Divide, Distract, and Rule (7 March 2014 [20 March 2015])

           The current crisis when I first wrote this blog in in early March 2014 was Russian troops pretty well taking over Crimea and threats and posturing over the fate of Ukraine. A year and a bit later, the crisis continues. 

            This is an important crisis, and one with, as they say in theatre, "legs," but I'd like to put it into a couple or more larger contexts and then get to the necessity of regaining focus.

            The first bigger context is nuclear.

            The US-led invasion of Iraq when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait was not matched by anyone invading China when China seized and then periodically cracked down on any moves toward independence, or even dissent, in Tibet (e.g., 1959, 1978, 1989, 1998). Now there are many differences between Iraq and Kuwait on the one hand and China and Tibet on the other. China is very large and populous and very far away from the USA, and Tibet doesn't export oil; since the time of the Silk Road China has been off-and-on a major producer and potentially huge market for the world's goods, and in recent years has been the source of a significant amount of the funding of the economy of the United State. Countries like Iraq, however, are where they are geographically and probably don't want to push their populations up a lot; and they either have oil or they don't. Iraq has oil — oh, boy, does it have oil! — and what it didn't have that China had since 1964 is nuclear weapons. A dangerous lesson world leaders could find in the invasion of Iraq in Gulf War I (1990-91), strongly reinforced by "Gulf War II," the 2003 Iraq War, could be summed up in the line Tom Lehrer assigned to Israel in his song "Who's Next": "The Lord's our shepherd says the psalm; / But, just in case — we'd better get a bomb."

            Arguably — and more respectable folk than I are arguing it — Russia's threats to Ukraine can teach that lesson in spades: the Ukrainians had nuclear weapons after the fall of the USSR and, to their credit, gave them up in the deal sealed with The Budapest Memorandum and Trilateral Statement of 1994. Russians have strong cultural roots in Kiev and as good a claim to Crimea as anyone who isn't Crimean Tartar, but an invasion of Crimea and threats to Ukraine proper suggest a horrible principle in a world already overstocked with nukes. With the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the other points on "The Axis of Evil" either got a bomb (North Korea) or set themselves on the way to getting a bomb (Iran).

            To repeat again the screamingly obvious but insufficiently absorbed: If there are enough nukes in human hands to destroy human civilization or bring on a nuclear winter and massive extinctions, that's many too many nukes, period. Nukes proliferating to different countries just increases the danger.

            On survival grounds, we need to be cooperating with the Russians for radical reductions in atomic weaponry, and then in conventional weaponry: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous, but they're just blips in the graph of the destruction caused in the Second World War; we need sharp reductions in armament period, for survival and for prosperity. As President Eisenhower pointed out, money spent on weapons isn't being spent on things more useful.

            The Ukrainian crisis —actions and words by US politicians as well as Slavic oligarchs — reduces the chances for reductions in weapons.

            The crisis is also hurting related areas where we need active and close cooperation with the Russians, and the Chinese and some Iranians and others.

            This side of an asteroid hitting Earth (or a comet), the threat of quick extermination of the human species and others is primarily that mere presence of so many nuclear weapons. A less cataclysmic threat lies not in a "Clash of Civilization" but a conflict of world-views of, on one side, various kinds of True Believers vs., on the other side, those of us with a stake in maintaining more or less the present world and retaining and expanding what was truly progress coming from the Enlightenment.

            There's a generalized Fundamentalist threat, primarily located in, but hardly restricted to, the Abrahamic religions and most immediately threatening in militant, jihadist, puritanical Islam.

            We need cooperation on this one, and coordination, starting with, say, both the US and Russian Federation swearing off invading Afghanistan for a while, and refraining from arming jihadists and from ham-fisted repression and other invitations to insurrections and mass movements.

            So let's keep focus there, and, for Americans, let us keep a whole lot more focus — keeping that eye on the prize — on events here at home.

            We do tend to get distracted.

            I. F. Stone says somewhere (translation: I couldn't find it on the first page of a Google search), I. F. Stone says somewhere that when the American Right pushed "roll-back" of the Soviet Union in the early days of the Cold War what they most wanted to roll back was the New Deal.

            Things haven't changed much.

            There really was a quiet revolution in the 1980s and following, under Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Thatcher went beyond reining in overweening unions to pretty well break them, and between Thatcher and Reagan we got the start of a great movement of politics to the Right and the movement of money from poorer people to richer people — and then a whole big bunch of it to the very, very rich.

            The Ukrainian crisis must be muddled through to a compromise all sides can despise and live with. The conflicts of world-views — the big-ass Kulturkampfe "culture wars" and little battles of gay rights, women's rights, and human rights and civil liberties: these must be fought, and the twilight battles of identity politics pressed to their conclusions.

            But the old rule was, Divide et impera; if you want to get power and keep it, divide the opposition; "Divide and rule." And, of course, distract your opponents, and those you're screwing over so elegantly they don't even know that they are your opponents. (Distrahe et impera? Sorry, I only know enough foreign language for occasional pretentious pedantry.)

            The Radical Right still wants to roll back the New Deal, and they more successfully will block expanding the benefits of the New Deal to the "unworthy poor" who might vote for Democrats or non-racist populists. The ultra-rich, for their part, intend to stay ultra-rich and get richer.

            So, no, it isn't "class warfare,"but there is class conflict, and of a sort we haven't really seen in the US outside of the Gilded Age and slave economy in parts of the old South: that 1% and smaller vs. the rest, minus those in the top 10% with the delusion they'll make it to the ultra-rich in a generation.

            Focus, people, focus:
                        * Species survival, starting with major cuts in nuclear forces and with nuclear nonproliferation.
                        * Avoiding fanatical, fundamentalist mass movements of the European variety in the middle third of the 20^th century — or in the Wars of Religion of the 17^th century.
                        * Fairer and more stable allocation of wealth and income, starting with fairer taxes and economic policy in the US of A.


            Yeah, do divvy up the labor on different causes, and there's plenty of political and social-justice work to go around. But don't get divided into competing identity groups. Don't get distracted.

Russia, Ukraine, Crimea: Think of It as an Opportunity (29 March 2014)

You never let a serious crisis go to waste.

And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things

you think you could not do before. — Hon. Rahm Emanuel

 

           

           The diplomatic community seems to have rejected my suggestion that part of the bargaining over Russia's desire to maintain warm water ports on a peninsula should include a US offer of the State of Florida. Well, so be it; it was a long-shot suggestion and not entirely in earnest (I had family in Florida and still have friends living in Florida, and I think they think it better to have Russians around as "snowbird" guests in American Florida rather than living as American expatriates in a Russian Florida).

            Still, the very dangerousness of the confrontation over Crimea and Ukraine can offer opportunities to get some things done which should be done anyway; and there are historical precedents or at least historically-stated hopes that can be significant here, precedents from John F. Kennedy and Ronald W. Reagan.

            The upshot of the missile portion of Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was that the Russians noisily withdrew their missiles from Cuba, and the United States quietly removed our missiles from Italy and Turkey. One possibility of the Crimea/Ukrainian crisis is that the Russian Federation should withdraw their military away from the border of Ukraine "with all deliberate speed" — in the old sense of the term, before resistance to the US Supreme Court desegregation rulings made the phrase a sick joke — and keep them away. With all deliberate speed the Russians should pull back, and in return the US should finally get serious about removing our military forces from Europe beyond what is needed for a Korea-style "trip-wire." NATO forces, as in European Union forces should be at sufficient strength and appropriately positioned to preclude tempting Russia to move against them but not threatening Russia.

            Secretary of Defense Hagel, following ideas going back to Donald Rumsfeld and further, has already proposed cutting back on overblown portions of the US military. The Crimean crisis has shown just how useless a muscle-bound military can be, and comments from the Rumsfeldian neocons have shown clearly the temptations from prossessing the world's strongest military to look for military action to resolve conflicts.

            So much for Kennedy and Cuba.

            For the Reagan precedent I assume that President Ronald Reagan was sane and sincere in wanting to move away from "Mutually Assured Destruction" and eventually to serious nuclear arms reduction and sharing missile defenses with the Soviets.

            The Ukraine/Crimea crisis is another reminder that the superpowers remain nuclear powers and that there are just too goddamn many nuclear warheads in the world — period — for the safety of the human species. More directly, Russian seizure of Crimea and additional threats to the territorial integrity of Ukraine have undermined attempts at preventing nuclear proliferation: Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal  on condition that the great powers — Russia, the UK, and the USA — would defend Ukraine.

            If the crisis managers in the US, NATO, the EU, Ukraine, and Russia aren't careful, the main lesson from this mess may be that the only way for a country to avoid being bullied is to get nukes.

            We should not panic, but we should "be afraid; be very afraid" — all of us humans — and get our leaders to various bargaining tables to work out sharing missile defenses near Russia's borders with Russia and to call the Iranians are their claim that they only want nuclear materials for peaceful purposes.

            It is time for a rapid build-down of nuclear weapons starting with the USA and Russia and extending to the Iranian nuclear program, Israeli nuclear stockpiles and achieving a low-nuke Middle East (and reductions on the Indian subcontinent, given the tendency of the Indians and Pakistanis to occasionally fight).

            Two of the more pressing, if usually unrecognized, problems in the worlds of everyday people are that threat of nuclear annihilation and the threat that another "dip" in The Great Recession will lead us into another Great Depression.

            Really effective regimes of economic sanctions against Russian, those that will bite and bite deep, might throw Russia into economic calamity and take much of the globalized economy with it.

            It's time to cool it on all fronts and use low-grade, continuing, and highly realistic fears — the crisis — to move toward getting done what we should have long been doing. So:

                        * Pullbacks by troops of Russia and the United States.

                        * Cooperation between Russia and the United States — and what's become an Iranian (Shiite) Establishment — on the threat of terrorism, including potential nuclear terrorism, and concentrating first on Sunni terrorism and moving out from there to other "fundamentalisms" that are militant, armed, dangerous, and in the market for major fire-power.

                        * Radical cutbacks on nuclear weapons so that there are (1) too few world-wide to bring on nuclear winter or even "merely" the end of human civilization and (2) far fewer that might fall into the hands of "non-state actors" or fanatical leaders of states, whose agendas to achieve some transcendent goal allow for losing a city of two and a few million people to nuclear massive retaliation.

                        * International cooperation to finally get the global economy fairly and justly globalized, and up and running robustly.