HAVE CHILDREN BECOME TARGETS IN TODAY'S WARS?

I APOLOGIZE UP FRONT THAT THIS ENTRY SEEMS CHRONOLOGICALLY OUT OF ORDER.

The optics triggered by Bashar al-Assad's chemical strike against civilians in Khan Sheikhoun, resulting in close to 90 casualties, including women, children and babies, prompted a response which is still reverberating in several national capitals. President Trump's decision to send 59 missiles into the airfield from which the Syrian government's planes took off for the attack has been revered by many, regretted by some, and condemned by a number of governments involved in the Syrian civil war which is now in its sixth year.

Mr.Trump proclaimed that the sarin gas attack  was an "affront to humanity," which affected him profoundly and transformed his thinking about the Syrian president, and led him to order the missile attack. Skeptics believe that Barack Obama's failure to enforce a "red line" over Assad's use of chemical weapons provided a powerful impetus to show that there was "a new sheriff in town." But even if, for the sake of argument, we take the comments surrounding this military event at face value, some of the questions we should ask, especially as they relate to the millions of children that have become the victims of warfare, are: Where was the outrage when barrel bombs rained down on hospitals, market places and other civilian targets? And, while in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries roughly half of all deaths in conflict zones were civilian, by the end of the 20th century almost 90 percent have been civilian, many of them children. What changed to make these more vulnerable today?

Warfare has changed, and these changes include the identity of combatants and the relative vulnerability of civilian populations.  Most early wars were wars of aggression, generally for conquest or subjugation. The conquests by Alexander the Great and Gaius Julius Ceasar and others were well documented, and mostly military "events." The religious conflicts, from the crusades of the 11th through the 13th centuries, the wars of religion during the 16th and 17th century, the Napoleonic wars, and even World War I, were also essentially dominated by competing military forces, only incidentally affecting civilian populations. World War II produced a shift when the Nazis eventually combined conquest with ethnic cleansing, which, by its nature involved significant numbers of vulnerable children.

As wars evolved from predominantly interstate conflicts - fought between two or more states, - to intra-state armed conflicts, civil conflicts between a government and a non-state group, which largely takes place within the territory of the state in question, the incidence of civilian casualties increased dramatically. These conflict are as likely to be fought in villages and on suburban streets as anywhere else. The enemy camp is all around, and distinctions between combatants and no-combatants melt away in the suspicions and confusions of daily strife. Casualties are often not random. Where civil wars resulted from an ethnic conflict between two or more groups fighting for their ethnic group's position in society, children have often been targeted for "preventative" reasons.

Although the Nazi experience could not be identified as an ethnic conflict per-se, Hitler's enforcers unquestionably practiced ethnic cleansing. They openly, for political purposes, scapegoated various ethnic groups, and advocated killing children of "unwanted" or "dangerous" groups, either as part of the "racial struggle" or as a measure of preventative security. During a five-year period they killed as many as 1.5 million children, including over 1 million Jewish children and tens of thousands gypsy children and children with physical or mental disabilities. (Holocaust Encyclopedia - U.S Holocaust Memorial Museum).

In previous centuries children sometimes ended up in the cross-fire. In contemporary conflicts they have often become targets. Today one billion children are living in countries and territories affected by war or conflict. It is fair to conclude that large numbers suffer violent injuries and death. In Afghanistan, since 1979, at least 35,000 children have been victims of land mines alone (U.N. reports). As of 2015, the estimated civilian death toll in Afghanistan was 26,000. Iraq counted 120,000 since 2003. Well over 50 percent are children. After six years of civil war in Syria, the death count stands at 470,000 - 55,000 of these are children. ("I Am Syria," February, 2017). As early as 1996, UNICEF reported that during the preceding decade 2 million children were killed; 4.5 million disabled; 12 million left homeless; more than 1 million orphaned or separated from their parents; and some 10 million psychologically traumatized. ("The State of the World's Children." UNICEF, 1996). This was well before the Syrian civil war and myriad other conflicts broke out.

Whereas the optics of vulnerable children dying while foaming at their mouths might signify that a "red line" was crossed, justifying an international response, these "red lines" are set way too high. Barrel bombs dropped on civilian targets have produced significantly more carnage. Still, government forces are getting away with these criminal acts by hiding behind the concept of "national sovereignty" and blaming "terrorists."

This should be enough to force the international community to pull its collective head out of the sand, increase the visibility of these atrocities, and begin to hold governments and institutions perpetrating these acts accountable. National sovereignty be damned. 

COMEY DISMISSAL FUELS TEMPEST IN WASHINGTON D.C.

Donald trump's decision to fire James Comey fueled a national uproar, predictably especially among members of Congress. While apologists for the administration suggested that terminating his appointment had been favored by everyone on both sides of the aisle, others remarked that this would have been O.K. had it been done immediately following Mr. Trump's inauguration, but that at this juncture the discussion turned to the motive behind the decision. In an interview shortly after Mr. Comey was terminated Mr. Trump confirmed that the FBI investigation into collusion between his campaign staff and Russian operatives very much influenced his decision. Threats tweeted subsequently, suggesting that the president employed some kind of recording device in the oval office, conjured up images of President Nixon's Watergate scandal. The optics did not improve when Mr. Trump met with Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and ambassador Sergei Kislyak in the Oval Office the day after the firing.

Reactions to what turned out to be a very eventful week were predictable. Republicans stayed on the fence, be it uncomfortably. Democrats and activists throughout the country cried foul. The charges heard throughout concentrated on "obstruction of Justice" linked to suggestions that impeachment proceedings might be in order, and to the fear that the administration precipitated sliding down the slippery slope towards autocratic governance.

Anti-Trump forces have regularly charged that the administration displays a tendency to be autocratic. Coming from the business world, the president appears to be more comfortable making independent, rash decisions, without considering the consequences to democratic norms. His use of executive orders, he signed 32 in 100 days, rather than going the legislative route, appears to support that notion. His constant battle with the media, identifying coverage unflattering to him as "fake news," demonizing Muslims and illegal immigrants, derogatory comments about judicial decisions and "so-called judges," and arbitrary, impulsive, decisions, all fuelled the fear that we may be on the cusp of a dictatorial take-over.

The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences states that dictatorship refers to the "unrestricted domination of the state by an individual, a clique, or a small group." Its supporting article states that all forms of dictatorship share the following characteristics: "1. Exclusivity and arbitrariness in the exercise of power; 2. Abolition or loosening of the judicial bonds of political power; 3. Elimination or substantial restriction of civil liberties; 4. The predominantly aggressive, impulsive, form of decision making; and 5. Employment of despotic methods of political and social control." Stephen Walt, in the November 23, 2016 issue of "Foreign Policy," in an article titled: "10 Ways to tell if your president is a dictator," adds a few other features to the mix. These include: "Systematic efforts to intimidate the media, using state power to reward corporate backers and punish opponents, fear mongering, and demonizing the opposition." Benjamin Friedman, in "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth," argues that growth, "more often than not, fosters greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity and dedication to democracy." When living standards stagnate or decline most societies retrogress. When we start blaming the rest of the world for loss of our prestige "we'd be ripe for a demagogue who feeds those insecurities with xenophobic sloganeering." For a totalitarian takeover to take root, ordinary people would have to let it happen.

While we consider the implications of the elements involved in this discussion, we should turn to a demand we are beginning to hear with greater frequency: "impeachment." During the summer of 1973, as a relatively recent immigrant to this country, I was engrossed in the televised hearings into the Watergate burglary, which ultimately led to President Nixon's resignation. The first article of impeachment Nixon was charged with was "obstruction of justice." Subsequent to Director Comey's dismissal this concept resurfaced. Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, in a Washington Post op-ed, called for an impeachment investigation into Donald Trump for obstruction of justice. According to professor Tribe "the firing of FBI Director James Comey was an obvious effort to interfere with a probe involving national security." Obstruction involves any interference with a judicial or congressional proceeding, or attempt to do so. The real question is whether Trump intended to impede the FBI's investigation. Key words in a relevant charge will be "corrupt intent."

Article II of our Constitution stipulates that "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment charges for, and conviction of,  treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Historically, and cynically, President Gerald Ford observed that "impeachable offenses are whatever Congress says they are." An impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representative, which is currently controlled by the Republican Party, and unlikely to start the process.

The inquiry has a long way to go before any of this becomes relevant. It helps to remember that only twice in our history has the House impeached a president, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. In neither case did the Senate convict. Richard Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were voted on by the full House.
So, sit back and let events unfold. They most likely will.

EUROPE STILL ON EDGE

After the results of the first round of voting in the long anticipated French election became known, mainstream EU politicians breathed a sigh of relief, and expressed cautious optimism about the eventual outcome of another nationalist-populist attack on the eventual viability of the European Union. Out of a field of eleven candidates, Emmanuel Macron, the centrist leader of "En Marche!" (On the move), came in first, 2.2% ahead of second place finisher Marine Le Pen, long-time euroskeptic leader of the far-right National Front.

Headlines throughout the west proclaimed: "French Vote Calms EU Fears," (Wall Styreet Journal); "The Right Knocked Out," (Le Figaro); "Presidentielle: One Step Away," (Liberation). The Euro surged to a six month high as the markets shook off fears of two anti-European candidates, Marine Le Pen and hard-left Communist endorsed Jean-Luc Melenchon, making the run-off. Pro European diplomats rushed to congratulate Mr. Macron, who never held elected office, but who was Economic Minister in France's Socialist government. European Union foreign policy chief Frederick Mogherini praised Mr. Macron, calling him "the hope of a generation.." And former UK Chancellor George Osborne congratulated Mr. Macron, expressing his belief that, at last,  France "may acquire the leadership it needs." Ms. Le Pen received supporting comments from other European populists like Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who lost his race back in January, and Nigel Farage, architect of the UK Brexit movement.

The nervously anticipated run-off, scheduled for May 7, could not be between more contrasting candidates. Marine Le Pen, far-right candidate with a populist economic agenda, is a known quantity in French politics. She wants to see legal immigration reduced from 200,000 to 10,000, and access to public services significantly limited. She believes in political isolationism, and is adamantly opposed to "Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism" and politically correct liberalism. Being anti-EU and anti-Euro, she favors return to the French Franc currency and proposes to hold a Brexit-like referendum (Frexit) on remaining in the EU. She wants closer ties with Russia, and has received millions in financial support from Russian banks.

Socially liberal centrist and pro-business candidate Emmanuel Macron, a former member of the Socialist Party, is strongly pro EU, pro Euro,, and believes the EU needs more integration, not less. However, he does want to initiate some changes to make it stronger, and proposes to strengthen the EU's external borders, while believing that France's security policies have unfairly targeted Muslims. He strongly identifies with the business community, and supports reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. Macron also favors increasing defense spending to 2% of GDP, and encourages intervention in Syria.

Where in other European elections in which populists threatened mainstream positions, establishment parties survived by co-opting populist positions and moving further to the right, this French election has exposed a contrasting strategy. Macron campaigns from the center, strongly supporting the EU and what it stands for. Le Pen may be softening her positions on some aspects of her well documented anti-EU platform, if not fully co-opting a more centrist position - at least for the duration of the campaign. The rhetoric is shifting from "France or Europe"
to "France in Europe."

Polling preceding the May 7 run-off gives Mr. Macron a 59% to 41% edge over Ms. Le Pen. While these numbers ought to be comforting for EU leaders, all remember the polls leading up to the Brexit referendum results in the UK and Donald Trump's surprise victory in the US. Another imponderable comes from supporters of Jean-Luc Melenchon, whose candidacy led to a relatively strong 4th place finish in the first round, winning 19.6% of the vote, only 4% behind Macron and 2% behind Le Pen. While most mainstream losin g candidates endorsed Macron immediately following announcement of the results of the vote, Mr. Melanchon, whose positions substantially reflect those of the National Front, be it from the political left, has refused to do so. In the US significant numbers of Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Donald Trump, suggesting that populists on the right and the left share many policy positions. Something similar could happen in France and lead to a surprise outcome. It is not entirely surprising why many in Europe are still on edge.