announced adjustments to the blockade as only "a step in the right direction." Obama has described the Gaza humanitarian situation as "unsustainable." Gibbs repeated that yesterday. Will the U.S., in concert with the EU, keep up the pressure to end the collective punishment of Gaza and allow the Gazans to attempt to create a viable economy, or will the pressure ebb? It is obviously too soon to tell, but one lesson of recent weeks is that absent diplomatic pressure, the status quo will continue.

A skillful diplomatic effort led the U.S. would end the punitive blockade, and lend renewed momentum to the flagging efforts of George Mitchell. It is hard to imagine such an effort succeeding without the release of Gilad Shalit, a move toward reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, and an effective long-term ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. That is a tall order, but Obama's aides insist he is deeply committed to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS

2010-05-25T22:11:00.002-04:00

This essay was first published in the Bangkok Post on May 24, 2010 as "The pain and sorrow of two cities in crisis"

September 11, 2001 might well have been the worst day ever in the history of New York, but it was pretty much just another day in Bangkok.

I was riding in a taxi from Soi Aree to Sukhumvit when I first got news that my hometown had been struck by some kind of shocking attack. The Thai driver, who had his radio on, was upset. Then he told me, in a kind and commiserating way, that a plane had hit New York's World Trade Center. I understood every word he said, but somehow it didn't add up. I tried to convince myself that I had misheard, so shocking was the news.

A short time later I was with a group of mostly American friends, watching TV in horror as the second tower came down. We found what scant comfort could be had at a time of a great human tragedy by obsessively searching for information on TV and online, commiserating quietly.

The next day I had to teach even though my mind was numb, still in mourning for my hometown, the news full of apocalyptic images. I took the skytrain from Soi Aree to Siam and walked to the faculty of communication arts at Chulalongkorn University. Before class, I heard some students chatting to one another in the hallway.

"Did you hear about the World Trade?"

"No. What happened?"

"A plane crashed into it."

"Taay leao! Right there in Ratchaprasong?"

"No, silly, World Trade Center in New York."

"Oh, you had me worried for a minute."

I said nothing, but the ignorance and apathy of the second speaker left me feeling sick. I went to the dark, air-conditioned faculty meeting room, where a group of students was gathered, watching TV. Finally I thought, someone who will understand. But they were watching a badminton match broadcast from Malaysia and were reluctant to change channels. Again, I felt a silent pain I couldn't express.

On my way back to my office, I saw a fellow ajarn in the hallway, choked up, with tears in his eyes. He said how sorry he was to hear the news from New York. He didn't say much, he didn't have to; he understood.

I felt reconnected with the human condition.

In the days that followed, I carried a sense of inner pain that wasn't easily translated. I was offended by what was and wasn't on Thai TV, at once not enough news, but too much sensationalism. But what really riled me was seeing a televised report of a hair styling contest in which one of the Thai contestants had her hair done up in a double beehive, representing two towers, complete with a toy plane crashing into one of them.

I stopped watching TV. But the newspapers by then were all reporting the callous words of then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who, when asked about the terror attacks on America, replied thus.

"Mai pen rai," said the prime minister, "rao pen klang." (We are neutral).

He said Thailand was neutral so it was no matter of concern.

Ouch.

Neutral between what two sides? Killing and being killed? Terrorists and victims of terror? What was there to be neutral about?

And even if Thailand didn't happen to be a close ally of the United States, wouldn't a word or two of sympathy be in order, just on humanitarian grounds?

Now Bangkok has been struck with a huge tragedy and in an odd parallel to 9/11, Bangkok's "World Trade Center", now renamed CentralWorld, has been hit so bad by arsonists it looks like the Pentagon after a jet crashed into it.

If my own feelings about New York, and my adopted home of Bangkok are any guide, it's not just a hole in a building, but a hole in the heart of the city. And the photo of a tattered Thai flag and wide-eyed modernist statue backed by the gutted building will no doubt become an icon of the shock and pain for many.

What has happened in Bangkok in recent weeks has created an open, gaping wound that will take years to repair.

For many Thais, foreign news coverage of domestic turmoil rubs salt in an open wound, especially when it is rife with error, lacks balance, makes sensational claims and tries to fit Thailand's tragedy into simplistic narrative frames in between frequent commercials. CNN, which seems to work on the assumption that anti-government forces are always right, even during riots (except in the US), gives undue airtime to overly made-up, puffy-haired announcers with fancy graphics tools who make ignorant comments about Thailand.

No better are the surprisingly insensitive comments about the torching of Bangkok made by famous academics, such as "All of this is justified", or "The farmers of Thailand have stood up!"

Just what farmers would that be in reference to?

Much of the academic comment to date reeks more of intramural red versus yellow intrigue akin to a heated sports match than a heartfelt concern for people on the ground.

As I came to understand after 9/11, even trivial comments hurt people when they are down.

There was a sense then, and now, of disbelief. If only it were a dream, or if one could turn back the hands of time, but you wake up each day and the hard truth is still there.

But time does heal, and facing the truth squarely does help. New Yorkers were distraught, at times riven with rage and riled up by callous comments made by cavalier commentators who chose to see 9/11 as just desserts or as someone else's problem.

US President Barack Obama has been prudently silent, despite the efforts of Thaksin's lawyer/PR flack who is angling to extract a trumped up "human rights" condemnation of Thailand at a time when the country that offered to come to Lincoln's help with a supply of elephants during the US Civil War requires the understanding of an old friend.

After 9/11, New Yorkers got back to their lives and eventually the tragedy was put into perspective and taken in stride.

Best of all, New Yorkers emerged from the political crisis as open and big-hearted, tolerant and as cosmopolitan as ever.

New Yorkers discovered that terror ceases to intimidate and divide when hatred and fear are let go of and people instead come to grips with the problem in a way that allows them to fortify their spirit while getting on with their lives.

At a time in the life of my country when I required quiet commiseration and understanding, many individuals in Thailand, including a taxi driver, my students and my colleagues at Chula, reached out with quiet understanding.

I wish to share the same sentiment with the good citizens of Bangkok and the provinces who have been hurt by recent events and are still reeling with shock, sadness and disbelief.

Philip J Cunningham is a freelance writer and political commentator

THE LONG RED ROAD TO RATCHAPRASONG

2010-05-17T01:17:00.004-04:00

RED SHIRT PROTEST LEADER JATUPORN PROMPHAN ON THE RED STAGE AT RATCHAPRASONG, BANGKOK ON MAY 16, 2010

(published in the Asia-Pacific Journal on May 17, 2010 as "The Long Winding Red Road to Ratchaprasong and Thailand’s Future")

PHILIP J. CUNNINGHAM

The sniper shooting of Seh Daeng, Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdipol, on May 13, 2010 by an unknown assailant while chatting with foreign reporters has brought to rupture the standoff between Reds and Yellows in the heart of Bangkok and signals a new stage in the movement and its repression. Seh Daeng, whose nickname means “red commander”, was the reddest of the red shirts, while his daughter, now at his side in the hospital, is a staunch supporter of the yellow shirts, illustrative of the convoluted politics of the era. To better put in context the convoluted politics of the present day, and to identify some of the key heroes and villains and historic reference points being talked about on both sides of the barricades in Bangkok, a brief review of Thai social activism follows

The road to the red-shirt takeover of the Ratchaprasong intersection in the heart of Bangkok’s busiest shopping district is a long and winding one. Political activists are not unlike historians in that they frequently point to events in the past to understand what is happening in the present. For the sake of context, a few milestones on Thailand’s bloody road to democracy will be introduced to better understand the democratic and revolutionary claims and pretensions of the red and yellow shirted activists today.

(to read the entire text, please click here)

RED ALL THE RAGE

2010-05-13T00:00:00.001-04:00

by philip j cunningham

Thanks to internet technology and the media savvy of the money people backing Thailand’s combative red shirts, it is possible to take a virtual seat right in front of the rebel stage at Rajprasong and listen to speeches, live music and public service announcements morning, noon and night.

The camera focus is usually steady and tight, making it impossible for the virtual observer to judge the size, mood or makeup of the crowd, let alone sense the heat, chaos, confusion and odors of the gathering, but one gets a good sense of performer personality and talent, with varied gifts of gab and occasionally outright inspiring rhetoric.

For the key speakers, their fame as activists precedes them. Nattawut Saikua and Jatuporn Promphan and Wisa Khanthap are among best word-slingers and deservedly get the prime time slots.

Other orators sound rather shrill and humorless, as they repeat the rote, but ever shifting, party line espoused by “The Core.” One day it might be a call to end martial law, another day an absurd complaint about Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban going to have a coffee with the police instead of putting himself under arrest.

(from Bangkok Post, May 13, 2010)

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE TEXT

THE AUDACITY OF MENDACITY

2010-05-03T10:54:00.004-04:00

(from the Bangkok Post, "Where lies the truth amid the mendacity?" May 3, 2010)

by Philip J Cunningham

I watch the unfolding of massive street protests in Bangkok from a geographic distance, but not without emotional identification as I work from a library, putting the finishing touches on a paperback version of a book about the Tiananmen student protests of 1989.

Flamboyant Maj-Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol has compared the red shirts to the students at Tiananmen, one of many careless comments that serves to obscure rather than illuminate what is really motivating the protesters.

Suffice to say the Beijing students, provocative though they were, relied entirely on peaceful expression and carried no weapons --not slingshots, not M79 grenades, not spears, not clubs-- and though agents provocateurs did appear as if from nowhere during the orgy of violence of the June 4 crackdown itself, there were no black-clad Ninja hiding behind civilian shields, aiming their guns and rifles at military targets.

It's a terrible challenge to understand what's happening on the streets of Bangkok, and there's scant comfort in noting that almost no observer, whether on the scene, in the academy, in the newsroom or barracks or halls of governance seems to have a clear grasp of what's going on either.

Impatience for a crackdown is palpable, though there is still a chance for patient, peaceful measures to work. A bloodbath cannot be entirely discounted, especially if the military acts peremptorily in reaction to perceived divisions within its ranks or simply by being goaded into a merciless show of force.

(to read the entire text, please follow the link here)

THE GRAY LADY GETS IT WRONG, AGAIN

2010-04-21T14:58:00.005-04:00

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

The New York Times set the tone for its recent China quake coverage with a devious headline:

“After Quake, Tibetans Distrust China’s Help”

What’s wrong with the headline, affixed to an April 17, 2010 report from China by Times staffer Andrew Jacobs?

Let’s first consider headlines you are unlikely to ever see on the pages of the New York Times or any other decent newspaper.

“After 911, Jews Distrust America’s Help”

“After Katrina, Blacks Distrust America’s Help”

Now take another look at the NYT headline. It’s simply not up to good journalistic standards, is it? In fact it is insulting, if not borderline incendiary.

To say that “Jews distrust America’s help” is to be crude and insensitive. Such a headline commits a double indignity, slyly suggesting that Jews are not really American and Americans are not really Jews.

Ditto for any ethnic group you chose to test the decency of the headline with. Black, white, Irish, Italian or whatever ethnic group you like. It is insulting and it is inaccurate.

And it strikes close to home, so the NYT wisely avoids it.

Now what about China? Ethnic Tibetans in Qinghai are Chinese citizens. Even the Dalai Lama agrees with that.

So what business do the suits on 41st Street in Manhattan have declaring independence on behalf of ethnic Tibetans in Qinghai?

(TO CONTINUE READING, PLEASE CLICK HERE TO GO TO FRONTIER INTERNATIONAL)

BLESSED ARE THE FUN-MAKERS

2010-04-17T00:00:00.001-04:00

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

The sight of red-shirted protesters in Bangkok taking a break from the incendiary heat of political battle to gently douse one another with water in the spirit of Songkran past and present is a small but meaningful step towards repairing dangerous social ruptures and healing the pain of recent political violence.

By taking time out to celebrate a common cultural identity grounded neither in race, religion nor flag, but a delightful folk tradition that elevates fun-loving to a degree rarely seen elsewhere, Thai street combatants have shown a depth of character and resilience that bodes well for resolving civil discord and restoring a sense of normalcy.

The Khao San Road area was hard hit by conflict but was also the site for some transformative fun of the sort that had the world media raising a collective eyebrow.

Going from bullets to buckets of water in a few short days is jolting to the senses, and confounds the media narrative of doom and gloom in the streets, but it does show a glimmer of hope for a peaceful resolution to a seemingly intractable conflict.

(to read the full article, please go to http://jinpeili.blogspot.com/ or click here)

Israel and Palestine - Two States for Two Peoples: If Not Now, When?

2010-03-17T08:28:00.010-04:00

[Crossposted with From the Field.]

The Boston Study Group on Middle East Peace started its regular meetings in September 2008. Its members all have a strong interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some have been intensely engaged with this subject for decades. Others have closely followed the conflict within the context of their professional work in conflict resolution, international law and international relations, religion and U.S. foreign policy.

The group’s principal contribution is the jointly written policy statement entitled Israel and Palestine—Two States for Two People: If Not Now, When? The statement stands as a collegial, collective enterprise that represents a consensus view of the group.

Prior to drafting the policy statement, each member undertook to research and write a background paper on one of the topics integral to our policy statement. The group as a whole discussed drafts of each of these seven papers (now chapters in this report), thereby benefiting each other with respect to both substance and organization.

STOP ROCKING THE BOAT

2010-02-24T16:17:00.002-05:00

We live in age of political extremism. It's not necessarily a reflection of the tough issues of the day; there have been tougher times to be sure, and it's not just bad manners; politicians have probably always been street fighters at heart, despite their grinning photo-ops, and their groomed appearances to the contrary.

Today's noisy 24/7 media overload may be part of the problem inasmuch as bad news sells better than good; discouraging scandal entertains more than encouraging statistics, and misinformation on the internet has a life of its own.

But there is something about the uncompromising vitriol of the current age, perhaps magnified by the paradigm shift in digital communication, that is ripping the social fabric to shreds and threatening the health, safety and resilience of entire nations as a whole.

The worst thing about the morass of politics today is the myopia of spoiler politics; if one side fails to get its way, it responds to no higher calling than to ruin it for the other side. It's like two people fighting to get on a raft, each pulling the other off, willing to risk drowning rather than cooperate with a rival.

(TO CONTINUE READING, PLEASE CLICK HERE)

TWO TIGERS, ONE MOUNTAIN

2010-02-23T11:11:00.002-05:00

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

US-China relations have gotten off to a less than roaring start in the Year of the Tiger, but the venom of mutual incrimination can be avoided if both sides engage in some retrospection and put things in an historical perspective.

Indeed, the positive achievements of the world's most important bilateral relationship are so numerous, profound and complex, that it has become part of the landscape and second nature to younger generations who never experienced the frigid depths of the Cold War and the polarizing antipathies in which the global East and global West defined one another as the quintessential enemy.

While there's no space to enumerate the many people-to-people initiatives that made today's peaceful economic integration of two great economies possible, it is worth reminding ourselves that the rich and constant exchange of people and goods across the Pacific that we take for granted today was almost beyond imagination just a generation ago.

Because the mutual gains of economic interdependence and intellectual and cultural exchange have been such game-changers the accomplishments and sacrifices of previous generations may be obscured from view. Those who have contributed to US-China amity have built so sturdy an edifice that we find ourselves standing on a foundation of good deeds and accomplishments so massive that it is almost impossible to view as a whole.

(TO CONTINUE READING, PLEASE CLICK HERE)

Goldstone Commission member draws fire for noting that Hamas did respect the June-November 2008 ceasefire

2010-02-14T13:47:00.009-05:00

[Cross-posted with "From the Field"]

Desmond Travers, one of the four members of the Goldstone Commission, has drawn fire for noting that an Israeli-Hamas ceasefire, initiated in June 2008, was being respected by Hamas, at least until Israel punctured the ceasefire early November 2008.* In an interview in Middle East Memo, a London-based website that focuses on the Middle East and seeks to promote “fair and accurate coverage” of the Middle East, Travers claims that only two rockets were fired into Israel the month before Israel’s Gaza operation began. Travers is correct, but he should have been more precise. While the ceasefire technically expired in December 2008, in early November Israel broke the ceasefire by launching a raid into Gaza.

Here is what Travers said to interviewer Dr. Hanan Chehata:

HC - Israel claims that its attack on Gaza was based on self-defence. In your opinion is their claim of self-defence enough of a reason to justify their attack on Gaza last year?

DT – No, I reject that entirely. No, my first sentence is that Israel, like every other country, has a right to defend itself. However, it should be borne in mind that the number of rockets that had been fired into Israel in the month preceding their operations was something like two. TheHamas rockets had ceased being fired into Israel and not only that but Hamas sought a continuation of the ceasefire. Two had been fired from Gaza, but they are likely to have been fired by dissident groups.

HC – For how long had there been a ceasefire?

DT - From June [2008]. And Hamas sought an extension of the ceasefire with Israel and Israel said no. To be honest, Israel might have had a very good reason to refuse an extension of the ceasefire because we all know, in the counter-insurgency world, that ceasefires are opportunities for insurgents to re-arm and re-equip but unfortunately they have never offered that as an explanation, but it is possible, if I’m trying to be fair to them [the Israelis].

Travers is correct. The ceasefire was working. According to Israeli data, including “The Six Months of the Lull Arrangement,” a study prepared by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (released in December 2008), from June 2008 until November 4, 2008 a ceasefire (“lull” in the Israeli report) produced a significant reduction in missile and rocket from Gaza into Israel. Israel significantly reduced its attacked into Gaza during that period as well. Israeli compiled figures, indicate that 20 rockets and 18 mortar shells were fired from Gaza. 17 of the rockets and 15 of the mortar rounds reached Israel. Of those that reached Israel, the numbers per month, from June to October were 9, 6, 11, 3 and 2, respectively. To quote the report (at p. 7):

During the period of the ceasefire, according to the Israeli “Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire and its operatives were not involved in rocket attacks. At the same time, the movement tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from violating it. Hamas took a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement, but in a limited fashion and contenting itself with short-term detentions and confiscating weapons.

On November 4, Israel launched a raid into Gaza, which it justified as being necessary topre-empt a Hamas operation. At least six Hamas members were killed. Hamas denies that it was preparing an operation, and it retaliated by firing rockets into Israel. Thus did the ceasefire end.

Even after the November incident, Hamas was wiling to extend the ceasefire, but with several provisos, notably an end Israel’s crippling blockade of the strip. Israel rejected the Hamasconditions and the ceasefire expired in Decemver. Arguably, when Hamas refused to extend the ceasefire, it was a gift to Israel “on a gold platter,” to borrow the metaphor of the Egyptian Foreign Minister (see my “The Gaza War: Antecedents and Consequences” for more details).

On December 27, 2008, Israel launched the Gaza war with the tragic and troubling results that are elaborated in the Goldstone Report.

*For instance, see the comments of Alan Dershowitz who accuses Travers of having an "anti-Israel agenda" and defying the historical record. Dershowitz has recently drawn fire himself for allegedly calling Judge Richard Goldstone a "moser", a Jew who informs on other Jews. Dershowitz later stated that he did not know what the Yiddish term meant, a claim that strains credulity.

THE BANALITY OF NOT BEING EVIL

2010-01-15T10:54:00.004-05:00

By Philip J Cunningham

There’s something irremediably banal about Google’s corporate motto. It’s hip, it’s hype and it’s hypocritical.

"Don't be evil" is a curiously negative construct; eschewing evil is not necessarily about doing good. In sum, a sophomoric yet shrewd manner of self-presentation that is not without its believers.

It speaks to the informal, idealistic ethos of a student-run Silicon Valley garage start-up, even though Google is now a multibillion-dollar entity with nearly 20,000 employees and computer links and arrays vast enough to map, copy and store billions and billions of private bits, day after day.

But pretending not to be a big company does not make Google a small company any more than their witty motto means they are doing good.

There are numerous shades of gray between not doing evil and evil, especially if one’s core business is information mining in service of advertising.

Neither the super suave Mad Men nor real life ad men pretend their business is about maintaining a high moral standard. Advertising, an ethically-challenged field of endeavor in the best of times, favors the big-wigs rich enough to afford its product, while seeking to indoctrinate the little guy, --capitalism’s answer to communist propaganda.

But Google’s difficulty in hewing to its motto extends beyond ad revenue to brave new frontiers of surveillance, digital profiling, and the questionable storage of vast information files on individuals that would be the envy of the old Stasi or KGB.

(TO CONTINUE READING, PLEASE CLICK HERE)

IS AMERICA LOSING IT?

2010-01-12T00:23:00.002-05:00

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

It's one thing when fear of terror causes people to lose their nerve, quite another when they start losing their minds.

The Obama administration appears to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

It's not clear if it's terrorists, real and imagined, who have got the Democratic establishment all jittery or if it's just the usual Republican Party suspects, know-nothings in all important respects except for their uncanny ability to unnerve their Democratic rivals.

President Obama, like many a Democratic pol from the days of LBJ onward, seems spellbound by calls from the right that he be tough on terror, bullish on "free markets" and aggressive in military affairs.

(CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING)

BARACK OBAMA DOES THE WORLD

2009-12-11T07:47:00.004-05:00

by Philip J. Cunningham

It’s official. US President Barack Obama, long suspected of being the type of person who wanted to have his cake and eat it too, wine and dine with Wall Street while tossing rhetorical crumbs to the poor, dispossessed and hungry, all the while hobnobbing with the rich and famous and amassing draconic executive privilege, has, in his Nobel speech, just proved himself to be the world’s biggest phony.

The two-faced master of the mellow sound-bite has just outdone himself in trying to convince a jaded world that war is peace, that imperialism is liberation, that down is up and two plus two equals five. Even at this most international of events, in a world that desperately needs some leaders willing to look beyond their own narrow self-interests of the nation state, he preaches America the good, America the beautiful, America the just. Music to the ears of a stateside schoolchild or your died-in-the-wool Yankee xenophobe, perhaps, but hardly cosmopolitan in spirit.

Rather, his speech is mean-spirited. He goes out of his way, and beyond the bounds of decency, in his effort to show that war is necessary and American warfare is especially just. His argument is lame and conflicted. He says war’s been around for a long time so, hey, get used to it. If he was making a speech in favor of legalization prostitution or opium, there might be some point in making the “oldest profession” kind of argument, but surely that flimsy line of thinking has no place coming from a man who has unique and unparalleled access to the world’s most deadly nuclear arsenal. Surely that pale logic doesn’t justify a war, any war, the war of the moment, the Af-Pak War of Obama’s design, just because there have been wars in the past.

Obama gets shockingly narrow and parochial at times, saying in effect that America is good and anyone who opposes America is bad. He pins war crimes on the other guys, but doesn’t begin to address war crimes of his own nation. Suspicion of American is not justified, it’s “reflexive.”

(TO CONTINUE READING, PLEASE LINK HERE)

BARACK OBAMA DOES TOKYO

2009-11-16T09:02:00.001-05:00

Obama’s Tokyo speech, delivered on November 14, 2009 at a glittering downtown concert hall gave a select audience the chance to savor the president’s trademark rhetoric, read aloud in now-familiar endearing tones, accompanied by slightly jarring Janus-like sideward glances, eyes darting back and forth between twin teleprompters.

Designed to set an upbeat tone for the president’s Asia trip, it fell short of his much-hailed Cairo speech as paean to international amity, but served to convince East Asia, despite the late date of his visit, and two distracting wars on the other side of the continent, that the Pacific is somehow the centerpiece of his foreign policy. The pep talk might as well have been subtitled, “America still rules the Pacific.”

The best, if not the most sincere of the many tasty sound-bites offered up in his Yankee-will-not-go-home speech came early, almost haiku-like in brevity, befitting the recollection of a childhood memory. During a visit to the Amida Buddha in Kamakura with his mother, he was distracted by the green tea ice cream.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING

THAKSIN SHINAWATRA AND CAMBODIA

2009-11-13T22:58:00.002-05:00

In light of tycoon Thaksin Shinawatra's recent political posturing in Cambodia, which he used as a base to deliberately affront and humiliate the Thai government, all the while being accorded VIP treatment by Cambodian strongman Hun Sen, it is interesting to note that Thaksin's family company was already cutting deals and cultivating "friends" over the border back in the days when he was prime minister of Thailand.

The juxtaposition of the two billboards slyly suggests that Shinawatra is, apparently on behalf of the Kingdom of Cambodia, welcoming visitors to Cambodia. Conflict of interest?

This photo was taken in Cambodia near the Poipet border crossing in 2003.

(Phil Cunningham)

Start A War

2009-11-06T05:51:00.001-05:00

A new piece on Swat/Waziristan/Baluchistan and the current Pakistani military operation is up at The Review.

The true crisis facing Pakistan is not the Taliban: it is the rupture between the federal state and its constituent parts, and Islamabad’s refusal to accede to the legitimate needs and demands of its citizens in places like Swat and Baluchistan. It is a rupture, indeed, that is written into the very fabric of the state, and the reason why Bangladesh seceded from West Pakistan in 1971, after it was denied political legitimacy by the military regime and then brutalised by an oppressive army operation aimed at quashing any opposition.

But the Pakistan Army learnt exactly the wrong lesson from Bangladesh: since 1971 it has been determined to move as rapidly and violently as possible against any sub-nationalist movement elsewhere in Pakistan. The spectre of Taliban conquering Islamabad and the state’s American-backed resolve to press on in a series of wars against its own people have effectively ended any chance for political consideration of the Baluchistan issue. Instead Baluchistan will be, once again, merely an empty badland where Taliban are hiding, waiting, plotting. It awaits yet another military operation. And we await another declaration of success.

NEWSPAPERS IN THE NEWS

2009-10-29T00:13:00.003-04:00

PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

The latest gloomy news from journalism's battered front lines is that the prestigious New York Times (NYT) is laying off 100 members of its newsroom staff. Paper-and-ink newspapers are in deep trouble, there's no doubt about that. But the NYT, as comprehensive as its news coverage sometimes is, is hardly in a position to offer the real story on its current woes, anymore than a psychoanalyst is able to objectively analyze him or herself.

CONTINUE READING HERE...

Afghanistan: A Special Issue

2009-10-23T03:43:00.000-04:00

The Afghanistan: A Special Issue, Nov 9, 2009, includes a short piece by me. I especially draw your attention to the Priya Satiya and Selig Harrison. And Stephen Walt. And, all.

The American Foreign Policy Project: Focus on Iran

2009-10-22T08:34:00.000-04:00

BLOWING IN THE WIND

2009-10-20T21:50:00.001-04:00

by Philip J Cunningham

Is Japan changing for real? To get a better sense of how Japan is and isn't changing with the urbane Yukio Hatoyama at the helm, in the wake of the Democratic Party of Japan’s stunning electoral victory over the entrenched Liberal Democratic, consider these news stories from around the Japanese archipelago.

First, zoom in on the half-unfinished Yamba Dam in rural Gunma, to see how a multi-billion dollar boondoggle can be stopped dead in its tracks. The LDP, incumbents of a half-century standing, have made an art of pouring money, largely in the form of cement, to rural constituencies scattered around the archipelago, rewarding electoral loyalty while denuding and desecrating the environment with dams, bridges and highways to nowhere.

Hatoyama, in power for little more than a week, suspended the dam project. If there is truly change in the air, it is in the realm of cutbacks on pork-barrel spending. The controversial supplementary budget, a last-dash effort inked by the LDP as it was sinking into obscurity, has been scrapped and the overall budget has been massively trimmed.

Now pull back from the rice fields and hills of Gunma and zoom in on the shimmering Tokyo megalopolis, the largest concentration of human beings on earth, with some 40 million people clustered within a 40 kilometer radius. Not too much green here, but not too many roads to nowhere either; instead a vast, vibrant, complex inter-connected living, breathing super-organism with an arterial system of asphalt and iron; electricity and light, a steady flow of trains and automobiles, but what, no international airport?

Only far-away Narita.

The LDP during the height of its power operated much as an authoritarian communist party might have done in the same era. A swath of isolated rice farms in Chiba was decreed to be the new Tokyo International Airport, even though the project was bitterly opposed by Narita locals from the start, and has been inconveniencing travelers ever since. Situated an incomprehensible 60 kilometers outside of city center, it's an airport only big-time investors in infrastructure and social engineers hoping to discourage the hoi polloi from traveling, could love. in effect banishing the gateway of Tokyo to Chiba.

It was the sort of inconvenience to which one could only sigh "shoganai" as it could not be helped, at least not while the LDP remained in power. Long after violent clashes ceased, Narita remained an armed, barb-wired camp, subjecting visitors to intimidating, but largely theatrical, Star War trooper controls.

Then the LDP loses power and within weeks the DPJ’s Land and Transport Minister, Seiji Maehara, makes a bold proposal, suggesting that homely Haneda Airport, located on Tokyo Bay, snugly close to downtown, be the new hub. What? Move the gateway of Tokyo to Tokyo itself? What an idea! And why not?

Narita, like its patron party the LDP, has too long enjoyed a monopoly at the expense of others. But it has been failing on its own terms as well; it's inconvenience has not discouraged Japan's stoic traveling set from spending yen overseas, but it has stemmed the inflow of tourists and their cash. Foreigners, especially those in need of connecting flights, or on urgent business, bridle at the thought of over-nighting in Narita or detouring through the rice paddies of Chiba on bus and on over-priced trains.

One only need to consider the new airports in Inchon, Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong to see how Japan isolates itself, with Narita looking more and more a relic of the 1970's sorry domestic politics.

Maehara's bold bid did not go unopposed, however, and he back-tracked the next day after Chiba governor Kensaku Morita (a former actor, he goes by his stage name) made veiled threats during a sputtering televised performance full of innuendo, suggesting the old guard won't give up without a fight.

Zoom away from the troubled waters of Tokyo Bay and zoom in on distant Okinawa, which bears the brunt of the US military footprint in Japan, not just because it is an excellent staging ground for Pacific Ocean policing, but because the better-connected politicians of Japan proper never really took to the sight of uniformed gaijin walking the streets of their prefectures. The result? Outlying Okinawa long ago got stuck with rather more than its share of US bases, partly a legacy of LDP politicking.

The DPJ owes it to the under-represented voices of dissent in Okinawa to re-examine decades of back-room deals, but here, again, Hatoyama, soon to meet Obama, must tread gingerly, lest the game of base allocation become a bitter contest of musical chairs with the US military.

A quick leap the length of Japan up to its northernmost extremity followed by a zoom in on some windswept islets suggests that the new government, like the LDP, is haunted by the past, despite its intelligent core leadership and early moves to improve relations with China and Korea.

Land and Transport Minister Maehara, still reeling from the backlash from his Haneda air hub comments, escaped the heat by flying north to the chilly Southern Kuriles, where he staged a nationalistic photo op courtesy of the brashly patriotic Coast Guard, publicly pining for the return of the Russian-held islands. Gazing at the hazy outline of the distant isles, Maehara, born in 1962, said he was "nostalgic" for the old days before the Kuriles were "illegally occupied" by Russia.

Nostalgic for what? The 1940's? The good old days when these desolate, rocky isles were used to stage a brilliant sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? If a bunch of rocks can evoke such passion, imagine the bouts of nostalgia a Japanese nationalist might experience at the sight of former territories such as Korea and Taiwan?

Yet another indication that the sweeping change of power in Japan has failed to sweep away all the cobwebs of the political realm comes from the Wakayama coastal town of Taiji, famous for its unnecessary and unnecessarily brutal whaling and dolphin kills.

No less a luminary than the new foreign minister Okada has unwisely chosen to defend Taiji's defenseless slaughter of marine mammals by using the "culture" argument, which is to say, anything Japanese do that the international community disapproves of is okay, if it can be trumped up as a facet of Japanese culture.

This evokes the ghosts of the LDP past and hints of a Thermidor to come. "Culture" has been used by old school politicians to defend everything from keeping out Thai rice to refusing Russians entry to public baths, from creating structural impediments to foreign products and services, to refusing the full palette of human rights to Japanese of Chinese and Korean descent and resident foreigners.

Hiding behind the culture curtain is a willful act of obfuscation. It is a slippery slope of an argument, popular with tyrants and Taliban alike, and not a promising start for the leading diplomat of the new, reform-minded ruling party.

pc

CITY OF THE WORLD

2009-10-02T20:16:00.005-04:00

SINO-US RELATIONS
(from the Bangkok Post, October 3, 2009)

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

As a native New Yorker far from home, I felt a surge of pride to see photos of the Empire State Building lit up in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China.

Casting the upper floors of New York's pride and joy in coloured spotlights is nothing new; it's been done in honour of everything from St Patrick's Day and India Day to Columbus Day and July Fourth. As a New Yorker, one gets used to that.

Some people made a fuss about it and New Yorkers are used to that, too.

Of course, turning on the lights and shifting the colour wheel for American traditions is one thing; doing the same in the name of friendship with a foreign power is another, especially a powerful foreign power.

It comes as no surprise that a coterie of anti-China activists registered their dismay with a little protest at the main entrance to the towering edifice. Nor does it surprise anyone that a handful of politicians jumped on the bandwagon; feigning shock that "communist" China, of all countries, should be so celebrated, or simply channelling a generalised indignation against things not American.

Sadly, there's precedent enough for casting rivals as enemies and regarding anything foreign as suspect in America's long, convoluted history. But there have also been many shining moments when the clumsy, myopic God-favours-my-country-over-yours mentality has given way to a more gracious and congenial cosmopolitanism.

The French-made Statue of Liberty was controversial on both sides of the Atlantic in the 1870s; some French thought Americans too ungrateful to merit such a grand gesture, while The New York Times was the mouthpiece for Americans who termed it a folly not worth paying for.

Bartholdi's soaring statue, huge and patently foreign, was donated by a fledgling regime in Paris, still suffering the throes of political violence, to a wobbly US, still in shock from its own unusually brutal Civil War.

Luckily the artistic symbolism trumped politics in the end. Although the peculiar politics of its original conception as a Roman goddess-styled lighthouse for Ottoman Egypt during the early days of the French Third Republic have become obscure, its ultimate incarnation as a gift to the United States from the people of France has done much good.

Lady Liberty was a bold and provocative symbol of one country reaching out to another, a gesture duly reciprocated, a gesture of such power that it continues to inspire. It has helped Americans to better understand themselves and their better angels; a proud symbol of America's open door, of America embracing the world.

Of course, changing the colour of the spotlights on a tall building for a single evening hardly compares to the permanent installation of a soaring icon, most especially a timeless masterpiece of wrought iron and copper sheathing, majestically installed in the estuary harbour where America meets the sea.

But both gestures share an outward-looking cosmopolitan spirit. Americans in general, New Yorkers more particularly, have a proud history of embracing the world, even when it comes as a burden. It is no accident of geography that the United Nations is located in New York, it is an earned honour for a city that has been entrepot, middle ground and refuge for the world ever since its founding by relatively liberal Dutch settlers and laissez-faire Englishmen.

So a tip of the hat to China on the eve of its national day is not at all out of character for America's greatest city.

New York City is loved and hated to a degree hard to find elsewhere, because it is a city with backbone and the courage of its convictions, a port city so different from inland citadels that some conservative Americans see it as a foreign city, an un-American city, an unforgivably liberal city when in fact it is more radically American in political tradition than many of its detractors.

But a grand gesture can help people to rise above the fray, as was the case with the Statue of Liberty. One can deplore the horrible human rights record of both America and France in the mid-nineteenth century and still value the fraternal gesture represented by the Statue of Liberty.

Coming less than three weeks after yet another anguished anniversary of the devastating Sept 11 attacks, the Sept 30, 2009 light display carries special symbolic value.

The Statue of Liberty itself was closed to the public from the time of the attacks until this past July, and its re-opening is a symbolic lighting of a candle, a sign of re-discovered confidence, a fresh eagerness to look out and reach outward, after the dark miasma of the hate-stained post-9/11 period.

New York is reasserting itself as a world city, a city of the world.

For New York to reach out to China and offer a friendly high-five at a time like this, so soon after the world economy was nearly brought to a halt by the foolish, greedy machinations of Wall Street elitists, is good form; a kind of working-class gesture of humility congruent with New York's distinguished history as a big-hearted, cosmopolitan port.

China and America have, despite inevitable ups and downs, found themselves on the same side of history more often than not, whether it be parallel struggles against the predations of the British Empire at its peak, or the common war against Japanese imperialism.

From the days of the China Clippers to the Flying Tigers, from the efforts of missionaries and philanthropists to the fruition of Nixon and Mao's cunning and counter-intuitive alliance, America and China have found common cause. Illuminating the top of the Empire State Building in the red and yellow hues of China's flag for an evening is a fleeting but memorable wink of acknowledgement from one to another, as friends, if not equals.

Perhaps when the US reaches an important milestone China will offer a reciprocal wink back at the US, illuminating the beautiful Bird's Nest Olympic Stadium in red, white and blue.

If both sides work for peace and prosperity, it is not inconceivable that China's own home-grown version of Lady Liberty will stand again, a symbol of shared values and friendship.

Philip J Cunningham is a free-lance writer and political commentator.

WHITHER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL?

2009-09-25T09:44:00.003-04:00

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

One of the wonderful things about Kyoto is how well the environment has been preserved, thanks in part to savvy citizens, ample public transportation and the popularity of bicycle use. On the other hand, what at first glance might seem a pristine environment is quickly being eroded by the boom of automotive culture.

Riding my bike past the historic site where the Kyoto Protocol was signed I always find it surprising to see how many motorists chose this otherwise pristine symbolic setting to idle away. Cars, taxis, trucks alike park with engines on, whiling away the hours on a tree-lined roadside, in violation not only of parking laws but also violating Kyoto's mild and generally ineffective ordinances against idling.

Similar scenes of drivers with their vehicles left running, idling noisily away while napping, smoking, watching DVDs or just killing time can be seen everywhere in Kyoto, winter, spring, summer and fall.

But it is especially odd to note that some of the most scenic, quiet spots with the cleanest air, such as the street in front of Kyoto's International Conference Hall, where the famous anti-global warming protocol was signed, attract droves of needlessly polluting vehicles like a magnet.

More disconcertingly, since after all, the Kyoto International Conference Hall and accompanying hotel, despite the symbolic significance, are primarily designed for out-of-town VIP visitors, is the way idling drivers lurk in front of local children's playgrounds and public parks, historic streets and temple grounds that are part and parcel of daily life in this proud ancient capital city.

The accompanying amateur video was filmed on location on an IPhone, mostly from the vantage point of a bicycle in motion. For more photos and related articles, see my blog, Frontier International.

TIME FOR CHANGE

2009-09-19T22:37:00.004-04:00

(from the Bangkok Post)
Time for change the Japanese can really believe in
Writer: PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM
Published: 15/09/2009 at 12:00 AM

Japan has a new prime minister and a new ruling party. Prime ministers come and go in Tokyo on almost an annual basis, 50 of them in the post-war period alone, so the change of guard at the top of a huge, humming, well-oiled bureaucratic machine might not seem like news. But Hatoyama's ascension to power might be significant, if the long impotent opposition, now crystalised as the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), takes the helm long enough to steer Japan, Inc in a new direction.

Yukio Hatoyama, who was born on Sept 11, 1947, is nicknamed "The Alien" by his fellow party members for his quirky appearance and different way of thinking.

The DPJ's Hatoyama - like his predecessors in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Shinzo Abe, Yasuo Fukuda and Taro Aso - is a political blueblood and financially secure. He is a member of the elite, which as Japanese like to see it, puts him a cut above the average man.

Like his elite predecessors, the new prime minister has strong personal links to America, not so much in terms of old-time family links with the Bushes or through party hacks on the CIA payroll or through verbal compliance with US fundamentalisms, but rather in meritocratic terms; he earned an advanced graduate degree at Stanford. He knows America but it's not the old boy network all over again. Much has been made of Mr Hatoyama's stated position that Japan needs to adjust its relationship with the US, setting off alarm bells in the corridors of entrenched power in Washington and Tokyo.

But that's just the old guard reasserting itself. What's wrong with some adjustments in a critical bilateral relationship that has been shaped by heavy-handed demands on one side and sneaky non-compliance on the other? Isn't it time to change, time to rejuvenate and re-define the bilateral relationship rather than relying on anachronistic and ossified patron-client links?

It is not as if the US-Japan security treaty is up for grabs, though it can and should be discussed and improved where necessary. After half a century of one-party rule in Japan, a fresh approach to foreign policy and collective security is not really an option, it's a necessity.

The Liberal Democratic Party, born of the ashes of WWII, branded with the imprint of US Occupation, has always been an odd hybrid, neither particularly liberal nor democratic, but an opportunistic mish-mash that was fine-tuned into a winning political machine.

Even if the US was uniformly enlightened in its Japan policy, which is hardly the case, being forced to rely on the Godzilla-like LDP as the main conduit for the conduct of bilateral relations has led to mutations and destructive distortions over the years.

One need only look at recent headlines to see how the LDP's past has continued to haunt the present, whether it be glorifying the lost cause of the last war at Yasukuni Shrine, or the vestiges of anti-communism in foreign policy and anti-labour practices, or the not-so-subtle intimidation of progressives by organised crime and rightwing groups for hire that are themselves relics of US occupation days.

More recently, a bungling obsession with North Korea continues to invoke unfinished business of Japan's historic annexation of its neighbour and what later became America's Korean war.

Then there's the LDP's almost military mindset when it comes to promoting big business and coddling modern-day zaibatsu, all the while building bridges to nowhere and churning out endless pork-barrel spending to nourish a rural elite/big business electoral juggernaut.

It's time for a change, all right, and the DPJ has seized the mantle of electoral legitimacy. The only question is whether the much-needed change will come about or will it be stalled, co-opted and buried by attack campaigns from the right, in concert with passive-aggressive non-compliance from powerful vested interests.

Prime Minister Hatoyama would be wise to take note of how US President Obama, who started out with so much promise, and such a huge mandate for change, only to end up tacking to the right and frittering much of his mandate away, betraying his own reform-minded base in the hopes of placating Wall Street, the Pentagon and America's implacable right wing. Mr Hatoyama and the DPJ face a comparable test, and early indications suggest they too will compromise and bend and revive existing patronage patterns, perhaps until the day that they are not recognisably different from the "fat cats" and the complacent ruling party that they have ostensibly replaced.

For change to have any real meaning, it has to exit the realm of rhetoric and enter the realm of action.

If the DPJ, with Mr Hatoyama at the helm, and former LDP stalwart Ozawa Ichiro navigating at his side, keep their promise to help Japan become a more normal nation - less dependent on the whims of US foreign policy, less beholden to Japan's own elite with its malignant, murky roots in the last world war, and more responsive to ordinary citizens and taxpayers, then Japan is indeed entering a period of change that people can believe in.

If, instead, however, the new government avoids friction by continuing along the beaten-down path created by the LDP, and in doing so sustains the unholy marriage between big business and an entrenched bureaucracy and concommitantly inflates its own military reach while hiding in the shade of the US security umbrella, then the demise of the LDP has been greatly exaggerated.

Even if they stick to their professed ideals, the new ruling team may still succumb to the inertia and stagnation that characterise Japan's body politic today, failing not only to fulfil the promises they made while not in power, but putting themselves out of power again.

In which case DPJ rule will prove not only brief, but may be one day understood not so much as a change in the power structure, but as a short-lived victory for some frustrated, veteran pols of the LDP reform wing, who will give Japan the illusion of change before deftly steering things back to the status quo of big business, big-bureaucracy as usual.

(first published in the Bangkok Post)

IS THE EAST STILL RED?

2009-09-14T09:04:00.002-04:00

Click here for a sneak preview of China's National Day TV extravaganza on and off the big stage.

http://jinpeili.blogspot.com/

Aflghanistan elections as seen from China

2009-09-08T03:17:00.003-04:00

To view a recent Chinese television program on the issue of the elections in Afghanistan with guests Aykut Tavsel, Philip Cunningham and CCTV-9 anchor Yang Rui, please click the following link:

http://english.cctv.com/program/e_dialogue/20090903/106145.shtml