Balance of Power

I don’t recall whether it was in history class or in my analyst class where I came to an understanding that today still lingers in my bones. The most dangerous times in history are those where there is an impending shift in the balance of power. This is when conflicts start. The declining party, when it senses that the shift in power is eminent, wants to move while it still is on top. The rising power, on the other hand wants to accelerate the growth of its strength, anticipating an advance by the weakening one. This principal applies not only to shifts in military might but also to economic standing. Navigating this transition without catastrophic results is a delicate and difficult matter. Today we are in such a time. It is broadly predicted that China will soon surpass the US in GDP. Indian, and in fact, Asian economies in general, are growing while globalization is lowering the economic potency of individual countries not to mention the economic impact of rapid advances in technology. Information processing is making administrative and managerial labor obsolete and robots are replacing factory workers. And who knows what chaos artificial intelligence will bring. I am not predicting doom but pointing out that to navigate these waters, we must move cautiously and with great insight and skill. On another front, there is also a demographic shift in the balance. The world is becoming more diverse and less Eurocentric and white. Vice President Pence, in his address to NATO the other day talked about our need to protect (from whom?) our common heritage, ideologies and values. Our origins as a country (if you want to discount our natives and our slaves) are indeed Western European. However, having said that, I always thought that our strength stems from being a unique conglomeration of many people and our diversity, not our Europeanism. I remember years ago eating at a hibachi table where sitting with us were two elderly couples. The table was set with chop sticks. One of the old guys called the waiter over and asked for a fork and said to his friend, he wanted to eat with an American utensil. I wanted to tell him that a fork is a European utensil and no more American than chopsticks. I decided not to because he wouldn’t understand. In his mind America is a culturally European, white, Christian nation. The birth rate in Western Europe and that of our white populations is declining and population growth is one of the prerequisites for economic grows. In fact I read about advertisements on TV in Denmark encouraging women to have more babies. Though in this country there is a modest population growth. It is primarily due to immigration and a larger birth rate among our non-European immigrant populations. In our country it is predicted that the pure white population will become a minority in a couple of decades if not sooner. (Currently if one even has only a small fraction of African blood running through their vanes, they are not considered white but black. I think if we categorized race correctly, for example: an individual whose paternal grandmother was black and the other grandmother along with both grandfathers were white, and they were categorized as white, then it will take longer before white people become a minority.) The older white people are frightened of losing their superior position and unfortunately politicians are stoking these fears hinting that the slowdown in some of their opportunities is due, not to advances in technology and shifts in market forces but to the darker population of the world. In response to these fears, over the last decade there has been a rise in xenophobia throughout the Western World including our country. When it comes to the military however, I don’t see and impending shift in the balance of power. Yes, China is building up its naval forces but we still spend more than the next 6 countries combined (we spend $596Bn/yr., China $215Bn, Saudi Arabia $87Bn and Russia $66Bn). We have the largest nuclear arsenal by far and our troops by far are more broadly distributed over the surface of this earth than any of our potential adversaries. The real danger, as I see it is the economic shift in the balance of power. The “darkening of the world”, though real, doesn’t present a threat to anyone unless one feels there is a strong advantage to being white and that is slipping away. Though there is much made of the “war between the West and Islam”, Islam poses no threat to the West. It has no economic standing and no military to speak of (though our close ally, Saudi Arabia has both). However, with the unrest in the Middle East, it makes Islam a great justification for limiting the further browning of our countries and it distracts from having to deal with real issues. So how do we navigate this transition without catastrophic results? President Trump used a brilliant strategy to win the election. The one word titles; Lying Ted, Little Marco, Un-energetic Jeb, Crooked Hillary, extremist Islamic terrorism, etc. etc. This worked because the words were repeated ad nauseam until every time we heard something from Ted, we instantly questioned whether it was a lie. He had to prove he was telling the truth instead of we proving that he was lying. These words will rouse his base but certainly they will not keep our Country great nor make the world a better and safer place to live. (He seems to be continuing this strategy with the “fake news” line). Already President Trump is starting to see the unintended consequences of governing recklessly by slogans. He envisions Jews and Israel as part of the “West”. Having stoked the Alt-Right with its Neo-Fascist tendencies, the President is starting to see through the increased anti-Semitic acts, that they don’t see eye to eye with him. Some in the Alt-Right along with the European Nationalist movements maybe now don’t see Jews as “one of us” as he does, but as “the other”. Nationalism is now on the rise in Mexico and it is not out of the question that we will be replaced by China or Russia as Mexico’s favorite friend. Then, when we have and adversary on our border, the military balance of power will indeed have started to shift. Now is the time to put sloganeering aside. It’s fine while your campaigning, but now it is ever more important for the President to be a well informed and a good, clear thinker while surrounding himself with people with demonstrated skills and to “think twice and act once” (though given the delicacy and grave danger of this sifting balance of power, maybe it should be, think ten times and act once).

1 State/2 State Solutions

In the first joint news conference with Netanyahu and President Trump, the president said that “so I’m looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one both parties like”. In principal I’m OK with that. The only problem is that a one-state solution is impractical but I will give President Trump the benefit of a doubt. If some form of a one state solution is agreeable to both states, why not. Netanyahu on the other hand, said that he is OK with a two state solution as long as two conditions are met. “First the Palestinians must recognize a Jewish state.” What does it mean to be a Jewish state? He did not say the State of Israel. That’s pretty straight forward. I think at this point everyone recognizes the State of Israel. In this statement, is “Jewish” meant as an ethnicity or a religion? Is he calling for a theocracy or and ethnocracy where the conditions of the citizens depends on either religion or ethnicity and in either case non-Jews are second class citizens whether they are in the minority or majority. “Second, in any peace agreement, Israel retains the overriding security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River”. Does he mean that Israeli police and army will be in the new Palestinian country? I don’t know how else “security control” can be achieved. I imagine recognizing Israel as a Jewish state may be doable, given that there is a Palestine next door, Non-Jews can emigrate there. The second condition, however, in my mind sounds like an occupation. If you agree, we will let you have a name and stop building on your land unless building on your land is deemed necessary for our security. And, by the way, we will continue to occupying you. I don’t believe any responsible leader would agree to this. So I guess under these requirements there will never be a two state solution. So Israel will continue antagonizing the Palestinians, evoking unrest and building settlements in the West bank and Jerusalem and over time they will have the one Jewish state. Years ago I saw an interview of a Palestinian where the reporter asked why don’t you try a peaceful, Gandhi like approach to end the occupation? The interviewee responded that all the leaders of peaceful resistance are in Israeli jails.

Our Southern Border

I watched the press conference with President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada during which our President talked about borders needing to be secure and trade deals made more fair, saying our southern border was not secure and NAFTA not fair. I thought back to a physics principal. The greater the pressure between two sides of a barrier, the stronger the barrier needs to be. So if there is an increase in the imbalance of pressure, you have two ways to deal with the situation. You can either increase the barrier or decrease the pressures difference. This analogy can be applied to our southern border. The difference in pressure is the imbalance in the economies of the US and Mexico. The greater the difference in the living conditions the stronger the urge to migrate from the poorer to the richer country. Here too there are two solutions. Decrease the pressure by improving the living conditions in Mexico or build a stronger border. To verify the theory, during this last major economic downturn, more people left the US over the southern border than entered. President Trump chose not only to increase the barrier but to increase the pressure by reducing some advantages in trade we’ve allowed Mexico. As Mexico’s economy slips further, there will be such turmoil that we may not be able to build a wall tall enough to protect our interests. Certainly “the wall” is one solution but a better one may be to continue to improve Mexico’s economy. Turbulence in Mexico, caused by a weakened economy can bring into power a government sympathetic to a foreign interest and to stop this will take more than a wall but maybe an armed conflict. What I don’t think President Trump realizes that our foreign aid and our trade imbalances are not altruistic but serve a national interest. Raising standards of living in Third World countries creates markets for goods we can produce. Our main role in NATO is not to protect Europe but to protect ourselves. It allows a line of defense at the border of a potential enemy instead of on our border. The same can be said of our troops in South Korea and Japan. We are investing in our interest, the fact that it also helps another nation is secondary. I hope that I am wrong and the President understands this and all the bluster is to stoke his base which does not understand the nuances of international relations and everything will be fine.

The Global Christian Right

The other day I saw an article by Ivo Oliveira copied into FLIPBOARD from Politico.eu entitled “How Russia became the leader of the global Christian right”. And a bell went off in my head. In it he cites an old statement Pat Buchanan, an intellectual of the Christian Right made, praising Putin, writing “In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia’s flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity”. There has been much debate about the mystery of our President’s affinity for Russia. Certainly there is little criticism of Russia among President Trump’s constituency. Many, if not most of the followers of President Trump are rural Evangelical Fundamentalists and they may be translating “make America great again” into make America a traditional, white, Christian Country again. Russia certainly a white country, is advancing Christian Fundamentalist values, restricting homosexuality and soon banning abortion. Thus, in Putin they may see an ally. If one looks through a White Christian lens at they may want Russia, and not Western Europe or any of the other parts of the world as their dearest friend, one sees that Europe, though white, is becoming ever more secular and less white (though the Nativists are trying, with some success, to reverse both trends). Mexico nor South America, though Christian (however, Evangelicals don’t consider Catholics true Christians) are not altogether white. Asia certainly is not white. If you look at this on a global scale and if indeed there is a movement to put the Christian traditions and the white population back in control, then the “War on Radical Islamic Terrorism” makes total sense and all the moves to demonize Islam, stop immigration, and control the Muslim population makes sense. Then there is a common, global enemy to rally the world to a common cause. My question now is? Do Vladimir Putin and our President each sees himself as the head or his loyal follower, of a global Christian Right. In truth I think each may see the other only as a means to their end. We shall see.

Yes, Islam is Also an Abrahamic Religion

One of the misconceptions of Islam promoted by much of the Right and some media is that it is not one of the Abrahamic religions. After all if one is pushing for a war between Islam and the West, the more different we see Islam, the easier it is to demonize and fight its believers. First, I want again to say that I am not an expert on Islam nor am I a particularly devout Muslim though I know enough about it to recognize an intentional misrepresentation or just an innocent misunderstanding of Islam. I am not much of a reader, though I have a general interest in religions and philosophy. When I worked on my half hour ride to and from work, I would listen to lectures on religion and philosophy along with a few on economics, science, and history bought from The Teaching Company. These were university level, and in the case of religion non-theological lectures. Each course typically consisted of about 20 to 30 lectures each lasting between 30 to 45 minutes each, on cassettes (in the dark ages) and more recently on CDs and DVDs. I bought courses on each major religion, included Judaism, Christianity, Islam (given by John Esposito of the American University in Washington), Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism. I also listened to courses such as Augustine: Philosopher and Saint, The World Religions: Beliefs, Practices and Histories, Ancient Mediterranean Religions, Ancient Religions of the Americas, Religions of Sub Saharan Africa, History of the Bible, the Story of the Bible, Philosophy of Religion. Again, though I don’t consider myself and expert, I have had more than a passing interest in all religions and a familiarity with the history and faith of Islam. A while ago I watched a program on PBS “World” entitled “Three Faiths, One God”. Its main thrust was to point out the common history of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam and highlight the similarities in beliefs and differences in culture. There was a diversity of speakers including a couple of Rabbis and Imams, a Catholic priest and several ministers. I find it interesting (though I was pretty much aware of most of what they spoke off) that much of the media, when speaking of Western religions, speaks of “Judeo/Christian religions”, exclude Islam, thus suggesting it is something else. We have a bookstore in a town next to ours where the exclusion shows up in spades. A few years ago, as my wife was shopping for a book, I happened to wonder into the religion and philosophy section where there were many Books and scriptures of all common religions and a few not so common ones. One could read about Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism and Zaroastroism but not a single one on Islam. When I asked a clerk where I could find anything on Islam, she said Islam is in the political section since it is not considered a religion. Recently I went into the same shop and noticed that there were no books on Islam even in the political section. Again I asked a clerk whether I could get a book on Islam, she said they do carry one but it was sold out at the moment but she could get it for me. I was a book on Islam by Glen Beck. The book store is olocated about 30 miles outside of Boston and not in the rural South. A few decades ago, my wife and I were on vacation in Tangier, Morocco. Traveling through the markets you are approached by a barrage of mostly boys and young men looking to be hired as guides. Finally we decided for the sake of peace and quiet to hire an older gentleman (he turned out to indeed be a gentleman). As we walked through various streets of Tangier whenever we ran across a printed piece of paper on the street, he would pick it up and drop it at the next trash can. After a while I asked him why he did this. He said that most printed papers have a name of a person on it and since most names have a prophet’s name as their origin, stepping on them would be disrespectful. He explained that all prophets, not only of the Koran, but also the Old Testament, are revered by Muslims and recognized as prophets of the one God. So prophets like Jesus (recognized as a most important prophet but not divine as nether was Mohamed), John, Jacob, Abraham, Moses even more obscure ones like Jeremiah and Jedidiah are revered. In fact the Name Isa, Arabic for Jesus and Musa, Arabic for Moses are not uncommon in the Arab world. A few years ago an Irish American couple, friends of ours, went to Turkey on vacation. One of the places their guide took them was a shrine to the Virgin Mary on top of a hill. Most Westerners do not realize that Islam recognizes the virgin birth of Jesus and considers Mary as a very important and saintly person in her own right. She is probably more revered by Islam than any Christian faith except Catholicism. One of the reasons for much of the misrepresentation is the fact that, unlike the Bible, the Koran is written in a poetic form and poetry requires interpretation. Meanings in poetry are not limited to words but also rely on rhyme and cadence. For this reason, a Koran written in Arabic, the language of the original, is the only recognized holly book. Most of the English translations of the Koran were written by people unsympathetic to Islam who wanted to put it into a bad light. Unfortunately, even well intended readers, depending on which translation they read, would come away with different impressions.

Radical Islamic Terrorism

I listened to President Trump address CENCOM today where he very slowly and emphatically said the words “Radical Islamic Terrorism” emphasizing that his predecessor refused to utter these seemingly sacred words. I guess, radical Wahhabi terrorism or better yet, radical Jihadi Salafi terrorism, doesn’t sound quite as scary. Last weekend I watched a Bill Mahar Show. His guest was Sam Harris who, like Bill is an Atheist and a vehement Islamophobe. They started with their usual attack on Islam (being very aggressive opponents of all organized religions and whereas Islam, presented by many as an enemy, is the easiest religion to attack). They spoke of “Radical Islamic Terrorists” and how Islam encourages the thinking that leads to their horrific behavior. During their discussion they said something to the effect that if the Mormon Church preached cruel behavior, we would call out the Mormon Church and if the church of Scientology killed people for making cartoons of L Ron Hubbard, we would speak out about the evils of Scientology. It’s interesting that they would be very focused in their criticism. In neither case did they say they would condemn the evils of Christianity but recognized that neither speaks for Christians but is a small sect within Christianity. When James Coney, Head of the Lords Liberation Army was reigning terror in Africa in the name of God, we did not read of this as being a Christian act. Or when the Westboro Baptist Church demonstrates at the burial of a gay fallen soldier, shouting all sorts of obscenities, we know that they don’t reflect Baptist dogma or any teachings of the Christian Bible. When Reverend Jones burned the Koran, it was not Christians who burned it, or even Protestants but a very small splinter of a small splinter of Christians. Why is it then that we cannot apply the same reasoning to acts of splinter groups, as horrific as they are, and not Islam? We don’t say that ISIS is a Jihadi splinter of the Salafi which in turn are sect of the Wahhabi who are Sunni Muslims not Shia. Or that Osama Bin Laden was a Wahhabi (State religion in Saudi Arabia). I guess one thing Sam Harris and Bill Mahar would say is that the terrorists do it in the name of Allah (The Arabic word for the God, the same God worshiped by Jews, Christians and Muslims). Well, James Coney and Reverend Jones along with the Westboro Baptists would say they, through their actions, are also serving God. Sam and Bill’s main agenda is to promote Atheism and attacking Islam is a cheap and easy way to get there. Others do it for various political reasons. Viewing Muslims as evil, it becomes easier to view Palestinians as evil and thus easier to accept Israel’s occupation. Or promoting fear to gain ever more power is another reason. A bunch of guys on camels with machine guns running around in the Middle East (I take some poetic license here) wouldn’t as scary as over a billion Muslims spread all over the world wanting to take it. In our “war on terror” or more specifically “radical Islamic terrorism” hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and we have spent over a trillion dollars.