The panel discussion was held on June 28, 2019 at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. Participants were Vanda Felbab-Brown, Jeffrey Feltman, and Shadi Hamid of Bookings, and Paul Wise of the Freeman Spogli Institute. Moderator: Suzanne Maloney, Brookings.
The concept of these militias was first introduced. They have their roots in the ISIS movement, and most of them are Muslim religious, Major ones today are the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Some are tribal in organization and are secular. The religious ones have a concept of justice that is put in practice through Shria law. There are two major types: Iranian allegiance to or Saudi Arabian allegiance to, the latter type having a mafia look. They are local--establishing regional checkpoints but some have support beyond a national boundary. Some exist in Africa, e.g., Nigeria.
The state government tends to regard them as terrorist challenging the legitimately recognized government (though some have established their own caliphate regime). This poses a dilemma to the NGOs such as in hospitals and groups like doctors-without-borders who want to administer to those in need of services or care in a geographical region, despite the fact that by some government the people they administer aid are regarded as criminals or terrorists.
Regarding the Near-East, American interests are cast in a short-range time-table of involvement whereas the Russians internationally and the Chinese in Africa are looking to retain regional relations over an undetermined length of time. Moreover, the US and its allies have compiled a terrorist list of militias, ones with which the US will not support nor condone. This means that the militias such as Hezbollah and Hamas are not regarded as legitimate governing agencies despite the services and organization they deliver to those of a geographical area. Indeed, the organization they provide to the region is regarded as terrorist and hence unrecognized in Western eyes, while the Russians and the Chinese are willing to engage in local entanglements with them. Accordingly, as the West pulls out, the Chinese or the Russians move in!
Importantly, as the panelists have observed while living amongst them, the militia groups have an attraction to the youth in the Middle East.
I came out of the auditorium where the discussion was conducted with a profound disgust that the West is missing out from exchanging with whole populations of people in the Near East and Africa, too--who would benefit from our developed Western civilization and with whom we could share--if only we were willing to bring them along through the educative process.
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Thursday, June 27, 2019
When a federal government has failed...-Seminar 1
Citizenry Attempts to Rebel against a Tyrannical Government
It has occurred to me that there's really no model agreed upon as to what should happen to a federal government when it has clearly failed--who should take over and what steps should be taken to set it aright for the sake of those who live under it.
Up to now in the history of mankind when a government virtually collapses revolution breaks out, pouring citizens into the streets, clamoring for change. Sometimes, the matter can be salvaged, as in the recent case in Hongkong, when the students balked over the city's administration's threat to send some detainees to the mainland of China to stand trial. The matter has been at least temporarily resolved, no Tinamin Square massacre will come about. But there more disastrous situations that call for resolve by reorganizing the entire administrative unit from top down.
I'm thinking of the current crisis in Venezuela that has lasted for months now. The current President simply won't step down despite his apparent loss in the national election. Instead, he has declared the victor of the election an enemy of the state! Meanwhile, the country languishes in turmoil where he has also refused to accept humanitarian aid from several countries concerned over the well-being of the citizenry. Various countries are trying to mediate the stalemate, but so far to no avail: the intransigence of the country's military generals in support of the would-be incumbent President has prevented his leave. And, the local currency spirals downward to practically being worthless!
What can be done in this situation?
An Ideal Remedy
In this day and age when nations frequently unite together to seek solutions to crisis situations that have arisen through war or threat of war or even by saber-rattling for the sake of restoring regional tranquility, one might think there is a well-worn path to some conflict resolution short of combat. True, there is the United Nations that could be appealed to for purposes of discussion and debate, short of imposing a solution. But that body's Security Council cannot even pass a recommended resolve should some permanent member dissent. If only it had some way to resolve conflicts among nations, but alas it can only lay bare the reasons for conflict in its halls.
Attempts to Mitigate Governmental Conflicts
The continent of Africa has established its African Union, an enforcement agency of recommended remedies to regional strife providing member states assent, Yet it seems limited in attaining the goals of regional stability in such wars as the Sudan and Somalia. I am under the impression that it's doing what it can considering the geographical extent of its territory, the entire continent.
Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that history shows us ways are available for resolve short of going to war.
For more than a century, the country of Turkey has made use of the military to step in and provide an interim national government when the civilian government has fallen prey. It attempted, I guess, recently but the President Lira Erdogan was able to quash it. The military rebellion may have been caused in large part by Erdogan's move in dramatic fashion to establish the preeminence of the Muslim religion in a state that once was religiously neutral. On the other hand, Egypt's military was able to oust its civilian government and supplant with a government that enables opposition parties to have a say in governmental policy decisions to an extent not possible in the corrupted government replaced.
The reasons why the military should have a major role in setting up the rules for a popular governance of the citizenry are that the military is charged with securing the assets of the country as well as defending the homeland and the military is essentially concerned to preserve, protect and be of service in the cause of peace, thereby having the status of being politically neutral.
I see that the Sudan situation is currently fluid: a council is being formed to include military and potentially governing interested parties.
In the next lecture: how groups can earn the right to declare a region of a country independent from its motherland and fashion a self-sufficient governing unit fir its territory.
Monday, June 24, 2019
Cato Institute Book Review: Tyranny Comes Home. Authors: Professors Coyne and Hall
On June 19, 2019 at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, the book Tyranny Comes Home was discussed as presented by its authors Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall.
They contend that the distinction of the military and the police force has been frequently overlooked such that military deployed methods and equipment have been brought into use domestically by police departments around the country. Particularly obvious is the use of cameras placed strategically on city streets to record the activities of citizenry in an area of high crime. I understand that London police have saturated the downtown with these cameras but have not incurred widespread negative opinion.
Anyway, the authors observe there really is no oversight agency to regulate the deployment of techniques that monitor or even curtail one's freedom in the daily routine of social living. They note that nonetheless waterboarding used by intelligent agencies have been banned from domestic use through a negative public opinion response.
These authors admit that the introduction into the domestic scene of coercive techniques in information-gathering may be effective but they ask, at what price to human freedom? "Bad people" will always be with us! Nonetheless, it would behoove us to be wary of practices the US military learns are used abroad from entering our shores. Even though the Chinese government may seek to control its people by examining the content of their cell phone communications, we should not follow their lead without first establishing some oversight of this, as any other, invasive technology upon our legitimate and non-violent activities.
Sad is the case when a policeman is found to have shot his suspect in an unarmed citizen encounter. There must be oversight to a policeman's use of force in such an instance.
----------------------------------------------------
But how about the apparent successful use of coercion in dealing with our country's allies and partners deployed by Trump? Should the US employ a similar economic penalty of the imposition of a tariff schedule the US announced effective against Mexico in dealing domestically with the problem of illegal immigration? That is to say, should employers who hire illegals be charged a penalty for their adhering to this practice? (Interestingly, when years ago the US encountered the problem of illegal immigration, it enacted just such a penalty that virtually stopped the illegal flow of immigrants into the country at the time!)
They contend that the distinction of the military and the police force has been frequently overlooked such that military deployed methods and equipment have been brought into use domestically by police departments around the country. Particularly obvious is the use of cameras placed strategically on city streets to record the activities of citizenry in an area of high crime. I understand that London police have saturated the downtown with these cameras but have not incurred widespread negative opinion.
Anyway, the authors observe there really is no oversight agency to regulate the deployment of techniques that monitor or even curtail one's freedom in the daily routine of social living. They note that nonetheless waterboarding used by intelligent agencies have been banned from domestic use through a negative public opinion response.
These authors admit that the introduction into the domestic scene of coercive techniques in information-gathering may be effective but they ask, at what price to human freedom? "Bad people" will always be with us! Nonetheless, it would behoove us to be wary of practices the US military learns are used abroad from entering our shores. Even though the Chinese government may seek to control its people by examining the content of their cell phone communications, we should not follow their lead without first establishing some oversight of this, as any other, invasive technology upon our legitimate and non-violent activities.
Sad is the case when a policeman is found to have shot his suspect in an unarmed citizen encounter. There must be oversight to a policeman's use of force in such an instance.
----------------------------------------------------
But how about the apparent successful use of coercion in dealing with our country's allies and partners deployed by Trump? Should the US employ a similar economic penalty of the imposition of a tariff schedule the US announced effective against Mexico in dealing domestically with the problem of illegal immigration? That is to say, should employers who hire illegals be charged a penalty for their adhering to this practice? (Interestingly, when years ago the US encountered the problem of illegal immigration, it enacted just such a penalty that virtually stopped the illegal flow of immigrants into the country at the time!)
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Pres. Trump tinkers with executive apparatus to promote one-man monarchy!
Today, President Trump inaugurates his campaign for the 2020 Presidential election. The first term of his Presidency has been marked by his attempts to establish a monarchical reign in the US, using aspects of the US Constitution as his springboard.
That the US Constitution can enable a President to act as a monarch I knew since I worked on fitting features of the US constitution for Russians who wanted it as a springboard for generating their own Constitution in the late 1980s. Indeed, aspects of the US Constitution were incorporated into that of their own, a Constitution still in effect in Russia today. In this item, however, I want to point to devices President Trump has made use of to place the Executive Branch of the US government in such paramount position as to approximate a monarchical form of government--seemingly, the only feature not of the US Constitution in its original form that blocks creating a monarchy being the Congressional hold over the budget: Congress must approve budgetary appropriations of the Executive departments.
Nonetheless, in the US, the Executive branch has whittled away the will of the other two branches of the US government--the judiciary and the Congress. (I leave it to historians of the US to demonstrate this conclusion.)
The features especial to Trump's move to make the Executive the overarching branch are (1) his use of the executive order, thereby circumventing the Congress to pass legislation establishing national policies and rules, and (2) his recent deployment of the tariff to gain foreign country compliance with his policies--The latter to "convince" the Mexican government to open its country to those immigrants seeking asylum from their own country of origin; or to convince them to return to their homeland.
What is more, he has even made inroads to erode Congress' control over the US government's budgeting. He has learned that he can cite some emergency existing in the land that causes budgetary plans to be revamped--as in the need he cites to complete building a wall to separate the US and the Mexican border.
Currently, he and his executive staff are trying to convince Congressional Republicans and his loyal voters that Iran is the government-culprit in attacking ships in Middle-eastern international waters. Republicans. since the Reagan era, have detested the Iranians and sought means to encourage the overthrow of its government. And, the drum beat goes on...to this day, even from the days of Cheney and the Second Iraq war.
That the US Constitution can enable a President to act as a monarch I knew since I worked on fitting features of the US constitution for Russians who wanted it as a springboard for generating their own Constitution in the late 1980s. Indeed, aspects of the US Constitution were incorporated into that of their own, a Constitution still in effect in Russia today. In this item, however, I want to point to devices President Trump has made use of to place the Executive Branch of the US government in such paramount position as to approximate a monarchical form of government--seemingly, the only feature not of the US Constitution in its original form that blocks creating a monarchy being the Congressional hold over the budget: Congress must approve budgetary appropriations of the Executive departments.
Nonetheless, in the US, the Executive branch has whittled away the will of the other two branches of the US government--the judiciary and the Congress. (I leave it to historians of the US to demonstrate this conclusion.)
The features especial to Trump's move to make the Executive the overarching branch are (1) his use of the executive order, thereby circumventing the Congress to pass legislation establishing national policies and rules, and (2) his recent deployment of the tariff to gain foreign country compliance with his policies--The latter to "convince" the Mexican government to open its country to those immigrants seeking asylum from their own country of origin; or to convince them to return to their homeland.
What is more, he has even made inroads to erode Congress' control over the US government's budgeting. He has learned that he can cite some emergency existing in the land that causes budgetary plans to be revamped--as in the need he cites to complete building a wall to separate the US and the Mexican border.
Currently, he and his executive staff are trying to convince Congressional Republicans and his loyal voters that Iran is the government-culprit in attacking ships in Middle-eastern international waters. Republicans. since the Reagan era, have detested the Iranians and sought means to encourage the overthrow of its government. And, the drum beat goes on...to this day, even from the days of Cheney and the Second Iraq war.
Thursday, June 6, 2019
A nation substantively committed to stability and peace should be final arbiter of any country's military legitimacy
I have been asked by one of my sponsoring groups that brought me back to Washington, DC for my considered opinion about who should have final say when a country's military no longer has the support of its citizenry. The issue arises because of attempts to establish a new government in Venezuela and by attempts to circumvent the pronouncements of the Sudanese generals on their timetable to hand over the government to civilians.
Now it seems to me that a country whose military budget is humongous in proportion to its overall budget overtime is clearly a candidate to pass judgment on some country's military might on the basis of two criteria: the stability of the government in managing the affairs of government, and the peace and tranquility its establishes and promotes across the world. The one nation that clearly lives by these two criteria in providing for its military is the United States.
And so I believe that the United States military is in position to aid and succor attempts by some country (including its own) to assure the peace and stability in both the handling areas of internal and external governmental control. It could make policy decisions that would involve alliances such as the African Union to implement its recommendations, e.g., as regarding the Sudanese military and its overall government. But the point is to establish a paradigm, a model, that might be useful for upgrading the military no longer respected by its people. In my way of thinking the military is protector not only of its citizenry but of the country's assets, whether publicly or privately owned. Whenever it loses the public's trust, it must be reorganized. with these two criteria in mind.
Now it seems to me that a country whose military budget is humongous in proportion to its overall budget overtime is clearly a candidate to pass judgment on some country's military might on the basis of two criteria: the stability of the government in managing the affairs of government, and the peace and tranquility its establishes and promotes across the world. The one nation that clearly lives by these two criteria in providing for its military is the United States.
And so I believe that the United States military is in position to aid and succor attempts by some country (including its own) to assure the peace and stability in both the handling areas of internal and external governmental control. It could make policy decisions that would involve alliances such as the African Union to implement its recommendations, e.g., as regarding the Sudanese military and its overall government. But the point is to establish a paradigm, a model, that might be useful for upgrading the military no longer respected by its people. In my way of thinking the military is protector not only of its citizenry but of the country's assets, whether publicly or privately owned. Whenever it loses the public's trust, it must be reorganized. with these two criteria in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)