HISTORY LESSON?

In every crisis since WW II, those eager for a military response are apt to resurrect their version of history while calling up the old aphorism: ‘Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.’

Almost invariably, there is a villain, be it an individual, a country, or both, that is supposed to remind us of Hitler, Nazi Germany, and failed efforts at appeasing the aggressor. Now the designated villain is Putin; there is hand ringing over the ‘weakness” of the West that supposedly has encouraged his aggression. I even heard someone say, ‘this is the Sudetenland (which Hitler annexed early on) all over again.’

The point though is not whether history is “ignored”, but what lessons we learn. Perhaps we should look at the run-up to WWI and the aftermath of that terrible bloodletting, which had much to do with the rise of fascism. Imperialist competition over “spheres of influence” and control of markets underlay the vying scenarios of nationalist propaganda that fueled the outbreak of WWI. Afterward the crushing price and humiliation imposed by the victors begot the conditions that brought on WWII.

Much has changed and history can never really be replicated. But the themes of “spheres of influence” and the hubris of  “winners over losers” echo eerily in what’s going on now. So do the counter claims of strident nationalism.

Since the end of the Cold War, US presidents and their European allies have pushed military (NATO) and economic (European Union) fronts further to the East with no limits in sight. We are committed, as George H. W. Bush announced, to setting up a “new world order.” Its benefits to the people of European countries have been questionable, with austerity aggravating extreme inequality between and within nations. What is without question is the essential “leadership” of the US within the alliance, its expansive military presence, and the dominance of Western banking and monetary institutions over economic policy.

Russia for its part has developed its own oligarchy in the wake of the collapse of the USSR. Not surprisingly, it is unwilling to surrender its own national interests and pride by accepting the “new world order” on our terms.

Given conditions in much of Europe, unrest and popular protest are not unique to the Ukraine. When it occurs in Greece, or Cyprus, or Spain, or Italy, the powers that be in Europe simply say “live with it” and no Congressman demands US intervention. But big powers are not unwilling to play with fire when it serves their ambitions. The fuel for the fire is the appeal to nationalist antagonisms, but the underlying conflict is over “spheres of influence” and control. That, and the ultimate folly of imperialist war (cold or hot), are lessons I see in history.

SISYFUS AGAIN?

We hardly made it up the lowest reaches of the hill. Is it possible to slide back down into the Bush/Cheney abyss, or even lower?

In the NY Times (3/17/14), David Sanger musters the arguments of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Condoleezza Rice and the neocon pundits in and around the Administration itself: ‘we have a foreign policy disaster because Obama has made the US look weak, because of the reluctance to throw American military power into Syria, against Iran, and now into Ukraine against Russia.’

Echoes of the “news” stories by Times reporters Michael Gordon and Judith Miller leading up to the Iraq War — the neocons never quit pushing confrontation rather than diplomacy, promoting force and conflict, disrupting all efforts to find common grounds on any difficult problem. For them, the Cold War can’t be put to rest because the impossible dream remains: a US constructed “world order”, an “American Century”.

The fact is that every world power — Russia under Putin, or Britain under Thatcher, or the USA whether under Reagan or Obama — acts without anyone’s permission when it deems its “vital interests” directly challenged. Extreme nationalism is a plague whether it presents itself under Russian or Ukrainian banners or as the conceit of “American Exceptionalism”.

Neocons to the contrary, repeated failures at terrible cost have convinced most people that war, cold as well as hot, only makes matters more impossible. What a tragedy if barely begun efforts at negotiating some of the most difficult international problems were to be sabotaged in favor of a renewed Cold War!

I try not to let the voice of Cassandra take over my expectations. But there it is. Unbelievable. The wreckers who presided over economic collapse and disastrous wars have succeeded in making a shambles of even meager efforts at reform. Now the havoc they have wrought actually gives them the hope that they may soon take over the Senate as well as the House…. and what comes next?

DO YOU REMEMBER….

Granada? Panama? Nicaragua? Cuba? Guatemala? Chile? Iraq? Pakistan? Somalia? and how many more?

What country has staked out the world’s largest “sphere of influence”?  Which claims its “vital interests” are threatened to justify military intervention within sovereign nations in every part of the globe?

Putin claims a “vital interest” in Crimea. WE’RE SHOCKED!

Will imperial intrigues ever give way to the urgent need for cooperative attention to the problems that plague humanity? The last thing we need is a replay of the Cold War.

SAME OLD…SAME OLD

Somehow I don’t feel the urge any longer to say my 2 cents every time a new storm erupts in international power relations. It’s not that there isn’t a great deal to be said concerning all the important actors — their conflicting motives and the dangerous possibilities. But while things are always changing, so much is sickeningly the same. So much intrigue, posturing, and recklessness in the corridors of power…. all camouflaged as virtue on each side as against evil on the other.

The standoff in the Ukraine is reminiscent of crises that were once prelude to the monumentally tragic imperialist World War I. Hopefully, there is enough experience with the futility of war, enough hatred of war, so that today’s multiple crises may be contained politically and diplomatically. For that we’ll have to depend on the will and power of people everywhere. But an end to the games imperial powers play is not on the horizon, not mine anyway.

THE INVENTION OF WINGS

Sue Monk Kidd’s The Invention of Wings is wonderful. 

It’s a novel built around the actual life of Sarah Grimke and a fictional depiction of characters in the slave-holding Grimke family of Charleston, South Carolina. It recounts the evolution of Sarah and her sister, Angelina, into outstanding abolitionists and pioneers of women’s struggle for equality. At the same time, what drives the narrative is the fierce hatred of blacks against slavery, their burning desire for freedom, brought out especially in the experience of the slave, Hetty, who grew up with Sarah, and Hetty’s mother, Caroline. These are fully drawn characters, rich in creativity and imagination, with fertile minds and strong emotions.

Kidd probes much about human interactions: black slaves with whites, slaves with each other, women with women, women with men. She looks at differences in religious belief or lack thereof, including contradictions among Quaker abolitionists. It’s so much deeper and more thoughtful than The Help, which got so much attention a couple of years ago. True, the periods covered were different, but The Help lacked authenticity in depicting the relative role of black and white women in confronting the Jim Crow society. In my opinion, Kidd’s is a much richer book, and I hope it’s read and discussed as widely as The Help.

One thing that always bothers me about historical novels: it’s so hard to tell where history gives way and fiction takes over. In her “afterword”, Kidd gives a very direct accounting of what she knows and what she imagines. And the book puts it all together almost seamlessly.

PONDERING ISRAEL

Just finished reading Ari Shavit’s “best seller”, My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel. This book is full of contradictions, which Shavit tries to sort out. That’s what makes it interesting.

A fervent Zionist, Shavit acknowledges parts of an ugly past and present that are denied and sanitized in the “official” Zionist legend. He confirms the accounts of the “Nakba” (catastrophe) experienced by the Palestinians, the forcible and brutal record of conquest, expansion, repression and occupation still ongoing. Despite all that, his is a rhapsodic ode to Israel, as it has been and is. He believes the occupation of the West Bank should be ended, but he advises Palestinians to “get past” their preoccupation with the injustices inflicted on them. While he faults the Israeli government for its occupation policies, he fully supports its regional nuclear weapons monopoly and its uncompromising confrontation and demand for military action against Iran.

Beyond stating his personal objection to Israel’s occupation, Shavit might have considered what could bring it to an end. On this he offers no clue. Certainly the Israeli government and the settlers want the very opposite. That won’t change until there is strong counter pressure within Israel; and that, in turn, won’t happen without growing international pressure against the occupation and for the Palestinian right to self-determination. It also requires unceasing support for serious negotiations to reduce violence, prevent war with Iran, and create a climate in which peace becomes possible.

A recent column by Tom Friedman noted the rising potential of the worldwide boycott movement against Israel’s occupation. That’s notable in that Friedman generally advocates for US and Israeli hegemonic interests in the Middle East. (I often take issue with his columns and, in fact, disagree with many comments in this one.) However, I agree with Friedman that the “demand that Palestinians halt all ‘incitement’ — but that Israel be free to keep building settlements in their face — is not winning Israel friends in Europe or America. It is only energizing the boycotters.”

 He cites progress of the boycott: “Just recently, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that the Netherlands’ largest pension fund management company, PGGM, ‘has decided to withdraw all its investments from Israel’s five largest banks because they have branches in the West Bank and/or are involved in financing construction in the settlements.’ And The Jerusalem Post reported that Danske Bank, Denmark’s largest bank, has decided to boycott Israel’s Bank Hapoalim for 'legal and ethical' reasons related to its operating in the settlements."  Further from Friedman: “But my gut also tells me that the death of Mandela has left many of his followers looking for ways to honor his legacy and carry on his work. On some college campuses, they’ve found it: boycotting Israel until it ends the West Bank occupation.”

For speaking some truths about the past, and for his critical view of the settlers and continued occupation of the West Bank, Shavit is reviled by rightwing Zionists. But there is fulsome praise for his book from liberal partisans of Israel and almost all mainstream commentators. If you “google” for reviews of the book, the list is very long, but absent are commentaries from Palestinian and other Arab critics, who doubtless see Shavit’s glorification of Zionism as the dominant message of the narrative. A critical review by an Israeli, Noam Sheizaf, is a worthwhile counter to the media kudos.

PETE SEEGER 1919-2014

HOW JOYOUS,COURAGEOUS, AND WORTHWHILE ONE LIFE CAN BE...