Trump tried to appear as if he would call the cards in the issues around North-Korea. But of course anyone worth their salt knows that the two Koreas, China, Russia and Japan are the main players on this one. In fact, mostly the two Koreas and China. The question is whether South-Korea is willing to change long-term strategy and integrate more into the East-Asian order, and accept the lead of China, in exchange for peace and more cooperation or even unification with North-Korea.
See this detailed, readable and clear analysis in Paste Magazine for more.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Tuesday, 21 August 2018
Tuesday, 7 August 2018
Why Japan does not need to and should not apologize anymore for WWII deeds
1. No other states - except Germany - do this. The USA, Russia, China, France, the UK, Belgium and several other countries which are or have in the past committed aggression, genocide, civilian killings, colonization and other horrors have never and are never going to apologize
2. Japan has apologized already more than 10 times. See the list here.
3. No matter how many times Japan would apologize other states would find some fault with the apology. China and South-Korea usually claim that the apology isn't honest or bicker about some detail. They don't do this because the governments and foreign ministries of these countries honestly think that the apology is no good. They do this because being able to bash another country is a strong diplomatic tool. These countries - and many other economic rivals of Japan - try to make Japan look bad so that they can use this as a leverage in economic and trade talks, competition, and so on. No matter how many times and how precisely Japan would apologize, politicians who are leading countries that compete with Japan would always find fault with the apology.
4. Japan has more than atoned for its wartime aggression and crimes. It has been firebombed for years by the USA and all its major cities and a large part of its civilian population has been killed. Russia occupied some of its territory, and the US is effectively still in Japan with its military. Both Russia and the US often use this to pressure the Japanese government to this day. Japan has paid large amounts in compensation to most states it has formerly occupied and assisted them with technology and training (this is something that even the Chinese government has admitted).
5. China, the US, Russia, France, the UK, and several other states are or have waged many aggressive wars since the end of WWII. China has occupied other countries, Russia went to war with Georgia (Gruzia), Chechnya, Afghanistan, and has occupied - through the Soviet Union - the larger part of East- and Central-Europe for a good 45 years, the US is constantly waging war in West-Asia and the Middle-East, and has interfered countless times in Central- and South-America, not to mention Southeast-Asia. In contrast since WWII Japan doesn't have attacking forces, only self-defense forces with limited attacking capabilities. It hasn't engaged in aggression against any country.
6. There is no intention on Japan's part for any aggression. While it is obvious that several countries - China, the US, Russia, and others - are planning or preparing for further aggression, there is no evidence of any such intent on Japan's part. Some alarmists and propaganda journalists are yelling because Japan is developing its military capabilities now. The fact is that Japan's military spending is still far below that of its neighbours. Its military today is far smaller and weaker than that of China, Russia or the US. Japan is perfectly justified in developing its military for defense purposes because its sitting geographically between the three largest and most aggressive political and military powers of the world. In fact, in my opinion, they would be mad not to do so. Any military improvement today occurs in an entirely different political and military environment from the early 20th century.
7. The Japanese who were the leaders of the country before and during WWII are long dead. More than 900 of them were executed after WWII and tens of thousands imprisoned and banned from public life. The two generations of Japanese since then are very openly peaceful, have several times resisted even mild military improvements, and are committed to keeping Japan a peaceful country.
8. Contrary to popular international propaganda most people in Japan do know and study about war crimes committed by the Japanese army. Journalists and other Japan-bashers love to highlight that there are textbooks which downplay these events or only mention them in the passing. There are three major problems with this A) They never compare whether they own country's textbooks discuss any of the atrocities committed in their histories. B) They never mention that in Japan schools and teachers can decide which textbook they want to use and there is a market with at least 7-9 approved titles. The majority of students use books which discuss these events, include photographs and explanations. (See Akiko Hashimoto's The Long Defeat for a good overview. While her presentation of the material is excellent, she sadly draws mistaken conclusions from it, because she doesn't take the competitive political and military environment of the region into account.) C) These critics think that because the Japanese media and people in general don't discuss things in the manner in which Americans do - loud talking, lots of emotional debates on news programmes, etc. - people don't think or don't have an opinion about these things. In fact most Japanese do, and they reject very strongly what the Imperial Army did. That is one of the main reasons why for example the Japanese research community is not cooperating with the army, contrary to what we see at the moment in China or the US.
This is all perfectly compatible with keeping in mind and recognizing that the Japanese state and army, and many individuals, committed horrible things during and before WWII. This should be remembered, taught in schools and discussed. But, it should not define Japan's relation with its neighbours, its current reputation, its self-image or its future. At the moment the biggest problems plaguing Japan are the ongoing American meddling and quasi-military influence over it, China's growing aggression both in political, military and economic terms, and internal problems, like population decline and lagging international competitiveness of businesses, as well as inadequate social services support for young families.
Chinese citizens would do well to look at what their government is doing. Whenever any state pushes strong propaganda against another, the chances are good that it is actually only to hide something that they themselves have done. When the Chinese government bashes Japan, there is almost surely something going wrong at home. People need a distraction. China and Japan have a long political relationship which was mostly peaceful during the last 1500 years. Usually China was the stronger and more aggressive power, and Japan was during several periods a tributary of China's. There is no reason why a peaceful existence based on trade, law and cooperation - as Japan currently envisions it - could not work perfectly today. This is the real interest of China too.
2. Japan has apologized already more than 10 times. See the list here.
3. No matter how many times Japan would apologize other states would find some fault with the apology. China and South-Korea usually claim that the apology isn't honest or bicker about some detail. They don't do this because the governments and foreign ministries of these countries honestly think that the apology is no good. They do this because being able to bash another country is a strong diplomatic tool. These countries - and many other economic rivals of Japan - try to make Japan look bad so that they can use this as a leverage in economic and trade talks, competition, and so on. No matter how many times and how precisely Japan would apologize, politicians who are leading countries that compete with Japan would always find fault with the apology.
4. Japan has more than atoned for its wartime aggression and crimes. It has been firebombed for years by the USA and all its major cities and a large part of its civilian population has been killed. Russia occupied some of its territory, and the US is effectively still in Japan with its military. Both Russia and the US often use this to pressure the Japanese government to this day. Japan has paid large amounts in compensation to most states it has formerly occupied and assisted them with technology and training (this is something that even the Chinese government has admitted).
5. China, the US, Russia, France, the UK, and several other states are or have waged many aggressive wars since the end of WWII. China has occupied other countries, Russia went to war with Georgia (Gruzia), Chechnya, Afghanistan, and has occupied - through the Soviet Union - the larger part of East- and Central-Europe for a good 45 years, the US is constantly waging war in West-Asia and the Middle-East, and has interfered countless times in Central- and South-America, not to mention Southeast-Asia. In contrast since WWII Japan doesn't have attacking forces, only self-defense forces with limited attacking capabilities. It hasn't engaged in aggression against any country.
6. There is no intention on Japan's part for any aggression. While it is obvious that several countries - China, the US, Russia, and others - are planning or preparing for further aggression, there is no evidence of any such intent on Japan's part. Some alarmists and propaganda journalists are yelling because Japan is developing its military capabilities now. The fact is that Japan's military spending is still far below that of its neighbours. Its military today is far smaller and weaker than that of China, Russia or the US. Japan is perfectly justified in developing its military for defense purposes because its sitting geographically between the three largest and most aggressive political and military powers of the world. In fact, in my opinion, they would be mad not to do so. Any military improvement today occurs in an entirely different political and military environment from the early 20th century.
7. The Japanese who were the leaders of the country before and during WWII are long dead. More than 900 of them were executed after WWII and tens of thousands imprisoned and banned from public life. The two generations of Japanese since then are very openly peaceful, have several times resisted even mild military improvements, and are committed to keeping Japan a peaceful country.
8. Contrary to popular international propaganda most people in Japan do know and study about war crimes committed by the Japanese army. Journalists and other Japan-bashers love to highlight that there are textbooks which downplay these events or only mention them in the passing. There are three major problems with this A) They never compare whether they own country's textbooks discuss any of the atrocities committed in their histories. B) They never mention that in Japan schools and teachers can decide which textbook they want to use and there is a market with at least 7-9 approved titles. The majority of students use books which discuss these events, include photographs and explanations. (See Akiko Hashimoto's The Long Defeat for a good overview. While her presentation of the material is excellent, she sadly draws mistaken conclusions from it, because she doesn't take the competitive political and military environment of the region into account.) C) These critics think that because the Japanese media and people in general don't discuss things in the manner in which Americans do - loud talking, lots of emotional debates on news programmes, etc. - people don't think or don't have an opinion about these things. In fact most Japanese do, and they reject very strongly what the Imperial Army did. That is one of the main reasons why for example the Japanese research community is not cooperating with the army, contrary to what we see at the moment in China or the US.
This is all perfectly compatible with keeping in mind and recognizing that the Japanese state and army, and many individuals, committed horrible things during and before WWII. This should be remembered, taught in schools and discussed. But, it should not define Japan's relation with its neighbours, its current reputation, its self-image or its future. At the moment the biggest problems plaguing Japan are the ongoing American meddling and quasi-military influence over it, China's growing aggression both in political, military and economic terms, and internal problems, like population decline and lagging international competitiveness of businesses, as well as inadequate social services support for young families.
Chinese citizens would do well to look at what their government is doing. Whenever any state pushes strong propaganda against another, the chances are good that it is actually only to hide something that they themselves have done. When the Chinese government bashes Japan, there is almost surely something going wrong at home. People need a distraction. China and Japan have a long political relationship which was mostly peaceful during the last 1500 years. Usually China was the stronger and more aggressive power, and Japan was during several periods a tributary of China's. There is no reason why a peaceful existence based on trade, law and cooperation - as Japan currently envisions it - could not work perfectly today. This is the real interest of China too.
Monday, 17 April 2017
Hi-Phi nation
Barry Lam has an outstanding podcast on moral aspects of war. Listen here on Hi-Phi nation's website or here.
Interesting, thought provoking, and original!
Interesting, thought provoking, and original!
Saturday, 8 April 2017
Why Putin and Xi didn't want Hilary Clinton to get elected
During the US presidential campaign Putin praised Trump, favoured Trump, and supported Trump through the use of the Russian intelligence services. They spread false propaganda. Putin also emphasized - and so did Trump - that they can have a good, peaceful relationship.
At the same time Clinton was described very often as hawkish. One of the things that was held against her was that she said that she would use the nuclear option if she would have to. Of course any leader would do that 'if they would have to'.
Why was it convenient to portray Clinton after this sane and average statement as a pro-war agressive person who would be dangerous?
There were three main reasons. For Trump this was good because it discredited Clinton in the eye of some very naive voters who don't understand that nuclear are in a normal case only deterrents, but they can only be deterrents if a leader states that they would use them if they would have to.
For Putin this was good because he has an agressive agenda. In the long term he hopes to destabilize the EU and to extend Russia's sphere of influence over the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, as well as possibly Hungary. A US leader like Clinton who is firm and vowes to take action against such agression and stop him was not good for him. He can't afford to go against a firm US leader who could be able to unite with the EU countries and halt him. A weak and confused Trump was much more convenient for Putin. Trump is vain. It appealed to him that such a seasoned veteran of the highest level of international politics like Putin paid him compliments.
For Xi in the background, Clinton's defeat was important for the same reason as for Putin. A capable and talented politician who has a good understanding of international relations and could make use of all that Obama and his team have already established would be able to stop Chinese expansion in the Pacific. For Xi and his Chinese advisors Clinton seemed a much bigger threat than an incompetent newby to politics, like Trump.
This is why all the fake news sites were jumping around emphasizing that Trump is great for being peaceful and having good ties with Russia. It was of course bollocks. The current Russian leadership wants to have good ties with the US only in case they will let them play their game in Europe and West-Asia. If not, they don't care, and Russia will still pursue her goals. This was of course also convenient for the Chinese who coordinate their actions at the moment with the Russians to a very high degree to undermine the stability of NATO, and the US-EU led peace of the current system of international relations.
As it emerges more and more clearly, Clinton would have been a much better choice as president than Trump. She could have won over senior experienced policy makers, she does have normal working relationships with many Republicans (a thing Trump often seems to lack) and she would have been able to stop or foresee many of Putin's and Xi's steps. Her firmness would have been an assett in a climate when two superpowers - China and Russia - are becoming more and more agressive. These countries also happen to be authoritarian states that don't respect human rights, cannot and do not want to provide their citizens with really high quality lives, and do not participate to a high degree in international stability and charitable development projects. Letting such states become more powerful could lead to much suffering everywhere. It turns out that Clinton's hawkishness would not only have been justified, it would have been exactly what was needed in such a time.
UPDATE:
Interesting piece in the Japan Times discussing whether China would actually stand up for North-Korea at the moment. It seems like the Chinese intelligentsia is somewhat divided on this. However, I don't think they would budge. Naive to think they would let the US put troops near their borders.
At the same time Clinton was described very often as hawkish. One of the things that was held against her was that she said that she would use the nuclear option if she would have to. Of course any leader would do that 'if they would have to'.
Why was it convenient to portray Clinton after this sane and average statement as a pro-war agressive person who would be dangerous?
There were three main reasons. For Trump this was good because it discredited Clinton in the eye of some very naive voters who don't understand that nuclear are in a normal case only deterrents, but they can only be deterrents if a leader states that they would use them if they would have to.
For Putin this was good because he has an agressive agenda. In the long term he hopes to destabilize the EU and to extend Russia's sphere of influence over the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, as well as possibly Hungary. A US leader like Clinton who is firm and vowes to take action against such agression and stop him was not good for him. He can't afford to go against a firm US leader who could be able to unite with the EU countries and halt him. A weak and confused Trump was much more convenient for Putin. Trump is vain. It appealed to him that such a seasoned veteran of the highest level of international politics like Putin paid him compliments.
For Xi in the background, Clinton's defeat was important for the same reason as for Putin. A capable and talented politician who has a good understanding of international relations and could make use of all that Obama and his team have already established would be able to stop Chinese expansion in the Pacific. For Xi and his Chinese advisors Clinton seemed a much bigger threat than an incompetent newby to politics, like Trump.
This is why all the fake news sites were jumping around emphasizing that Trump is great for being peaceful and having good ties with Russia. It was of course bollocks. The current Russian leadership wants to have good ties with the US only in case they will let them play their game in Europe and West-Asia. If not, they don't care, and Russia will still pursue her goals. This was of course also convenient for the Chinese who coordinate their actions at the moment with the Russians to a very high degree to undermine the stability of NATO, and the US-EU led peace of the current system of international relations.
As it emerges more and more clearly, Clinton would have been a much better choice as president than Trump. She could have won over senior experienced policy makers, she does have normal working relationships with many Republicans (a thing Trump often seems to lack) and she would have been able to stop or foresee many of Putin's and Xi's steps. Her firmness would have been an assett in a climate when two superpowers - China and Russia - are becoming more and more agressive. These countries also happen to be authoritarian states that don't respect human rights, cannot and do not want to provide their citizens with really high quality lives, and do not participate to a high degree in international stability and charitable development projects. Letting such states become more powerful could lead to much suffering everywhere. It turns out that Clinton's hawkishness would not only have been justified, it would have been exactly what was needed in such a time.
UPDATE:
Interesting piece in the Japan Times discussing whether China would actually stand up for North-Korea at the moment. It seems like the Chinese intelligentsia is somewhat divided on this. However, I don't think they would budge. Naive to think they would let the US put troops near their borders.
The larger game
At any given time several large political, economic, and military contests are going on. These are driven by powerful people and the employees who serve them without questioning their goals. Some people say that America or Israel is driving conflicts.
The truth is this: America and Israel are driving conflicts. And so is Russia, so is China, so is Iran, so is Turkey, so is the UK, so is Saudi Arabia, and so is a host of other countries. If the US and Israel would not do anything, others would. We would see an even more aggressive Russia, and an even more aggressive and assertive China.
This does not morally or politically excuse any of the horrible things the US military and secret services, or the Israeli military services did in the last decades. It just serves to clarify, that there is a legitimate and necessary push-back against other countries that are just as aggressive.
Also, it is not news that there are conflicts. Conflicts are also there. It is just that the average person only learns about them when the tension becomes so high as in the case of North-Korea at the moment.
The truth is this: America and Israel are driving conflicts. And so is Russia, so is China, so is Iran, so is Turkey, so is the UK, so is Saudi Arabia, and so is a host of other countries. If the US and Israel would not do anything, others would. We would see an even more aggressive Russia, and an even more aggressive and assertive China.
This does not morally or politically excuse any of the horrible things the US military and secret services, or the Israeli military services did in the last decades. It just serves to clarify, that there is a legitimate and necessary push-back against other countries that are just as aggressive.
Also, it is not news that there are conflicts. Conflicts are also there. It is just that the average person only learns about them when the tension becomes so high as in the case of North-Korea at the moment.
Sunday, 13 November 2016
Masuji Ibuse's 'Black Rain'
I've just finished Masuji Ibuse's 1969 novel Black Rain. It is an excellent novel. It presents the story of a small family from a village near to Hiroshima a few years after the atomic bomb was dropped on the city. The tone is - as in several the works of many Japanese writers - very matter of fact, and giving a good feel of the character of the storyteller, Shigematsu Shizuma. Despite the sometimes dry tone in which what was seen is recounted, Shigematsu's genuine concern for friends and family shines true at the important points. Ibuse's book offers some very dramatic turns which can be felt in full force. It is emotionally moving, and tragic.
It mainly deals with how radiation effect crept up years after the bombing on many of those who thought they would be fine, they would survive. It was interesting to read the book in the same year as Svetlana Alexievich's Chernobyl Prayer. Both books tell stories of loss, of patriotic or nationalistic feeling that motivated people to help and work among the debris of nuclear catastrophes, and the tragedy of not knowing what they were dealing with. At the time the nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese - including doctors - had no idea about the effects of radiation, and at the time of the Chernobyl catastrophe the masses of people living in the regions affected, as well as those who were sent there for relief work were kept in the dark about those effects. Both books tell about much suffering, but also about remarkable cases of community spirit and a feeling of belonging to the places, even after they have been affected by catastrophes. Of course the Japanese - with the help of the U.S. - dealt with Hiroshima and Nagasaki following the war was very different from the way in which Moscov - and Belarus and the Ukraine - handled the consequences of Chernobyl.
Ibuse's book mentions criticisms of the Japanese Imperial government, army, and navy only in a very subdued way. It is hard to guess today whether this is a literary tool employed by the writer to express that people were genuinely afraid to criticise the leadership and the army, even at the end of the war, or simply a reluctance to engage in such criticism when he wrote the book. What makes the former interpretation more likely is that in some places in the novel there is a marked contrast of descriptions of malpractice, mistreatment of civilians and soldiers by the military, still people who are obviously aware of the ridiculousness of what was going on are silent. The horrible plans of the army to arm all civilians to defend Japan against the invasion of the U.S. forces is mentioned in several places - in no way favourably -, also showing that there were people who genuinely believed - or at least talked as if they would believe - in such policies.
The book is another great argument for never again wanting a war and strictly keeping away from using nuclear weapons ever, in any situation. This makes it an especially relevant book to debates today, when the Russian military publicized in the last years that it carried out practices for scenarios of nuclear strikes against European targets, and where the false rumour was spread that the U.S. was threatening Russia with a nuclear war (this is supposed to have been averted by the election of Trump).
Russia is obviously at a point where it is under huge international pressure, and it Putin, his government, and his generals are willing to go to great lengths. Novels like Ibuse's and Alexievich's can help people understand in Russia, the U.S. and everywhere else, that threatening with nuclear strikes is a horrible thing to do, and any use of atomic bombs that affects civilians is a terrible crime. Tension and Russian propaganda need to be defused. Merkel and Obama have gone to great lengths to achieve this. However, Putin is willing to risk much, and Trump is fool enough - so it seems at the moment - to go along with his games.
You can read a review of Black Rain from The Japan Times here.
It mainly deals with how radiation effect crept up years after the bombing on many of those who thought they would be fine, they would survive. It was interesting to read the book in the same year as Svetlana Alexievich's Chernobyl Prayer. Both books tell stories of loss, of patriotic or nationalistic feeling that motivated people to help and work among the debris of nuclear catastrophes, and the tragedy of not knowing what they were dealing with. At the time the nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese - including doctors - had no idea about the effects of radiation, and at the time of the Chernobyl catastrophe the masses of people living in the regions affected, as well as those who were sent there for relief work were kept in the dark about those effects. Both books tell about much suffering, but also about remarkable cases of community spirit and a feeling of belonging to the places, even after they have been affected by catastrophes. Of course the Japanese - with the help of the U.S. - dealt with Hiroshima and Nagasaki following the war was very different from the way in which Moscov - and Belarus and the Ukraine - handled the consequences of Chernobyl.
Ibuse's book mentions criticisms of the Japanese Imperial government, army, and navy only in a very subdued way. It is hard to guess today whether this is a literary tool employed by the writer to express that people were genuinely afraid to criticise the leadership and the army, even at the end of the war, or simply a reluctance to engage in such criticism when he wrote the book. What makes the former interpretation more likely is that in some places in the novel there is a marked contrast of descriptions of malpractice, mistreatment of civilians and soldiers by the military, still people who are obviously aware of the ridiculousness of what was going on are silent. The horrible plans of the army to arm all civilians to defend Japan against the invasion of the U.S. forces is mentioned in several places - in no way favourably -, also showing that there were people who genuinely believed - or at least talked as if they would believe - in such policies.
The book is another great argument for never again wanting a war and strictly keeping away from using nuclear weapons ever, in any situation. This makes it an especially relevant book to debates today, when the Russian military publicized in the last years that it carried out practices for scenarios of nuclear strikes against European targets, and where the false rumour was spread that the U.S. was threatening Russia with a nuclear war (this is supposed to have been averted by the election of Trump).
Russia is obviously at a point where it is under huge international pressure, and it Putin, his government, and his generals are willing to go to great lengths. Novels like Ibuse's and Alexievich's can help people understand in Russia, the U.S. and everywhere else, that threatening with nuclear strikes is a horrible thing to do, and any use of atomic bombs that affects civilians is a terrible crime. Tension and Russian propaganda need to be defused. Merkel and Obama have gone to great lengths to achieve this. However, Putin is willing to risk much, and Trump is fool enough - so it seems at the moment - to go along with his games.
You can read a review of Black Rain from The Japan Times here.
Sunday, 9 October 2016
On hating other nations
Politicans talk of 'people' and 'nations' often. They do this to achieve an effect. They are talking rubbish. No nation is unified in the sense in which they say it is. No country, not even a village!, has only people who think in the same way, who live in the same way. No country or nation is 'good' or 'bad'. Governments, leaders, individuals, organizations are eveil, bad, heroic, good, decent, average. But countries?
Talk of nations usually engeders an artifical 'them and us' way of thinking. The army and politicians use it to awaken hate and alienation in people towards others living in different countries. They use this hatred when they are justifying wars and other horrors they inflict on others in the name of their countries.
The truth is that people are the same everywhere. Sure, cultures, habits, efficiency, cleanliness, clothes, etc. differ. What does not differ is that there are good and bad and average people everywhere. That the average Jane, or Cuicui, or Sakura, or Johanna does not want war and does not care about other countries. The average John, or Jose, or Maua, or Xun wants to get on with his job, be safe, and have a healthy family. This is what is universal and what would serve as a perfect platform for peaceful global growth. All war and conflict is about the power-games of leaderships who have interests in gaining more money and power. Be that Russia, China, the US, or the European countries, Japan or African or South-American countries, it is always about the might of the elites. Wars are not for and in the interest of the people.
The section quoted below illustrates eminently well how people find out that other countries have normal folks living in them too.
"Yes, I remember that being at war with the Italians was taken as a licence for Americans to defecate all over them. Even though most of us in the base section at Naples had never closed with an Italian in combat. Our argument was that we should treat the Neapolitans as the Neapolitans would have treated our cities presumably if they'd won the war. I watched old ladies of Naples pushed off the sidewalks by drunken GIs and officers. Every Italian girl was fair pray to propositions we wouldn't have made to a streetwalker back home. Those who spoke Italian used the tu on everyone they met. And I remember seeing American MPs beating the driver of a horse and wagon because they were obstructing traffic on Via Roma. I don't think the Germans could have done any better in their concentration camps. I thought that all humanity had gone from the world, and that this war had smothered decency forever.
- These Eyeties, the mess sergeant said, ain't human beins. They're just Gooks, that's all.
- All I know, the corporal said doggedly and worriedly, is that they ain't Americans...They don't see things the way we do.
- They'd steal anything, the mess sergeant said, stuffing a turkey, his mouth crammed with giblet leavings.
I remember that other arguments against the Neapolitans, besides the cardinal one, that they'd declared war on us, were that they stole and were filthy-dirty. I only know that no Neapolitan ever stole anything from me, for I took pains to see that no temptation was put in their way. Though once my wallet was lifted in a New York subway. And for those Neapolitans to whom I sometimes gave an extra bar of soap, I noticed that they used this soap joyfully on themselves, their children, their clothes. I've buried my face in the hair of Neapolitan girls. It was just as sweet as an American girl's if the Napoletana had the wherewithal to wash it.
I remember that in Naples after my heart broke I decided that a stricly American point of view in itself offered no peace or solution for the world. So I began to make friends with the Neapolitans. And it didn't surprise me to find that, like everyone else in the world, they had their good and their bad and their admixtures of both. To know them, I'd been working on my Italian. That lovely supple language was kind to my tongue. The Neapolitans were gracious in helping me with it.
(...)
This forced me to the not original conclusion that the Neapolitans were like everybody else in the world, and in an infinite variety. Because I was an americano the Neapolitans treated me with a strange pudding of respect, dismay, and bewilderment. A few loathed me. But from most Italians I got a decency and kindness that they'd have showered on any other American in Naples who'd made up his mind to treat them like human beings. I'm not bragging. I'm not unique."
From John Horn Burns's The Gallery, in the section appearing as 'My Heart Finally Broke in Naples' in War Stories (eds. Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hensgen), 2014, London: Vintage, pp. 274-5.
Talk of nations usually engeders an artifical 'them and us' way of thinking. The army and politicians use it to awaken hate and alienation in people towards others living in different countries. They use this hatred when they are justifying wars and other horrors they inflict on others in the name of their countries.
The truth is that people are the same everywhere. Sure, cultures, habits, efficiency, cleanliness, clothes, etc. differ. What does not differ is that there are good and bad and average people everywhere. That the average Jane, or Cuicui, or Sakura, or Johanna does not want war and does not care about other countries. The average John, or Jose, or Maua, or Xun wants to get on with his job, be safe, and have a healthy family. This is what is universal and what would serve as a perfect platform for peaceful global growth. All war and conflict is about the power-games of leaderships who have interests in gaining more money and power. Be that Russia, China, the US, or the European countries, Japan or African or South-American countries, it is always about the might of the elites. Wars are not for and in the interest of the people.
The section quoted below illustrates eminently well how people find out that other countries have normal folks living in them too.
"Yes, I remember that being at war with the Italians was taken as a licence for Americans to defecate all over them. Even though most of us in the base section at Naples had never closed with an Italian in combat. Our argument was that we should treat the Neapolitans as the Neapolitans would have treated our cities presumably if they'd won the war. I watched old ladies of Naples pushed off the sidewalks by drunken GIs and officers. Every Italian girl was fair pray to propositions we wouldn't have made to a streetwalker back home. Those who spoke Italian used the tu on everyone they met. And I remember seeing American MPs beating the driver of a horse and wagon because they were obstructing traffic on Via Roma. I don't think the Germans could have done any better in their concentration camps. I thought that all humanity had gone from the world, and that this war had smothered decency forever.
- These Eyeties, the mess sergeant said, ain't human beins. They're just Gooks, that's all.
- All I know, the corporal said doggedly and worriedly, is that they ain't Americans...They don't see things the way we do.
- They'd steal anything, the mess sergeant said, stuffing a turkey, his mouth crammed with giblet leavings.
I remember that other arguments against the Neapolitans, besides the cardinal one, that they'd declared war on us, were that they stole and were filthy-dirty. I only know that no Neapolitan ever stole anything from me, for I took pains to see that no temptation was put in their way. Though once my wallet was lifted in a New York subway. And for those Neapolitans to whom I sometimes gave an extra bar of soap, I noticed that they used this soap joyfully on themselves, their children, their clothes. I've buried my face in the hair of Neapolitan girls. It was just as sweet as an American girl's if the Napoletana had the wherewithal to wash it.
I remember that in Naples after my heart broke I decided that a stricly American point of view in itself offered no peace or solution for the world. So I began to make friends with the Neapolitans. And it didn't surprise me to find that, like everyone else in the world, they had their good and their bad and their admixtures of both. To know them, I'd been working on my Italian. That lovely supple language was kind to my tongue. The Neapolitans were gracious in helping me with it.
(...)
This forced me to the not original conclusion that the Neapolitans were like everybody else in the world, and in an infinite variety. Because I was an americano the Neapolitans treated me with a strange pudding of respect, dismay, and bewilderment. A few loathed me. But from most Italians I got a decency and kindness that they'd have showered on any other American in Naples who'd made up his mind to treat them like human beings. I'm not bragging. I'm not unique."
From John Horn Burns's The Gallery, in the section appearing as 'My Heart Finally Broke in Naples' in War Stories (eds. Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hensgen), 2014, London: Vintage, pp. 274-5.
Friday, 7 October 2016
Tim O'Brien on true war stories
"A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behaviour, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude had been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue. As a first rule of thumb, therefore, you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil."
(From Tim O'Brien's 'How to Tell a True War Story', in War Stories (eds. Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hensgen), 2014., London: Vintage, p. 351.)
(From Tim O'Brien's 'How to Tell a True War Story', in War Stories (eds. Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hensgen), 2014., London: Vintage, p. 351.)
Putin's nuclear threat to the West
It is a well known fact, publicized by Russian newspapers and confirmed by the Russian military, that Russia is regularly exercising and planning for the offensive use of nuclear weapons in Western Europe, as well against the US.
But then of course there are people who publish this and similar stuff on 9GAG and other social sites:
I think what this meme is expresses is perfectly right in one sense: no sane, average civilian wants to nuke any other country. The average Joe, Sara, Teju, or Zoltan wakes up, goes to work, cares and worries for and about her or his family, friends, kids, health, house, hobbies, interests, and job. No normal person wakes up and thinks: 'Oh, gosh, I sure hope today my country's military kills, debilitates, and ruins the lives of tens of thousands of foreigners!'
On the other hand it is not true that no Russian - or for that matter that no Chinese or US - higher ups entertain such ideas. And it is partly our duty as citizens of a given country to oust politicians, administrators, and military leaders who are willing to go down such ways. No other country's civilians can do that instead of us, and if we don't do it we can't blame anyone else. The average, normal people in Russia, China, and the US, and in other countries, have to ensure that their countries work properly. One has to engage with politics, most importantly READ about it serious books and papers not just internet crap, write about it, think about it, talk about it, and if needed go out to the streets, go to the parliament, stage protests, throw eggs at politicians and so on.
Elected people can go berserk, and elections can go wrong. We need to make sure that loonies such as Trump, or tyrants such a Putin, or his pet-wanna-be-dictator Orban don't get into power, and even if they do they don't get the license to do anything their whims drive them to.
UPDATE: This piece on the issue just confirms and supports with more references what I have been saying.
But then of course there are people who publish this and similar stuff on 9GAG and other social sites:
I think what this meme is expresses is perfectly right in one sense: no sane, average civilian wants to nuke any other country. The average Joe, Sara, Teju, or Zoltan wakes up, goes to work, cares and worries for and about her or his family, friends, kids, health, house, hobbies, interests, and job. No normal person wakes up and thinks: 'Oh, gosh, I sure hope today my country's military kills, debilitates, and ruins the lives of tens of thousands of foreigners!'
On the other hand it is not true that no Russian - or for that matter that no Chinese or US - higher ups entertain such ideas. And it is partly our duty as citizens of a given country to oust politicians, administrators, and military leaders who are willing to go down such ways. No other country's civilians can do that instead of us, and if we don't do it we can't blame anyone else. The average, normal people in Russia, China, and the US, and in other countries, have to ensure that their countries work properly. One has to engage with politics, most importantly READ about it serious books and papers not just internet crap, write about it, think about it, talk about it, and if needed go out to the streets, go to the parliament, stage protests, throw eggs at politicians and so on.
Elected people can go berserk, and elections can go wrong. We need to make sure that loonies such as Trump, or tyrants such a Putin, or his pet-wanna-be-dictator Orban don't get into power, and even if they do they don't get the license to do anything their whims drive them to.
UPDATE: This piece on the issue just confirms and supports with more references what I have been saying.
The futility and tragedy of war
Two Vietnamese soldiers talking in 1976 after the war about meeting the dead in their dreams:
" 'Do you speak to them?'
'Yes, but...well, differently. The way you speak in hell. There are no sounds, no words. It's hard to describe. It's like when you're dreaming - you know what I mean.'
'You can't actually do anything to help each other?' asked Kien. 'Do you talk about interesting things?'
'Not very. Just sad and pitiful things, really. Under the ground in the grave human beings aren't the same. You can look at each other, understand each other, but you can't do anything for each other.'
'If we found a way to tell them news of a victory would they be happier?' Kien asked.
'Come on! Even if we could, what would be the point? People in hell don't give a damn about wars. They don't remember killing. Killing is a career for the living, not the dead.'
'Still, wouldn't peacetime be an ideal moment for the resurrection of all the dead?'
'What? Peace? Damn it, peace is a tree that thrives only on the blood and bone of fallen comrades. The ones left behind in the Screaming Soul battlegrounds were the most honoruable peole. Without them there would be no peace,' the driver replied.
'Okay, I'll grant you we have to have hope. But we don't even know if the next generation will get a chance to grow up, or if they do, how they'll grow up. We do know that many good people have been killed. Those of us who survived have all been trying to make something of ourselves, but not succeeding.' "
(From Bao Ninh's The Sorrow of War, quoted from the excerpt appearing as 'The Jungle of Screaming Souls' in War Stories (eds. Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hensgen, pp. 354-55.)
Thursday, 6 October 2016
New month, new books
I've just started reading War Stories, an anthology edited by Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hengsen. The anthology comprises a long list of excellent short stories and sections of novels that depict different experiences and viewpoints in war, from different nations (US, Germany, Greece, Japan, French, and so on), from writers who have been in the war.
The selection is outstanding: there are pieces focusing on combat, on the strange sides of war - for example the beauty of artillery lights at night -, the horror of rape and killing civilians, of losing one's comrades, of going mad with fear, and so on. The editors obviously knew the literature well and set high standards. The only thing I'm sorry about is that there aren't more Asian perpectives, and Anglo-Saxon writers dominate the list somewhat, but then again I guess if someone is editing a book in English for mostly English speaking audiences that isn't a terrible fault. The authors certainly are aware of other literature than what they have included and provide a helpful bibliography at the end of the book broken down by conflicts with which those writings deal.
It is a great read, and I wish more people - young and old - would read it. In the last few years I have encountered both in TV and on the internet many people who have never experienced war but make big prononouncements about what they would do in a conflict, how other countries should start wars, or how refugees are really lazy or defectors for not picking up arms against well trained armies and militias. The book makes one understandin well that civilians have nothing to do in war, in fact, nobody has anything to do in war. It is a horrible dirty affair, one that always borders on the insane and people wanting to go to war need to be stopped. It is not an affair of nations but of bad leadership.
The selection is outstanding: there are pieces focusing on combat, on the strange sides of war - for example the beauty of artillery lights at night -, the horror of rape and killing civilians, of losing one's comrades, of going mad with fear, and so on. The editors obviously knew the literature well and set high standards. The only thing I'm sorry about is that there aren't more Asian perpectives, and Anglo-Saxon writers dominate the list somewhat, but then again I guess if someone is editing a book in English for mostly English speaking audiences that isn't a terrible fault. The authors certainly are aware of other literature than what they have included and provide a helpful bibliography at the end of the book broken down by conflicts with which those writings deal.
It is a great read, and I wish more people - young and old - would read it. In the last few years I have encountered both in TV and on the internet many people who have never experienced war but make big prononouncements about what they would do in a conflict, how other countries should start wars, or how refugees are really lazy or defectors for not picking up arms against well trained armies and militias. The book makes one understandin well that civilians have nothing to do in war, in fact, nobody has anything to do in war. It is a horrible dirty affair, one that always borders on the insane and people wanting to go to war need to be stopped. It is not an affair of nations but of bad leadership.
Wednesday, 5 October 2016
Worrying amount of Russian political misinformation on the internet
Recently I have noticed that several posts in major newspapers (Chinese, German, Japanese, UK, US) have comments written by people with VERY-American or British or German etc. names. At least their accounts look as if they were natives of these countries. Usually these comment-writers pose as man around 40 or 50, who are confident, obviously well informed and in-the-know. They bash what reliable news agencies and independent writers say, and push very forcefully a narrative heavily leaning towards Russia and/or China. In these narratives the US and the EU are always the bad guys, who treat poor Russia and China badly, and are unfair, and start wars everywhere (or finance the wars and make a good buck on them). According to these narratives all these wars started were totally unnecessary and self-serving, and Russia and China are peaceful giants, who would never do the same.
Of course this is total rubbish. It is total rubbish not because the US and the EU are not involved in arms trading or they don't start/finance/participate in wars. But it is total rubbish because the motivations for going to wars are usually a lot more complicated than simply aiming at monetary and territorial gains. And it is also total rubbish because many of these wars are about countering aggressive push by Chinese and Russian armed forces, secret services, or military units.
It is enough to think of the Ukraine: the EU did offer the Ukraine the chance to start the process to become a member state. But it did not attack Russia nor did it threaten it with that. Nor did it occupy the Ukraine. The then-Prime Minister of Ukraine was not forced to agree to this; it was Russia who twisted his arm to back out of the deal. It is easy to see who was the aggressor here, and then Russia aggravated things by pushing into the Ukraine by military force.
Consider also North-Korea, who have pushed the speed of their military missiles development programmes up to maximum. This has taken both South-Korea and Japan by surprise, and both states need to quickly up their defenses. They are at the same time constrained from doing so by contracts enforced on them by the US, and by the aggressive diplomacy of China. China thinks all military development is justified for them, while their neighbours should just sit with their hands crossed in their laps. Whereas any sane country that is the neighbour of a superpower needs a normal, up-to date military. This need is now made even more stringent and urgent by North-Korea's recently upgraded striking capabilities. Now, North-Korea has surely not achieved these striking technological breakthroughs suddenly on its own merit. Either China and/or Russia had to finance and probably support their projects with money, technology and expertise.
Add to this Russia's role in Syria, where it first vetoed all attempts at intervention, letting several millions civilians become displaced, and tens of thousands get killed, only so that its strongman ally leader can stay in power. Then when interventions begone Russia entered into contracts with the US and allies, but refused to stick to those contracts and bombed civilians and those it was supposed to support.
At the same time China is trying to gobble down the whole South-China sea, unilaterally. This incorporates waters well in the economic interests zones and reasonably assigned self-defense zones of several other countries. China is also building up artificial military islands in the region. Surely not the most peaceful move.
In light of all this, it is easy to see that the narratives of the apologists don't add up. It is also well known that there are plenty of government sponsored trolls spreading such news. The funny bit is when one gets into a debate with them and assumes a reasonable, true-to-the-facts-but-open-to-new-evidence approach they take off. They don't stay and engage in substantial debates and conversations. They are only interested in swaying the opinions of people who are dumb enough to think of politics in terms of Good and Bad, and who are willing to force this two dimensional straight-jacket view on current affairs and cast the US or Europe in the role of evil perpetrator.
Of course this is total rubbish. It is total rubbish not because the US and the EU are not involved in arms trading or they don't start/finance/participate in wars. But it is total rubbish because the motivations for going to wars are usually a lot more complicated than simply aiming at monetary and territorial gains. And it is also total rubbish because many of these wars are about countering aggressive push by Chinese and Russian armed forces, secret services, or military units.
It is enough to think of the Ukraine: the EU did offer the Ukraine the chance to start the process to become a member state. But it did not attack Russia nor did it threaten it with that. Nor did it occupy the Ukraine. The then-Prime Minister of Ukraine was not forced to agree to this; it was Russia who twisted his arm to back out of the deal. It is easy to see who was the aggressor here, and then Russia aggravated things by pushing into the Ukraine by military force.
Consider also North-Korea, who have pushed the speed of their military missiles development programmes up to maximum. This has taken both South-Korea and Japan by surprise, and both states need to quickly up their defenses. They are at the same time constrained from doing so by contracts enforced on them by the US, and by the aggressive diplomacy of China. China thinks all military development is justified for them, while their neighbours should just sit with their hands crossed in their laps. Whereas any sane country that is the neighbour of a superpower needs a normal, up-to date military. This need is now made even more stringent and urgent by North-Korea's recently upgraded striking capabilities. Now, North-Korea has surely not achieved these striking technological breakthroughs suddenly on its own merit. Either China and/or Russia had to finance and probably support their projects with money, technology and expertise.
Add to this Russia's role in Syria, where it first vetoed all attempts at intervention, letting several millions civilians become displaced, and tens of thousands get killed, only so that its strongman ally leader can stay in power. Then when interventions begone Russia entered into contracts with the US and allies, but refused to stick to those contracts and bombed civilians and those it was supposed to support.
At the same time China is trying to gobble down the whole South-China sea, unilaterally. This incorporates waters well in the economic interests zones and reasonably assigned self-defense zones of several other countries. China is also building up artificial military islands in the region. Surely not the most peaceful move.
In light of all this, it is easy to see that the narratives of the apologists don't add up. It is also well known that there are plenty of government sponsored trolls spreading such news. The funny bit is when one gets into a debate with them and assumes a reasonable, true-to-the-facts-but-open-to-new-evidence approach they take off. They don't stay and engage in substantial debates and conversations. They are only interested in swaying the opinions of people who are dumb enough to think of politics in terms of Good and Bad, and who are willing to force this two dimensional straight-jacket view on current affairs and cast the US or Europe in the role of evil perpetrator.
Tuesday, 9 August 2016
The Chinese government's concerted PR and military strategy
The Chinese media, war, and economic machine is working because many talented people work in a concerted and devoted manner. This seems to be something that Japan and the US understand but Europe - and especially the UK voting for Brexit - fails to grasp.
China is now not only the second biggest economy of the world but also has one of the most powerful armys and it is not afraid to rely on it to put pressure on business partners and neighbours, as well as countries far from its waters.
The country's highest leadership also understands how important good PR work is and is not shy when having to spend on journalists, internet commenters, academics, diplomats, and even foreign specialists to defend its interests and emphasize a narrative which shows China in a good light.
The true face of the country's current leadership is easy to decipher: it is a hawkish, aggressive band, bent on gaining more power and territory. The current military and party leadership of China won't be a good friend of the UK just because they offer them a decent reciprocal trade pact. In fact, what the UK largely fails to admit is that is has historically played the largest role in the plundering of China during the second half of the 19th century and this isn't forgotten by the Chinese. If the British Empire hadn't forced concessions in several ports and wouldn't have highlighted the weakness of the imperial system in China, the demise of that system could have been slower and more peaceful. Also, other states like the Russian, the Americans, the French, the Dutch, the Germans and the Japanese - who all held concessions and were present with their military - would have had a much harder time in China. Not to mention that the Japanese incursions in the 1920s and 1930s would have likely been impossible.
You can read a great description of government sanctioned tabloid activity, covering the Global Times, here in the Quartz. It shows that the Chinese government keeps the public opinion in China under close control. People are forced to think what the government wants them to think because they don't have free access to impartial information, nor to any criticism of the system.
What I write is also confirmed by the Chinese government's insistence after Brexit to have an even larger access to sensitive technology and energy sectors in the UK. A good example is the Chinese ambassadors address over the Hinkley Point nuclear development. Such smaller and medium sized countries like the UK on its own will be more easily influenced and bought by China in the future. That is one of the reasons why the Brexit decision was disastrous. The UK is already home to many shadowy Russian operations. Now it might become the dwelling of characters who want to strike in the middle of Europe, but were repelled so far by the EU's common foreign policies.
Another example of how even Chinese academics - who are no doubt intelligent and very capable professional researchers - can be recruited by the government and military leadership is a paper by Dr. Xue Li and Xu Yanzhuo in the Diplomat. They warm up the misty-cloudy suggestion designed to deceive that China has been misunderstood, it is a peaceful growing giant, following Buddhist and Taoist teachings when making decisions. This is as false as it can be, as has been evidenced by China's behavior in Tibet, in north-west China, and when cracking down on thousands of protests and demonstrations. It is also obvious that this is false, when we take a look at the way Chinese diplomacy handles the South-China issue, and how the military is now trying to raise the pressure in the East-China sea.
Update in 2018 August: Now that Xi is on the top until his death China has sadly returned to a capitalist-emperor system. Trump and Putin are dreaming of the same, Erdogan has achieved the same, and Orban is dreaming of it. If the country's economy keeps growing as it is now, there won't be any stopping the military-diplomatic bulldozer.
China is now not only the second biggest economy of the world but also has one of the most powerful armys and it is not afraid to rely on it to put pressure on business partners and neighbours, as well as countries far from its waters.
The country's highest leadership also understands how important good PR work is and is not shy when having to spend on journalists, internet commenters, academics, diplomats, and even foreign specialists to defend its interests and emphasize a narrative which shows China in a good light.
The true face of the country's current leadership is easy to decipher: it is a hawkish, aggressive band, bent on gaining more power and territory. The current military and party leadership of China won't be a good friend of the UK just because they offer them a decent reciprocal trade pact. In fact, what the UK largely fails to admit is that is has historically played the largest role in the plundering of China during the second half of the 19th century and this isn't forgotten by the Chinese. If the British Empire hadn't forced concessions in several ports and wouldn't have highlighted the weakness of the imperial system in China, the demise of that system could have been slower and more peaceful. Also, other states like the Russian, the Americans, the French, the Dutch, the Germans and the Japanese - who all held concessions and were present with their military - would have had a much harder time in China. Not to mention that the Japanese incursions in the 1920s and 1930s would have likely been impossible.
You can read a great description of government sanctioned tabloid activity, covering the Global Times, here in the Quartz. It shows that the Chinese government keeps the public opinion in China under close control. People are forced to think what the government wants them to think because they don't have free access to impartial information, nor to any criticism of the system.
What I write is also confirmed by the Chinese government's insistence after Brexit to have an even larger access to sensitive technology and energy sectors in the UK. A good example is the Chinese ambassadors address over the Hinkley Point nuclear development. Such smaller and medium sized countries like the UK on its own will be more easily influenced and bought by China in the future. That is one of the reasons why the Brexit decision was disastrous. The UK is already home to many shadowy Russian operations. Now it might become the dwelling of characters who want to strike in the middle of Europe, but were repelled so far by the EU's common foreign policies.
Another example of how even Chinese academics - who are no doubt intelligent and very capable professional researchers - can be recruited by the government and military leadership is a paper by Dr. Xue Li and Xu Yanzhuo in the Diplomat. They warm up the misty-cloudy suggestion designed to deceive that China has been misunderstood, it is a peaceful growing giant, following Buddhist and Taoist teachings when making decisions. This is as false as it can be, as has been evidenced by China's behavior in Tibet, in north-west China, and when cracking down on thousands of protests and demonstrations. It is also obvious that this is false, when we take a look at the way Chinese diplomacy handles the South-China issue, and how the military is now trying to raise the pressure in the East-China sea.
Update in 2018 August: Now that Xi is on the top until his death China has sadly returned to a capitalist-emperor system. Trump and Putin are dreaming of the same, Erdogan has achieved the same, and Orban is dreaming of it. If the country's economy keeps growing as it is now, there won't be any stopping the military-diplomatic bulldozer.
Sunday, 13 December 2015
Praising Putin for the Syrian intervention is controversial
Even among enlightened, normal people who endorse democracy one may find advocates of Putin, or people saying things like 'Sure, he is an autocrat, but look at all that he has achieved' or 'You have to admit that he is very talented and he is doing something for stability/peace/etc.' Similar voices can be heard praising the Russian government and Putin for the role they took on in Syria recently, claiming he has been outstandingly successful, and there is a campaign that would like to make out Russia to be the country which finally does something where no one else wanted to intervene before.
That such an idea is even possible shows only two things: i) most people don't follow the news regularly, and ii) they have an awfully short memory. It is very easy to check that Russia - together with China - has vetoed four proposals at intervention and/or resolution of the conflict in Syria in the UN Security Council between 2011 and 2015. Anyone who still claims that the Russian Government or Putin is the good guy in this story or deserves the title of knight in shining armour has been seriously misled.
Russia's approach caused damage in several ways. It allowed the conflict in Syria to deepen, it hampered the effective operation of the UN Security Council, and even after their intervention it is not clear whether they really aim at resolving conflicts and fostering peace, or simply at supporting Assad, their last remaining major ally in the region. Simultaneously, it seems that the intervention is a good excuse to extend their local military capabilities which could be used to establish further strongholds in West-Asia. It is too early to say this, but Russia's basis-building in Syria might be a similar move to the Chinese military's aggressive expansion in the South-China Sea. What is clear is that Putin is using the intervention to gain political weight and restore relations broken over Ukraine. My suggestion is to keep the two issues firmly separated. Whatever Putin achieves in Syria, nobody should soften up on him concerning Ukraine. We should all welcome stability in the West-Asian region, but should be careful not to mistake occupation or the lack of overt fights due to the presence of the Russian military to be peace.
That such an idea is even possible shows only two things: i) most people don't follow the news regularly, and ii) they have an awfully short memory. It is very easy to check that Russia - together with China - has vetoed four proposals at intervention and/or resolution of the conflict in Syria in the UN Security Council between 2011 and 2015. Anyone who still claims that the Russian Government or Putin is the good guy in this story or deserves the title of knight in shining armour has been seriously misled.
Russia's approach caused damage in several ways. It allowed the conflict in Syria to deepen, it hampered the effective operation of the UN Security Council, and even after their intervention it is not clear whether they really aim at resolving conflicts and fostering peace, or simply at supporting Assad, their last remaining major ally in the region. Simultaneously, it seems that the intervention is a good excuse to extend their local military capabilities which could be used to establish further strongholds in West-Asia. It is too early to say this, but Russia's basis-building in Syria might be a similar move to the Chinese military's aggressive expansion in the South-China Sea. What is clear is that Putin is using the intervention to gain political weight and restore relations broken over Ukraine. My suggestion is to keep the two issues firmly separated. Whatever Putin achieves in Syria, nobody should soften up on him concerning Ukraine. We should all welcome stability in the West-Asian region, but should be careful not to mistake occupation or the lack of overt fights due to the presence of the Russian military to be peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)