In January of 1968, fifty years ago, brandishing a CR1 (conditional resident) visa, indicating marriage to a U.S. citizen, I legally entered the United States. I did not expect gold-plated sidewalks. However, I was ill prepared when I arrived in New York in the middle of a protracted garbage strike. First impressions do matter. I did not linger long, and proceeded to California, to my wife's home in San Carlos.
Immigration is not for the fainthearted. It does help to be a bit naïve. I left The Netherlands because I felt that the country had become provincial and somewhat narrow-minded. This perception had probably more to do with the country's size, population density, and the area in which I grew up, than with its culture. I arrived with a high school level English language proficiency, $300 in my pocket, and an offer of temporary lodging from my in-laws, people I had never met. While I focused on the promise of, ill defined and still intangible, future opportunities, I gradually began to realize that I had left my Dutch family and all my friends behind. I had moved from the relative comfort of a familiar environment for one presenting new challenges at every turn. My life in Holland had been fairly uncomplicated, and could potentially have become financially secure in a rapidly expanding family business. I surrendered the security of universal healthcare, and the cradle to grave protection of the Dutch welfare state. And I quickly found out that I had transitioned from being part of a relatively tolerant culture to being immersed into a more fractious one. Yet, I was fully convinced that I made the right decision, and I looked forward to showing the people back home that I had moved to the promised land.
Idealism transitioned into a challenging reality soon enough. Having served two years in the army in The Netherlands, a NATO partner, I was, by treaty, not obligated to serve in the U.S. military. However, I was required to register for the draft. A few weeks after I submitted my registration I received the news that the Draft Board, in its wisdom, had decided to give me a 1-A classification, meaning that I was "available for military service." The TET offensive in Vietnam kicked off January 31 that year, and, at the time, every week more than 500 U.S. service members were killed in action. Needless to say, I had to get this obvious error corrected, or catch the next flight back to where I had come from. I had no intention of becoming part of that statistic. Since I could not take care of this over the phone, I confronted the responsible clerk in San Francisco. She exhibited her ignorance when she admitted she could not find "Holland" on her list of NATO countries. I pointed at "The Netherlands," indicating that that was one and the same. I still remember her asking me if Denmark was the same as well.............
I also quickly found out that my limited vocabulary affected my self confidence. My father had admonished me that I did not need to get a car right away, that I should use public transportation. The reality on the ground dictated the need to acquire my own transportation, however, this meant getting a driver license. Passing a driver's test in Holland had always been very involved. I was uncertain that I really wanted to go through this over here, especially since my father-in-law had provided us with a car twice he size of anything I ever drove in Europe. After essentially memorizing a study guide, I took a deep breath, and walked into the DMV. They did not make me drive, and I aced the written test. Challenge overcome.
It took a while before my level of confidence improved appreciably. I reluctantly recognized that I needed to overcome obstacles native-born citizens were not confronted with. Finding work proved difficult. However, the more you interview, the more proficient you become. Sears finally hired me as a sporting goods salesman, and after circling the Admin Building at De Anza College several times, I finally got up the nerve to walk in to register for an English class - even though I felt offended when I was forced to take a remedial class instead of English 1-A. That decision initiated a life-long affection for the academic life.
And so it went.
In the mean time, 1968 developed into one of the most turbulent years of the 20th Century. The TET offensive changed the course of the Vietnam war. On March 16 U.S. troops from Charlie Company rampaged through My Lai, killing more than 500 Vietnamese civilians. On March 31 President Johnson withdrew from his bid to be re-nominated as a candidate for re-election. On April 4 Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. Riots followed, and 46 people were killed. On June 5, in Los Angeles, Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy, who was well on his way to become the Democratic Party's nominee for president. During the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August, when Hubert Humphrey was nominated , violent demonstrations and street fights with Chicago police anchored the event in full view of the entire world. And in November that year Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were elected to take over the White House.
Normally, these events would have prompted my European family to question my sanity, were it not that in Europe that year France, Italy, Northern Ireland, Czechoslovakia and other countries were also on fire. The world changed in 1968. It became a year of seismic social and political change across the globe. Buried in the midst of it all were the trials and tribulations that changed my life.
Over time I managed to eke out a career, and after some personal setbacks during the later seventies, I met and married a beautiful individual with whom I will celebrate a 38-year partnership in 2018. Fifty years later, I am more comfortable at home in my adopted country than in Holland. However, its history and culture will always remain part of my DNA.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Monday, January 1, 2018
COAL IN THEIR STOCKINGS
On the Wednesday before Christmas, on the White House Lawn, President Trump accompanied by a sizable gathering of republican legislators, came together to celebrate their only significant legislative achievement of the year. This was a public ceremony spotlighting a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system. Mr. Trump was lavished with praise by the leaders of the House and the Senate. Obviously elated, the president exclaimed that it was "always a lot of fun when you win." Convinced as ever, he reiterated over and over again "we are winning."
Throughout the run-up to the vote on this legislation Mr. Trump promised that the tax bill constituted a fabulous Christmas gift for the middle class, and that he himself as well as his friends would actually lose financially because of it. However, that too proved to be political banter. At a Friday night dinner at Mar-A-Lago he reportedly greeted a gathering of his wealthy friends with: "You all just got a lot richer." How much richer? Alan Blinder, professor of economic and public affairs at Princeton University, and a former Vice Chairman of the Federal reserve, estimates that Mr. Trump's cut could amount to a minimum of $15 million annually. While billionaires found extravagant goodies in their stockings this Christmas, many others got lumps of coal.
Some of the people discovering coal in their stockings included: the millions of poor kids facing the imminent loss of federal funds for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the 13 million people who may lose their health insurance, the older, sicker, segment of the population who will soon face significant premium increases, and the 800,000 DACA recipients whose fate was again left in limbo during year-end budget negotiations.
The CHIP program was created in 1997 when Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) pushed a bipartisan campaign to create legislation that would secure access to healthcare for 10 million uninsured children nationwide as part of the Balanced Budget Act. Many of these children grew up in working households that made too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Reiterating his support for this program in 2007, Senator Hatch proclaimed that: "No child should have to go without healthcare. The healthcare children receive when they are young will largely determine their quality of life for their adulthood." Nearly half of the country's children ages 3 or younger receive healthcare through this program. However, funding ran out on September 30, 2017. Although prompted by many, Congress missed re-authorization, focusing instead on the tax overhaul. By the end of January, sixteen states, including California, Texas and Florida, will run out of federal funds. By the end of March this will include thirty states, and by June all but two will be out of money. After the tax bill passed without money being allocated to re-fund CHIP, Jackie Speier (D-Ca) lamented: "What we're doing here today is basically saying: "wealthy Americans, big fat Christmas gift for you; Tiny Tim, we're taking your crutch away, from you and all the other kids in the country, and we're putting a lump of coal in your stocking." (NBC News, Dec. 21, 2017).
By including the repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate, which penalized individuals who failed to have health insurance, the writers of the tax bill were able to pay for $338 billion in additional tax cuts over the next decade. However, contrary to a statement the president made, this does not mean that Obamacare has been repealed. What it does mean is that this move will result in an estimated 13 million fewer Americans having health insurance. Without the mandate many of the young and healthy will forgo insurance, diluting the insurance pool to the detriment of the old and frail, and affecting steep premium increases. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts an estimated ten percent increase in premiums in many areas, often for people who can least afford these. For example: a 60-year old not receiving subsidies could face premium increases of $1,781, $1,469, $1,371, and $1,504, respectively, in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Maine. (David Blumenthal, Harvard Business Review, Dec. 19, 2017).
Finally, consider the plight of the 800,000 dreamers who President Obama protected with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. In September, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that, effective March 6, 2018, the administration was rescinding the program. Early reports, following discussions between the president and democratic leadership, suggested that a deal had been struck whereby democrats would support a budget agreement in exchange for a permanent DACA fix, including deportation protection, for program participants. Sadly, both continuing resolutions that were past to temporarily keep the government funded did not deliver on that promise. And many republicans appear adamantly opposed to such linkage. This leaves these individuals, many of which only know the U.S. as their home country, uncomfortably in limbo.
So, when President Trump uses "winning" as a mantra, or even as a strategy, we ought to remember, to paraphrase an old saying, that "winners see the gain, while losers endure the pain."
Happy New Year!
Throughout the run-up to the vote on this legislation Mr. Trump promised that the tax bill constituted a fabulous Christmas gift for the middle class, and that he himself as well as his friends would actually lose financially because of it. However, that too proved to be political banter. At a Friday night dinner at Mar-A-Lago he reportedly greeted a gathering of his wealthy friends with: "You all just got a lot richer." How much richer? Alan Blinder, professor of economic and public affairs at Princeton University, and a former Vice Chairman of the Federal reserve, estimates that Mr. Trump's cut could amount to a minimum of $15 million annually. While billionaires found extravagant goodies in their stockings this Christmas, many others got lumps of coal.
Some of the people discovering coal in their stockings included: the millions of poor kids facing the imminent loss of federal funds for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the 13 million people who may lose their health insurance, the older, sicker, segment of the population who will soon face significant premium increases, and the 800,000 DACA recipients whose fate was again left in limbo during year-end budget negotiations.
The CHIP program was created in 1997 when Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) pushed a bipartisan campaign to create legislation that would secure access to healthcare for 10 million uninsured children nationwide as part of the Balanced Budget Act. Many of these children grew up in working households that made too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Reiterating his support for this program in 2007, Senator Hatch proclaimed that: "No child should have to go without healthcare. The healthcare children receive when they are young will largely determine their quality of life for their adulthood." Nearly half of the country's children ages 3 or younger receive healthcare through this program. However, funding ran out on September 30, 2017. Although prompted by many, Congress missed re-authorization, focusing instead on the tax overhaul. By the end of January, sixteen states, including California, Texas and Florida, will run out of federal funds. By the end of March this will include thirty states, and by June all but two will be out of money. After the tax bill passed without money being allocated to re-fund CHIP, Jackie Speier (D-Ca) lamented: "What we're doing here today is basically saying: "wealthy Americans, big fat Christmas gift for you; Tiny Tim, we're taking your crutch away, from you and all the other kids in the country, and we're putting a lump of coal in your stocking." (NBC News, Dec. 21, 2017).
By including the repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate, which penalized individuals who failed to have health insurance, the writers of the tax bill were able to pay for $338 billion in additional tax cuts over the next decade. However, contrary to a statement the president made, this does not mean that Obamacare has been repealed. What it does mean is that this move will result in an estimated 13 million fewer Americans having health insurance. Without the mandate many of the young and healthy will forgo insurance, diluting the insurance pool to the detriment of the old and frail, and affecting steep premium increases. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts an estimated ten percent increase in premiums in many areas, often for people who can least afford these. For example: a 60-year old not receiving subsidies could face premium increases of $1,781, $1,469, $1,371, and $1,504, respectively, in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Maine. (David Blumenthal, Harvard Business Review, Dec. 19, 2017).
Finally, consider the plight of the 800,000 dreamers who President Obama protected with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. In September, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that, effective March 6, 2018, the administration was rescinding the program. Early reports, following discussions between the president and democratic leadership, suggested that a deal had been struck whereby democrats would support a budget agreement in exchange for a permanent DACA fix, including deportation protection, for program participants. Sadly, both continuing resolutions that were past to temporarily keep the government funded did not deliver on that promise. And many republicans appear adamantly opposed to such linkage. This leaves these individuals, many of which only know the U.S. as their home country, uncomfortably in limbo.
So, when President Trump uses "winning" as a mantra, or even as a strategy, we ought to remember, to paraphrase an old saying, that "winners see the gain, while losers endure the pain."
Happy New Year!
CONGRESSIONAL PROCESS FAVORS ACCUSED SEXUAL MOLESTERS
The recent spate of bombshell allegations of sexual harassment perpetrated by powerful public figures, leading to terminations and forced resignations, almost seem to have become routine. The effect of the "Me Too" post-Weinstein movement is reverberating across the country. However, nowhere is the effect more prominent than at the highest levels of our government. While the resignations of Senators Al Franken (D-Min) and Trent Franks (R-Tex) and Representative John Conyers (D-Mich) are suggestive of public pressure applied by their congressional colleagues, it should not be surprising that all of them would have preferred to have their cases heard by their respective congressional ethics committees. Others, like Representatives Blake Farenthold (R-Tex) and Ruben Kihuen (D-Nev) seem to be holding out to do just that.
In the House and the Senate, ethics committees determine whether a member of Congress violated House or Senate ethics rules. In the Senate, the committee is made up of three Republicans and three Democrats, five men and one woman. These committees can't impose criminal sanctions, but in the most severe cases they can recommend that a member should be expelled. To activate such a recommendation the respective chamber must adopt it by a two thirds majority vote.
What makes this process attractive to accused members of Congress is that, for instance, the Senate Ethics Copmmittee has not issued a public punishment in a decade. The most recent expulsions occurred in 1861 and 1862 when 14 senators were expelled for disloyalty during the Civil War. More recently, in 1995, the committee voted unanimously to expel Senator Bob Packwood. He resigned before the matter was voted on by the full Senate.
It has been alleged that these committees are simply used as tools to bury cases until the public storm passes. They have developed a history of routinely disposing of submitted ethics complaints. In 2016 the Senate committee received 63 complaints of violations, 43 were dismissed out of hand for lack of "subject matter jurisdiction." Even when allegations were judged to have merit, the decision was made that no violation of Senate rules existed. The remaining 20 cases were dismissed for a variety of technical reasons. No case led to disciplinary action.
The closest thing to a Human Resources department for employees of the Legislative Branch of our government is the Office of Compliance, set up by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. The Act was initiated to protect more than 30,000 governmental employees. The O.O.C. Is its administrative arm charged with ensuring its integrity through programs of disputes resoliution, education and enforcement. In a typical case, staffers file complaints of sexual harassment with the O.O.C. The process used to resolve complaints is convoluted and time-consuming, and it is allegedly designed to protect the office of the accused member of Congress. Various sources details specifics.
To recap: After an incident, but before filing an official com plaint, victims are required to go through 30 days of "counseling" with an O.O.C. employee. Following that process, they have 15 days to decide whether they want to pursue the next step, which is 30 days of mandated "mediation." During mediation, a lawyer representing the congressional office gets involved. His or her job is to protect the office and the institution. This lawyer is funded with taxpayer money. If no settlement is reached, there is a 30-day cooling-off period, before a complaint can be filed. If a settlement is reached, it is usually accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement, and paid for with taxpayer money. (Emily Stewart, Vox, Nov. 20, 2017).
Representative Jackie Speier (D-Ca) and others are now pushing Congress to retool this process. According to Speier, the O.O.C. is "toothless" and "a joke." She recently told the House Administration Committee that "for some victims the complaint process is worse than the sexual harassment itself." During a Nov. 20 interview of MSNBC, she reiterated that "we have to make sure that a complaint is taken seriously, and the person who is the victim is not somehow tortured or intimidated into not filing a complaint. That's what it is right now in Congress."
It should not surprise anyone that sexual harassment appears to be prevalent in many state capitols. The ingredients are all there: power, ego, a disproportionate supply of testosterone and an abundance of ambitious young staffers who could worry that speaking up may be a career killer. We have a long way to go to eliminate inappropriate behavior by powerful people in prominent positions. Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, Mario Batali and others can be fired. But at the pinnacle of power in our government we are stuck with individuals with individuals who, for political reasons, won't be removed. We have a Supreme Court justice who was confirmed by the Senate in 1991, even though he was credibly accused of sexual harassment. And we elected a president, even though he bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault, and who just recently publicly supported an accused pedophile who ran for a Senate seat from Alabama.
Change can't come soon enough. More power to the bi-partisan group of, mostly female, legislators pushing for reform. However, given the intricacies of our congressional decision making process, and the players involved who need to take the lead to affect a satisfactory outcome, nobody should hold their breath.
In the House and the Senate, ethics committees determine whether a member of Congress violated House or Senate ethics rules. In the Senate, the committee is made up of three Republicans and three Democrats, five men and one woman. These committees can't impose criminal sanctions, but in the most severe cases they can recommend that a member should be expelled. To activate such a recommendation the respective chamber must adopt it by a two thirds majority vote.
What makes this process attractive to accused members of Congress is that, for instance, the Senate Ethics Copmmittee has not issued a public punishment in a decade. The most recent expulsions occurred in 1861 and 1862 when 14 senators were expelled for disloyalty during the Civil War. More recently, in 1995, the committee voted unanimously to expel Senator Bob Packwood. He resigned before the matter was voted on by the full Senate.
It has been alleged that these committees are simply used as tools to bury cases until the public storm passes. They have developed a history of routinely disposing of submitted ethics complaints. In 2016 the Senate committee received 63 complaints of violations, 43 were dismissed out of hand for lack of "subject matter jurisdiction." Even when allegations were judged to have merit, the decision was made that no violation of Senate rules existed. The remaining 20 cases were dismissed for a variety of technical reasons. No case led to disciplinary action.
The closest thing to a Human Resources department for employees of the Legislative Branch of our government is the Office of Compliance, set up by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. The Act was initiated to protect more than 30,000 governmental employees. The O.O.C. Is its administrative arm charged with ensuring its integrity through programs of disputes resoliution, education and enforcement. In a typical case, staffers file complaints of sexual harassment with the O.O.C. The process used to resolve complaints is convoluted and time-consuming, and it is allegedly designed to protect the office of the accused member of Congress. Various sources details specifics.
To recap: After an incident, but before filing an official com plaint, victims are required to go through 30 days of "counseling" with an O.O.C. employee. Following that process, they have 15 days to decide whether they want to pursue the next step, which is 30 days of mandated "mediation." During mediation, a lawyer representing the congressional office gets involved. His or her job is to protect the office and the institution. This lawyer is funded with taxpayer money. If no settlement is reached, there is a 30-day cooling-off period, before a complaint can be filed. If a settlement is reached, it is usually accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement, and paid for with taxpayer money. (Emily Stewart, Vox, Nov. 20, 2017).
Representative Jackie Speier (D-Ca) and others are now pushing Congress to retool this process. According to Speier, the O.O.C. is "toothless" and "a joke." She recently told the House Administration Committee that "for some victims the complaint process is worse than the sexual harassment itself." During a Nov. 20 interview of MSNBC, she reiterated that "we have to make sure that a complaint is taken seriously, and the person who is the victim is not somehow tortured or intimidated into not filing a complaint. That's what it is right now in Congress."
It should not surprise anyone that sexual harassment appears to be prevalent in many state capitols. The ingredients are all there: power, ego, a disproportionate supply of testosterone and an abundance of ambitious young staffers who could worry that speaking up may be a career killer. We have a long way to go to eliminate inappropriate behavior by powerful people in prominent positions. Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, Mario Batali and others can be fired. But at the pinnacle of power in our government we are stuck with individuals with individuals who, for political reasons, won't be removed. We have a Supreme Court justice who was confirmed by the Senate in 1991, even though he was credibly accused of sexual harassment. And we elected a president, even though he bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault, and who just recently publicly supported an accused pedophile who ran for a Senate seat from Alabama.
Change can't come soon enough. More power to the bi-partisan group of, mostly female, legislators pushing for reform. However, given the intricacies of our congressional decision making process, and the players involved who need to take the lead to affect a satisfactory outcome, nobody should hold their breath.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
GENOCIDE, THE WORLD'S WORST HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEM
The U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The term did not exist until it was first coined in 1944 by Ralph Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer, seeking to describe Nazi policies of systematic murder, including the extermination of European Jews.
While this definition has generally been accepted, countries have traditionally been reluctant to recognize genocidal activity outside of their own boundaries. This, unfortunately, has most often led to genocidal extermination being allowed to continue under cover of the excuse of "national sovereignty." (It took the U.S. 40 years, from 1948 to 1968, to finally ratify the U.N. Convention.) Consequently, we continue to see genocides happen right before our eyes, and we will do nothing about them.
Case in point - less than 9,000 miles from Washington D.C., Myanmar soldiers are burning Rohingya infants alive, gang-raping teenagers, shooting villagers fleeing their homes, and wiping out entire villages, while the world continues to contemplate if it should define what is taking place as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or just an internal military action. Since late August, during a timespan of just eight weeks, Myanmar's military killed thousands, and forced 600,000 surviving Rohingya Muslims, 58% of which are children who witnessed atrocities no child should ever see, to flee to Bangladesh.
The sentiment of most observers is that, if history is a guide, the international community will abet the situation. Even though U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said that it is "an absolute priority" to stop all violence against Myanmar Rohingya Muslims, and a simultaneously approved statement issued by the Security Council condemning the violence, the organization has stopped well short of identifying the activity as genocide. If it had, the U.N. would have been legally bound to intervene, which is why most member states will be reluctant to initiate such a move. Myanmar's State Controller Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace laureate, while facing universal criticism for not vocally objecting to the violence, was never even confronted with the subject when she attended the ASEAN Summit in Manila this past week.
This callously predictable non-response has permeated similar unresponsive reactions to previous equally horrific events throughout history.
During and immediately following WWI, Turkey killed, deported and starved to death as many as 1.8 million Armenians. Modern Turks generally refuse to acknowledge that what happened to have been genocide. However, most scholars consider it to have been an orchestrated effort at exterminating an unwanted ethnic group that had lived within the borders of the crumbling Ottoman Empire for centuries. The world just watched.
From 1939 to 1945, during the Holocaust, when the Nazis systematically killed 11 million people, 6 million of which were Jews, the world looked the other way. There was ample evidence about what was taking place. However, the information remained classified, and reports were either denied or catalogued as "unconfirmed," while millions were literally exterminated.
In 1975, in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge, which wanted to establish a "Communist utopia," annihilated two million people (20 percent of the population) who were considered "enemies of the state." We all knew, but we declined to interfere.
In January 1994 the leader of the U.N. troops in Rwanda was warned that a plan for genocide was in place. His intent to act was nixed by his superiors in the U.N., and most of the 25,000 peace keeping troops were withdrawn from the country. The U.S. government avoided admitting that the subsequent massacre constituted genocide. We argued that we had no business involving ourselves in the internal conflict of another country. Within a 100-day period the Hutu majority killed an estimated one million Tutsis, 70 percent of its ethnic group and 20 percent of Rwanda's population.
Other examples are plentiful. The world shamefully watches, head in sand, claiming "not our problem."
Gregory Stanton. president of Genocide Watch, lists eight stages of genocide: Classification (us against them); Symbolization (attaching labels); Dehumanization (denying the humanity of the other group); Organization (training and planning for genocidal killings); Polarization (involving propaganda and passing new, discriminatory legislation); Preparation (identifying the victims); Extermination (the killing begins); and Denial (it's the victims' fault, hide the bodies). At each stage preventive measures could have stopped the process.
Genocide is the world's worst intentional human rights problem. But it is different from other problems, and it requires different solutions. Because genocide is almost always carried out by a country's own military and police forces, the usual national focus on law and order cannot stop it. International intervention is usually required. However, because the world lacks an international rapid response force, and because the U.N. has so far either been paralyzed or unwilling to act, genocide continues to go unchecked.
With genocide and ethnic cleansing in Myanmar continuing unabated, we should keep in mind that the numbers that are being reported from the area are not just statistics, they refer to real people.
While this definition has generally been accepted, countries have traditionally been reluctant to recognize genocidal activity outside of their own boundaries. This, unfortunately, has most often led to genocidal extermination being allowed to continue under cover of the excuse of "national sovereignty." (It took the U.S. 40 years, from 1948 to 1968, to finally ratify the U.N. Convention.) Consequently, we continue to see genocides happen right before our eyes, and we will do nothing about them.
Case in point - less than 9,000 miles from Washington D.C., Myanmar soldiers are burning Rohingya infants alive, gang-raping teenagers, shooting villagers fleeing their homes, and wiping out entire villages, while the world continues to contemplate if it should define what is taking place as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or just an internal military action. Since late August, during a timespan of just eight weeks, Myanmar's military killed thousands, and forced 600,000 surviving Rohingya Muslims, 58% of which are children who witnessed atrocities no child should ever see, to flee to Bangladesh.
The sentiment of most observers is that, if history is a guide, the international community will abet the situation. Even though U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said that it is "an absolute priority" to stop all violence against Myanmar Rohingya Muslims, and a simultaneously approved statement issued by the Security Council condemning the violence, the organization has stopped well short of identifying the activity as genocide. If it had, the U.N. would have been legally bound to intervene, which is why most member states will be reluctant to initiate such a move. Myanmar's State Controller Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace laureate, while facing universal criticism for not vocally objecting to the violence, was never even confronted with the subject when she attended the ASEAN Summit in Manila this past week.
This callously predictable non-response has permeated similar unresponsive reactions to previous equally horrific events throughout history.
During and immediately following WWI, Turkey killed, deported and starved to death as many as 1.8 million Armenians. Modern Turks generally refuse to acknowledge that what happened to have been genocide. However, most scholars consider it to have been an orchestrated effort at exterminating an unwanted ethnic group that had lived within the borders of the crumbling Ottoman Empire for centuries. The world just watched.
From 1939 to 1945, during the Holocaust, when the Nazis systematically killed 11 million people, 6 million of which were Jews, the world looked the other way. There was ample evidence about what was taking place. However, the information remained classified, and reports were either denied or catalogued as "unconfirmed," while millions were literally exterminated.
In 1975, in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge, which wanted to establish a "Communist utopia," annihilated two million people (20 percent of the population) who were considered "enemies of the state." We all knew, but we declined to interfere.
In January 1994 the leader of the U.N. troops in Rwanda was warned that a plan for genocide was in place. His intent to act was nixed by his superiors in the U.N., and most of the 25,000 peace keeping troops were withdrawn from the country. The U.S. government avoided admitting that the subsequent massacre constituted genocide. We argued that we had no business involving ourselves in the internal conflict of another country. Within a 100-day period the Hutu majority killed an estimated one million Tutsis, 70 percent of its ethnic group and 20 percent of Rwanda's population.
Other examples are plentiful. The world shamefully watches, head in sand, claiming "not our problem."
Gregory Stanton. president of Genocide Watch, lists eight stages of genocide: Classification (us against them); Symbolization (attaching labels); Dehumanization (denying the humanity of the other group); Organization (training and planning for genocidal killings); Polarization (involving propaganda and passing new, discriminatory legislation); Preparation (identifying the victims); Extermination (the killing begins); and Denial (it's the victims' fault, hide the bodies). At each stage preventive measures could have stopped the process.
Genocide is the world's worst intentional human rights problem. But it is different from other problems, and it requires different solutions. Because genocide is almost always carried out by a country's own military and police forces, the usual national focus on law and order cannot stop it. International intervention is usually required. However, because the world lacks an international rapid response force, and because the U.N. has so far either been paralyzed or unwilling to act, genocide continues to go unchecked.
With genocide and ethnic cleansing in Myanmar continuing unabated, we should keep in mind that the numbers that are being reported from the area are not just statistics, they refer to real people.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
THE POLITICS OF EMPATHY
Empathy is defined as "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." The term has been used in conjunction with "sympathy" and "compassion," and has surfaced occasionally and conceptually during political campaigns. While "sympathy" emphasizes the feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune, "compassion' refers to "sympathy" accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. A series of studies have claimed to show that conservatives score lower on "empathy" than liberals. Republicans contest these findings, arguing that such studies tend to favor Democratic principles of compassion and care over Republican philosophies of autonomy and self help. (Mark Honigsbaum, The History of Emotions Blog, Dec. 3, 2012).
While the discussion of these concepts may appear somewhat convoluted, there are substantial practical consequences at play when individuals act on them, especially when these individuals happen to hold leadership positions. The degree to which our leaders exhibit the capacity to demonstrate any or all of these influences their reaction to situations that require a decisive response. Political consultants from both parties argue that people want many things from their president, but near the top of that list is the ability to play consoler-in-chief when the moment demands it. Unfortunately, we have had too many opportunities to exhibit these this year.
Psychologists have argued that empathy is not helpful in public discourse or decision making, because it is biased. (Paul Bloom, Yale). Studies show that it is dampened or constrained when it comes to people of different races, nationalities or creeds. Daryl Cameron, a social psychologist at the University of Iowa, talks about the "collapse of compassion." He and others make the point that "empathy is actually a choice." (New York Times, July 10, 2015.) And, to a significant degree, that is the point. The extent to which our policy makers have a focused empathetic capacity often dictates the substance of their decisions.
To illustrate, contrast our response to the devastating effects of hurricane Maria on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico with our actions after the January 12, 2010 earthquake shattering Haiti. Before dawn, the day after the earthquake hit, the U.S. mobilized as if it were going to war. An Army unit was airborne to control the main fairport. Within 2 days we had 8,000 troops en route. Within 2 weeks 33 U.S. military ships and 22,000 troops had arrived, and more than 300 military helicopters delivered millions of pounds of food and water. The morning after the earthquake the president proclaimed that we were going "to respond in Port-au-Prince robustly and immediately," which gave the entire government clarity of purpose. (Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2017). One week after Maria hit Puerto Rico, seriously affecting the lives of 3.4 million U.S. citizens, supplies were still not flowing. A few days later just 4,400 government employees were participating in federal operations to assist the devastated island, and about 40 helicopters were helping to deliver food.
The "conversation" between Carmin Yulin Cruz, Mayor of San Juan, and President Trump might be indicative of the role empathy played in our response to the devastation. Ten days after the hurricane hit, Mayor Cruz pleaded for more federal assistance, saying: "We are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency and the bureaucracy. This is what we got last night: four pallets of water, three pallets of meals and twelve pallets of infant food - which I gave to the people of Comerio, where people are drinking out of a creek. I am done being polite. I am done being politically correct. I am mad as hell." Trump's response, tweeted from his New Jersey golf club, was: "Such poor leadership ability by the mayor of San Juan and others in Puerto Rico who are not able to get their workers to help. They want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort," while referring to Puerto Ricans critical of the response as "politically motivated ingrates."
Even though analysts may not concede a definitive relationship between a leader's empathy and the intensity of a response to the needs of a population, these two examples inescapably suggest that such a connection exists. President Obama's compassion for the plight of the people of Haiti prompted a massive outpouring of assistance. While hurricanes Harvey and Irma did tremendous damage in Texas and Florida, existing infrastructure support systems kicked in automatically. However, Puerto Rico, an off-shore territory, required empathetic leadership from the top to counteract its total devastation. The consequential banter between President Trump and his critics on the island appeared to have affected our federal response. Mr. Trump seemed more consumed by his tweeted criticism of demonstrations by NFL players than by the calamity experienced by Puerto Ricans. It was only when others in his administration recognized the political fall-out of our tepid reaction that he was given a teleprompter speech designed to express his concerns. Unfortunately, his impassive delivery, lacking appropriate inflection, failed to convey sincere compassion for the victims' plight. Mr. Trump's consistent referral to the island's pre-existing financial problems, coupled with the enormous "budget-busting" cost of eventual reconstruction, and a referral to the "limited number of deaths" incurred when compared to those resulting from previous hurricanes elsewhere, highlighted the administration's insensitivity.
The question may well be asked whether leaders with significant narcissistic inclinations possess a demonstrable empathetic capacity. Empathy is a choice, and, coupled with politics, these choices can have significant consequences.
While the discussion of these concepts may appear somewhat convoluted, there are substantial practical consequences at play when individuals act on them, especially when these individuals happen to hold leadership positions. The degree to which our leaders exhibit the capacity to demonstrate any or all of these influences their reaction to situations that require a decisive response. Political consultants from both parties argue that people want many things from their president, but near the top of that list is the ability to play consoler-in-chief when the moment demands it. Unfortunately, we have had too many opportunities to exhibit these this year.
Psychologists have argued that empathy is not helpful in public discourse or decision making, because it is biased. (Paul Bloom, Yale). Studies show that it is dampened or constrained when it comes to people of different races, nationalities or creeds. Daryl Cameron, a social psychologist at the University of Iowa, talks about the "collapse of compassion." He and others make the point that "empathy is actually a choice." (New York Times, July 10, 2015.) And, to a significant degree, that is the point. The extent to which our policy makers have a focused empathetic capacity often dictates the substance of their decisions.
To illustrate, contrast our response to the devastating effects of hurricane Maria on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico with our actions after the January 12, 2010 earthquake shattering Haiti. Before dawn, the day after the earthquake hit, the U.S. mobilized as if it were going to war. An Army unit was airborne to control the main fairport. Within 2 days we had 8,000 troops en route. Within 2 weeks 33 U.S. military ships and 22,000 troops had arrived, and more than 300 military helicopters delivered millions of pounds of food and water. The morning after the earthquake the president proclaimed that we were going "to respond in Port-au-Prince robustly and immediately," which gave the entire government clarity of purpose. (Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2017). One week after Maria hit Puerto Rico, seriously affecting the lives of 3.4 million U.S. citizens, supplies were still not flowing. A few days later just 4,400 government employees were participating in federal operations to assist the devastated island, and about 40 helicopters were helping to deliver food.
The "conversation" between Carmin Yulin Cruz, Mayor of San Juan, and President Trump might be indicative of the role empathy played in our response to the devastation. Ten days after the hurricane hit, Mayor Cruz pleaded for more federal assistance, saying: "We are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency and the bureaucracy. This is what we got last night: four pallets of water, three pallets of meals and twelve pallets of infant food - which I gave to the people of Comerio, where people are drinking out of a creek. I am done being polite. I am done being politically correct. I am mad as hell." Trump's response, tweeted from his New Jersey golf club, was: "Such poor leadership ability by the mayor of San Juan and others in Puerto Rico who are not able to get their workers to help. They want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort," while referring to Puerto Ricans critical of the response as "politically motivated ingrates."
Even though analysts may not concede a definitive relationship between a leader's empathy and the intensity of a response to the needs of a population, these two examples inescapably suggest that such a connection exists. President Obama's compassion for the plight of the people of Haiti prompted a massive outpouring of assistance. While hurricanes Harvey and Irma did tremendous damage in Texas and Florida, existing infrastructure support systems kicked in automatically. However, Puerto Rico, an off-shore territory, required empathetic leadership from the top to counteract its total devastation. The consequential banter between President Trump and his critics on the island appeared to have affected our federal response. Mr. Trump seemed more consumed by his tweeted criticism of demonstrations by NFL players than by the calamity experienced by Puerto Ricans. It was only when others in his administration recognized the political fall-out of our tepid reaction that he was given a teleprompter speech designed to express his concerns. Unfortunately, his impassive delivery, lacking appropriate inflection, failed to convey sincere compassion for the victims' plight. Mr. Trump's consistent referral to the island's pre-existing financial problems, coupled with the enormous "budget-busting" cost of eventual reconstruction, and a referral to the "limited number of deaths" incurred when compared to those resulting from previous hurricanes elsewhere, highlighted the administration's insensitivity.
The question may well be asked whether leaders with significant narcissistic inclinations possess a demonstrable empathetic capacity. Empathy is a choice, and, coupled with politics, these choices can have significant consequences.
ARROGANCE AND IGNORANCE, A LETHAL COMBINATION
A little more than two years ago I published a letter chastising Congressional opponents agitating against ratification of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, reached in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran, China, France, Russia, United kingdom, United States, Germany, and the European Union. The political push-back reached a fevered pitch, even bringing Israel's prime minister to Washington to argue against it before Congress. My take on the conversation back then was that ignorance permeated the dialogue. Steadily increasing sanctions dating back to 1979, enhanced in 2006, after which they were also supported by Russia and China, had not resulted in slowing down Iran's nuclear enrichment program. In fact, by 2015 Iran was only 6 months away from developing the capability to field a nuclear weapon. Sanctions had already begun to unravel. This was a multi-lateral agreement. Our participation was not essential, although it did give the arrangement significantly greater emphasis.
Iran essentially agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges allowed to enrich uranium by 75% over a period of 10 years, while committing to not enrich uranium at a level sufficient to build a nuclear bomb for 15 years. Its nuclear reactor would also stop enriching uranium for at least 15 years. The International Atomic Energy Agency became the organization charged with insuring compliance. During the past two years most of the original opponents of this deal came around to agree that this narrow nuclear-focused agreement ultimately benefitted the region notwithstanding Iran's continued aggressive behavior in other ways.
The facts have not changed. The IAEA, all non-U.S. signatories, and our own cabinet members agree that Iran remains in full compliance with the agreement. Ehud Barak, former prime minister and defense minister of Israel, known for his hawkish views on Iran, agreed that this nuclear agreement, being a "done deal," had been beneficial both to Israel's security and to reducing the volatility in the region. He referred to it as a "bad deal, but necessary."
Enter our 45th president. On October 13 Donald Trump announced that he, contrary to the advice of all relevant, intelligent, members of his administration, would not certify Iran's compliance with the agreement, something he by law is required to do every 90 days. While asserting that he knew better than anyone else, but showing little or no understanding of the content of the deal, he gave Congress 60 days to re-impose the sanctions that were lifted in exchange for Iran to cap its nuclear activities, or do nothing. He has been adamant hat if Congress decided not to act he would terminate the agreement altogether. Although his staff attempted to put a positive spin on his announcement, this arrogant, ignorant, unilateral action could have serious consequences.
If hawks in Congress push through a law demanding further concessions, Iran may be provoked to abandon the deal, eject inspectors, and accelerate its nuclear program. Given their capability two years ago, it could likely produce a bomb within a relatively short period of time. Iran as an aggressive state without nuclear weapons in its perceived sphere of influence is, at best, annoying. Iran as an aggressive state with nuclear capacity is outright dangerous. It would escalate tensions in the Gulf and increase the risks to our military facilities in the region. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt among others may also feel pressured to acquire a nuclear capability.
Britain, France, the European Union, Russia and China have already announced that they will continue to support the agreement as written. They deplored Trump's move as unwarranted and dangerously destabilizing. Our relationship with China may be affected as well, since the latter's attempt to mediate between us and North Korea becomes increasingly more difficult. Pyongyang will have even fewer reasons to negotiate an agreement with us when it recognizes that we lack credibility, and could walk away from it whenever we want to. As a consequence, we could find ourselves fighting nuclear antagonists on two fronts.
Since his inauguration, we have become aware that President Trump shoots from the hip and makes a point of ignoring the advice of seasoned, rational people. We already exited the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Paris Climate Accord. We recently announced that we would exit UNESCO, and we are soon expected to leave NAFTA. Few of these moves apparently involved intelligent dialogue with stake holders. During an interview with Megyn Kelly last year Mr. Trump claimed that he was too busy to bother reading books, insisting he read passages, or sometimes chapters. John Meacham, accomplished biographer of numerous presidents, observed that "Trump came to the office warped by self-absorption, conceit, and a narcissistic certitude that he is always right while the rest of the world, unless it is busy flattering him, is wrong, even hostile." (John Meacham, "The Strength of Humility," Vanity Fair, October, 2017.) His bellicose rants designed to antagonize North Korea, and his imminent decision to exit the Iran Deal are conceived in a mindset of that same narcissistic arrogance and evident ignorance that is not just dangerous, it could kill us.
No wonder Congress is considering legislation that would bar the president from launching a first strike without a declaration from Congress. As things stand now, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 gives the president sole control. He could unleash the apocalyptic force of the American nuclear arsenal on a whim, within minutes.
God help us!
Iran essentially agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges allowed to enrich uranium by 75% over a period of 10 years, while committing to not enrich uranium at a level sufficient to build a nuclear bomb for 15 years. Its nuclear reactor would also stop enriching uranium for at least 15 years. The International Atomic Energy Agency became the organization charged with insuring compliance. During the past two years most of the original opponents of this deal came around to agree that this narrow nuclear-focused agreement ultimately benefitted the region notwithstanding Iran's continued aggressive behavior in other ways.
The facts have not changed. The IAEA, all non-U.S. signatories, and our own cabinet members agree that Iran remains in full compliance with the agreement. Ehud Barak, former prime minister and defense minister of Israel, known for his hawkish views on Iran, agreed that this nuclear agreement, being a "done deal," had been beneficial both to Israel's security and to reducing the volatility in the region. He referred to it as a "bad deal, but necessary."
Enter our 45th president. On October 13 Donald Trump announced that he, contrary to the advice of all relevant, intelligent, members of his administration, would not certify Iran's compliance with the agreement, something he by law is required to do every 90 days. While asserting that he knew better than anyone else, but showing little or no understanding of the content of the deal, he gave Congress 60 days to re-impose the sanctions that were lifted in exchange for Iran to cap its nuclear activities, or do nothing. He has been adamant hat if Congress decided not to act he would terminate the agreement altogether. Although his staff attempted to put a positive spin on his announcement, this arrogant, ignorant, unilateral action could have serious consequences.
If hawks in Congress push through a law demanding further concessions, Iran may be provoked to abandon the deal, eject inspectors, and accelerate its nuclear program. Given their capability two years ago, it could likely produce a bomb within a relatively short period of time. Iran as an aggressive state without nuclear weapons in its perceived sphere of influence is, at best, annoying. Iran as an aggressive state with nuclear capacity is outright dangerous. It would escalate tensions in the Gulf and increase the risks to our military facilities in the region. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt among others may also feel pressured to acquire a nuclear capability.
Britain, France, the European Union, Russia and China have already announced that they will continue to support the agreement as written. They deplored Trump's move as unwarranted and dangerously destabilizing. Our relationship with China may be affected as well, since the latter's attempt to mediate between us and North Korea becomes increasingly more difficult. Pyongyang will have even fewer reasons to negotiate an agreement with us when it recognizes that we lack credibility, and could walk away from it whenever we want to. As a consequence, we could find ourselves fighting nuclear antagonists on two fronts.
Since his inauguration, we have become aware that President Trump shoots from the hip and makes a point of ignoring the advice of seasoned, rational people. We already exited the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Paris Climate Accord. We recently announced that we would exit UNESCO, and we are soon expected to leave NAFTA. Few of these moves apparently involved intelligent dialogue with stake holders. During an interview with Megyn Kelly last year Mr. Trump claimed that he was too busy to bother reading books, insisting he read passages, or sometimes chapters. John Meacham, accomplished biographer of numerous presidents, observed that "Trump came to the office warped by self-absorption, conceit, and a narcissistic certitude that he is always right while the rest of the world, unless it is busy flattering him, is wrong, even hostile." (John Meacham, "The Strength of Humility," Vanity Fair, October, 2017.) His bellicose rants designed to antagonize North Korea, and his imminent decision to exit the Iran Deal are conceived in a mindset of that same narcissistic arrogance and evident ignorance that is not just dangerous, it could kill us.
No wonder Congress is considering legislation that would bar the president from launching a first strike without a declaration from Congress. As things stand now, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 gives the president sole control. He could unleash the apocalyptic force of the American nuclear arsenal on a whim, within minutes.
God help us!
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
WILL SEPARATIST MOVEMENTS LEAD TO FRAGMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION?
The "Peace of Westphalia," which was concluded in 1648, ended the 30 years' war fought between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Europe, and the 80 years' war between Spain and the Dutch Republic. This historic event was said to have created a basis for the concept of national self determination.
On January 8,1918, 270 years later, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson presented his "Fourteen Points" speech, a statement of principles for peace to be used for negotiations to end World War I. His proclamation reiterated that "the right of people to self determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law," a fundamental concept that was later also prominently included in Article I of the U.N. Charter. However, the European Union, a supra-national organization, founded in Maastricht, The Netherlands, in 1993, has remained very quiet on the subject. It essentially pledges to defend the sovereignty of its member states as they are, and jealously guards against the Union's cohesion.
Although th E.U. has seen significant growth since its inception, it has recently appeared to be moving from one emergency to the next. The planned British exit (Brexit), the migration an refugee crisis, fiscal problems in several of the predominantly Southern European countries, and the festering populist opposition to relinquishing sovereignty to Brussels, count among the most important. Enter Catalonia's regional parliament voting to declare the region an independent republic, a revolutionary act, which prompted Spain's national government to assert control over the area, dissolve the Catalan parliament, sack its leaders (one of which, Carles Puigdemont, promptly left for Belgium, which offered him asylum), and to encourage 300,000-plus Catalans to join a demonstration for national unity, and we might easily conclude that this development could well lead to a further fragmentation within the European Union.
While Catalonia's drive for independence has recently captured most of the headlines, we ought to remember that Brexit dominated the discussion in 2016, as did the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. Brexit negotiations are still progressing, be it very slowly, but Scotland will likely initiate another attempt at acquiring independence in 2019, once Brexit is concluded. (Scotland voted 62 percent to 38 percent to remain in the E.U.). Moreover, the consequences for Ireland, and the complex predicament of Gibraltar, a British territory isolated on the Southern tip of Spain, which voted 93% to remain in the Union, are by no means clear. However, thus far few observers suggest that any of this will lead to further unraveling of the European Union.
While Catalonia is featured in the headlines, and while some assert that the disturbances in the region contain some of the same elements that contributed to Spain's civil war in the 1930s, which led to the lengthy dictatorship of Francisco Franco, the Catalan independence movement, although currently the most prominent, is by no means the only identifiable European separatist campaign in existence. In March 2014, 89 percent of the voting public in Venice, Italy, declared in favor of independence. This led to the foundation of a party called "Veneto Si." South Tyrol, which prior to WWI belonged to Austria, became part of Italy after the Treaty of Versailles concluded. The majority of its population, 70 percent, still speaks German, and still prefers to be aligned with Austria. Similar situations have cropped up in other countries, including in Denmark, which has the Faroe Islands, France, which has Corsica and shares the Basque region with Spain, Belgium has Flanders, Germany Bavaria, and Ukraine the Donetsk People's Republic. Thus far none of these appear to have prompted an increased fear of fragmentation among the E.U.'s 28 member states.
History tends to suggest that the consequences of active separatist movements, while threatening cohesion, may, in fact, not turn out that way. Some of the most contentious, and substantially successful drives for independence in Europe actually resulted in expanded E.U. membership. The 1992 dissolution of Yugoslavia created seven new states, five of which have already applied for full E.U. membership. The 1993 breakup of Czechoslovakia, which created the Czech Republic and Slovakia, ultimately resulted in both countries becoming full-fledged members.
One campaign tactic pro separatist politicians like to use is to suggest that a newly independent state can continue to exist inside the E.U. without suffering any consequences. However, since the E.U. is pledged to respect the sovereignty of its existing members, it will support the heavy-handed efforts by national governments to subdue separatist attempts. Additionally, the process allowing new states to join the union requires unanimous consent of all existing member states. None of these have an incentive to reward a movement that could at some later date be encouraged to fester within their own boundaries.
Given today's turbulence contesting traditional governmental authority, we should probably consider revisiting a fundamental question: "What is a nation in the 21st Century?" (See Michael Goldfarb in the N.Y. Times International Edition of October 28, 2017). Is it a country? Is it the same as a state? Does it need to be ethnically cohesive? What does national sovereignty really mean? Albert Rivera, leader of the Spanish "Citizens Party," former member of the Catalan Parliament, decidedly anti-independence, and one of the organizers of the demonstration for national unity, puts it this way: "Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country and Europe is our future."
Many Europeans may agree with his sentiment.
On January 8,1918, 270 years later, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson presented his "Fourteen Points" speech, a statement of principles for peace to be used for negotiations to end World War I. His proclamation reiterated that "the right of people to self determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law," a fundamental concept that was later also prominently included in Article I of the U.N. Charter. However, the European Union, a supra-national organization, founded in Maastricht, The Netherlands, in 1993, has remained very quiet on the subject. It essentially pledges to defend the sovereignty of its member states as they are, and jealously guards against the Union's cohesion.
Although th E.U. has seen significant growth since its inception, it has recently appeared to be moving from one emergency to the next. The planned British exit (Brexit), the migration an refugee crisis, fiscal problems in several of the predominantly Southern European countries, and the festering populist opposition to relinquishing sovereignty to Brussels, count among the most important. Enter Catalonia's regional parliament voting to declare the region an independent republic, a revolutionary act, which prompted Spain's national government to assert control over the area, dissolve the Catalan parliament, sack its leaders (one of which, Carles Puigdemont, promptly left for Belgium, which offered him asylum), and to encourage 300,000-plus Catalans to join a demonstration for national unity, and we might easily conclude that this development could well lead to a further fragmentation within the European Union.
While Catalonia's drive for independence has recently captured most of the headlines, we ought to remember that Brexit dominated the discussion in 2016, as did the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. Brexit negotiations are still progressing, be it very slowly, but Scotland will likely initiate another attempt at acquiring independence in 2019, once Brexit is concluded. (Scotland voted 62 percent to 38 percent to remain in the E.U.). Moreover, the consequences for Ireland, and the complex predicament of Gibraltar, a British territory isolated on the Southern tip of Spain, which voted 93% to remain in the Union, are by no means clear. However, thus far few observers suggest that any of this will lead to further unraveling of the European Union.
While Catalonia is featured in the headlines, and while some assert that the disturbances in the region contain some of the same elements that contributed to Spain's civil war in the 1930s, which led to the lengthy dictatorship of Francisco Franco, the Catalan independence movement, although currently the most prominent, is by no means the only identifiable European separatist campaign in existence. In March 2014, 89 percent of the voting public in Venice, Italy, declared in favor of independence. This led to the foundation of a party called "Veneto Si." South Tyrol, which prior to WWI belonged to Austria, became part of Italy after the Treaty of Versailles concluded. The majority of its population, 70 percent, still speaks German, and still prefers to be aligned with Austria. Similar situations have cropped up in other countries, including in Denmark, which has the Faroe Islands, France, which has Corsica and shares the Basque region with Spain, Belgium has Flanders, Germany Bavaria, and Ukraine the Donetsk People's Republic. Thus far none of these appear to have prompted an increased fear of fragmentation among the E.U.'s 28 member states.
History tends to suggest that the consequences of active separatist movements, while threatening cohesion, may, in fact, not turn out that way. Some of the most contentious, and substantially successful drives for independence in Europe actually resulted in expanded E.U. membership. The 1992 dissolution of Yugoslavia created seven new states, five of which have already applied for full E.U. membership. The 1993 breakup of Czechoslovakia, which created the Czech Republic and Slovakia, ultimately resulted in both countries becoming full-fledged members.
One campaign tactic pro separatist politicians like to use is to suggest that a newly independent state can continue to exist inside the E.U. without suffering any consequences. However, since the E.U. is pledged to respect the sovereignty of its existing members, it will support the heavy-handed efforts by national governments to subdue separatist attempts. Additionally, the process allowing new states to join the union requires unanimous consent of all existing member states. None of these have an incentive to reward a movement that could at some later date be encouraged to fester within their own boundaries.
Given today's turbulence contesting traditional governmental authority, we should probably consider revisiting a fundamental question: "What is a nation in the 21st Century?" (See Michael Goldfarb in the N.Y. Times International Edition of October 28, 2017). Is it a country? Is it the same as a state? Does it need to be ethnically cohesive? What does national sovereignty really mean? Albert Rivera, leader of the Spanish "Citizens Party," former member of the Catalan Parliament, decidedly anti-independence, and one of the organizers of the demonstration for national unity, puts it this way: "Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country and Europe is our future."
Many Europeans may agree with his sentiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)