The dispute between Japan and China over the ownership of the Senkaku islands continues to escalate.
Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao earlier today threatened Japan with "further action" if the captain of a Chinese fishing boat that rammed Japanese coast guard vessels last week is not released. Given that China has already canceled all high-level contacts with Japan, and broken off all on-going talks, the phrase "further action" could take on ominous overtones.
The real dispute over the islands has little to do with fishing rights, and a great deal to do with the vast gas and oil deposits which are believed to lie beneath the seabed in the area around the islands. It is becoming clear that China, repeating a pattern of behavior seen in the Spratly Islands of the South China Sea, sent the fishing boat into Japanese waters specifically to provoke a confrontation, which it is now seeking to exploit. This theory of deliberate provocation is bolstered by the convenient proximity to the anniversary of the 1931 Mukden Incident, which China still makes much of, even 80 years later. There too, much of the "public outrage" in China over this recent incident has a definite flavor of being orchestrated.
The Japanese, however, have their own agenda. In the first place, Japan desperately needs an oil source of its own. Japan requires a half-dozen supertankers full of crude oil per day in order to keep its economy running, oil that it has historically obtained through the Persian Gulf. But with Persian Gulf oil sources, and indeed all Middle East oil sources, fast becoming of ever more uncertain reliability, Japan very much needs a long-term solution.
In the second place, a confrontation with the Chinese now could serve as a casus belli for Japan to amend its post-war constitution and openly re-arm, especially given that any such re-armament would inevitably infuriate the Chinese in any case.
See earlier entry on this incident here
Al Jazeera story on the latest developments here
UK Telegraph story here, but with an odd perspective.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Of Fascists Then, and Fascists Now
Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, Karl Wolff, and an unidentified assistant at the Obersalzberg, May 1939
(quoted from jerseyjohn)
...Schubert's Quintet in C, D.956. At the moment the second movement, Adagio.
For those who have seen the movie, Conspiracy, this is the piece Reinhard Heydrich sees at Wansee after concluding the conference. This blood dripped violin playing murderer (son of a composer / music teacher who wrote an opera) sighs and says, "The adagio will tear your heart out."
After he leaves, his sidekick Adolf Eichmann puts that movement on the record player, looks at one of his assistants, and asks, "Well, does it tear your heart out?"
The man smiles and says, "Oh, yes, sir. Very beautiful."
Eichmann shakes his head. "I've never understood what anyone sees in Schubert's romantic Viennese shit!"
(quote ends here)
Being an amoral murderer does not require one to be entirely devoid of aesthetic appreciation of beauty. The danger of demonising the fascists is this - if we conceive of them as inhuman monsters, we make ourselves more vulnerable to the comforting lies that, "that can never happen again" or, worse yet, "that could never happen here in (insert name of your own country)".
They were not inhuman monsters. Some were men, in the beginning no different from you and I, who somewhere went badly wrong in their assessment of relative moral values. Some were willing dupes, some were truly psychopaths. But if you don't think good and decent people can be taken in, you need to take a long hard look at the life of Leni Riefenstahl. Whether you take the sympathetic view espoused by Das Blaue Licht, or the hard, unforgiving stance evident in Susan Sontag's "Fascinating Fascism", Leni Riefenstahl remains a textbook example.
Understand this clearly - in their own minds, in their own story as they saw it, those people were heroes, doing the hard, dirty, nasty work needed to safeguard the future of their own people. And if you miss this point, you will be less prepared to resist the resurgence of fascism when it rises again. And rise again it will.
This is not only an issue of historical interest. We know that President Bush had alleged terrorists interrogated under torture. We have every reason to believe that this is still occurring under the Obama administration, given that he has continued the policy of "extraordinary rendition", which is a cute way of saying that the torturing is done for us in various third-party nations.
How do we look at this? Well, we could say...
A) Torture is always morally wrong, and never justified. Period, full stop.
or we could say...
B) Terrorists are outside the law, not entitled to protection under the laws of war, thus such interrogation-by-torture is justified. Proponents of this policy are fond of claiming that such interrogations may well prevent further killings by terrorists, thus (allegedly) justifying the torture in the name of saving the (theoretical) victims.
The problem with argument (B) lies in the definition of a terrorist. Obviously, if one is going to justify torture, one will be vitally concerned to carefully classify the persons upon whom such outrages may be legitimately practiced. Very well then, for the sake of argument, terrorists only.
So, who is a terrorist?
On July 22, 1946 Irgun, (in cooperation with Haganah, Histadrut, and other organisations), bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which was then the base of the British Secratariat in Palestine. The conventional story was that "about 200" british officers were killed. Today, Wikipedia says only 91 people died. The exact numbers are irrelevant.
Clearly this was a terrorist act, at least in the view of the British. Keep carefully in mind that the state of modern Israel did not exist at that time; it was still the "British mandate in Palestine", and would be for two more years. The sticky part is that the attack was ordered by Menachem Begin, (this is accepted fact, not accusation or conjecture), and David ben Gurion was also involved.
If we accept that this was a terrorist act, (and we'd look like major hypocrites denying it), then at that time Menachem Begin was a terrorist.
Menachem Begin in 1940 and in 1978. Top photo is an NKVD mugshot; the arrest was political, not criminal. Bottom is a speech at Andrews AFB, Maryland.
Now, in 1948 the modern state of Israel came into being. David ben Gurion was the first prime minister (henceforth PM) of Israel, and also the third. Menachem Begin was PM twice, starting in 1977. Menachem Begin negotiated the Camp David accords with Anwar Sadat, withdrawing the IDF from the Sinai, and laying an important foundation of peace with Egypt.
So was he still a terrorist then? What about ben Gurion?
If they were not terrorists then, precisely when did they stop being terrorists, and for what reason?
Did Begin and ben Gurion stop being terrorists when the modern state of Israel came into being? This is certainly a temptingly convenient dividing line. I can't think of another point in time one could convincingly rationalise.
But if so, let's think a bit further. Are we saying that if terrorism is successful, if it results in the formation of a new nation-state, then all is retroactively forgiven, and what were once despicable acts of murder are then transformed into patriotic acts of war? Yes, this is what actually happens in the real world in which we actually live. The process is going on before our eyes right now in Northern Ireland, but do we really want to endorse this? Do we wish to claim this as an essential part of our moral justification?
Because, you see, this encourages terrorism. Think about it. It says, "Hey, if you can pull it off, you win!".
Friday, September 17, 2010
US Deploys Predator Drones to California-Mexico Border
As a resident of San Diego, California, I was horrified to learn yesterday that the Department of Homeland Security has deployed Predator-B drones to the border here. Perhaps I'm over-reacting, but this seems excessive to me. And, yes, the B model Predator is fully weapons-capable.
Supposedly, the drones are only being used for "surveillance", but surveillance of whom? And who picks the targets of this "surveillance"? The militarization of the border for political reasons has must be stopped, because it is those of us who live in the border region who suffer for this.
If nothing else, imagine what a huge temptation that must represent for some in government. Once having set the precedent of targeted assassinations abroad, what is to stop them from bringing that practice home to roost?
How did Martin Niemoller put it?
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Al Jazeera English has posted a story on the subject, though it takes an odd perspective. Then again, foreign coverage of the domestic affairs of one's own nation always seems that way, I suppose.
Supposedly, the drones are only being used for "surveillance", but surveillance of whom? And who picks the targets of this "surveillance"? The militarization of the border for political reasons has must be stopped, because it is those of us who live in the border region who suffer for this.
If nothing else, imagine what a huge temptation that must represent for some in government. Once having set the precedent of targeted assassinations abroad, what is to stop them from bringing that practice home to roost?
How did Martin Niemoller put it?
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Al Jazeera English has posted a story on the subject, though it takes an odd perspective. Then again, foreign coverage of the domestic affairs of one's own nation always seems that way, I suppose.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Troll Tactics Plus
I stumbled across an interesting little entry this morning, which includes a very succinct description of "troll tactics", the sort used by forum trolls, paid or unpaid, to disrupt meaningful discussion.
I have always felt I have something of "a nose for a knave", (to steal an expression from the author of the Flashman series), and I recognize trolls fairly quickly in any forum situation, but I have never before seen the type analyzed and described in such a manner.
The tactics are simple and easy to spot. When they first confront you they do it subtly while interjecting an insult. When you try to respond to them using logic and common sense, their next message will be an insult that they know you will feel you have to refute. If you answer that insult they have you hooked and have achieved the desired effect, which is to disrupt debate and the exchange of ideas and information.
No doubt most of you recognize the loathsome creature from its description. But the mention of trolls and their habits was only in passing. The gist of the article, the part that made my wicked old heart go pitty-pat, was this -
We know what is wrong with our country and what has to be undone if we are ever to live in freedom and prosperity again. We must break away from the false left-right paradigm and realize that those posing as our representatives can only be identified as a single party: the corpora-demo-publicans, of the international corporate mafia, by the international corporate mafia, and for the international corporate mafia.
The only way that we are going to see the living wage jobs returned to this country is through the destruction of the laws that reward the sending of our jobs overseas, the instituting of large tariffs on all foreign goods and huge taxes on all moneys taken out of the United States being invested in foreign countries, and laws forbidding our natural resources from leaving our country except in the form of manufactured goods, and I don’t mean a board, I mean a table.
It sounds like a far better plan than any other I have heard lately.
I have always felt I have something of "a nose for a knave", (to steal an expression from the author of the Flashman series), and I recognize trolls fairly quickly in any forum situation, but I have never before seen the type analyzed and described in such a manner.
The tactics are simple and easy to spot. When they first confront you they do it subtly while interjecting an insult. When you try to respond to them using logic and common sense, their next message will be an insult that they know you will feel you have to refute. If you answer that insult they have you hooked and have achieved the desired effect, which is to disrupt debate and the exchange of ideas and information.
No doubt most of you recognize the loathsome creature from its description. But the mention of trolls and their habits was only in passing. The gist of the article, the part that made my wicked old heart go pitty-pat, was this -
We know what is wrong with our country and what has to be undone if we are ever to live in freedom and prosperity again. We must break away from the false left-right paradigm and realize that those posing as our representatives can only be identified as a single party: the corpora-demo-publicans, of the international corporate mafia, by the international corporate mafia, and for the international corporate mafia.
The only way that we are going to see the living wage jobs returned to this country is through the destruction of the laws that reward the sending of our jobs overseas, the instituting of large tariffs on all foreign goods and huge taxes on all moneys taken out of the United States being invested in foreign countries, and laws forbidding our natural resources from leaving our country except in the form of manufactured goods, and I don’t mean a board, I mean a table.
It sounds like a far better plan than any other I have heard lately.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Obama's Peace Talks Doomed To Fail
So the Peace Talks are on again in Sharm el Sheikh, with Hilary duly mouthing the usual blandly optimistic assurances, and Abbas strong-armed into appearing so that Obama can claim a "win" for his party's November election purposes.
One more set of "Peace Talks", like so many before, and yet we are supposed to believe that this time some magical, miraculous formula will produce results. Just how stupid do we look?
And yet, beyond the hopelessness, there is a deeper issue which is a large part of the reason why the talks are hopeless; the Palestinians are not represented at these talks.
Mahmud Abbas is a puppet representative. He never did represent the half of Palestinians residing in Gaza; his "election", if you can call such a heavily-rigged farce an election, was only in the West Bank. And that term of office expired in February of 2009. He has no authority to represent anyone, even in the West Bank, let alone Gaza.
Hamas, on the other hand, is the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Yet the US and Israel insist that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and will not be allowed to participate in any "Peace Talks", now or ever.
So, we invite the unelected leader to to the "Peace Talks", and refuse to even speak with the elected leaders.
And we call this building democracy?
If you'd like to hear what the people of Gaza have to say, in their own words, here it is.
One more set of "Peace Talks", like so many before, and yet we are supposed to believe that this time some magical, miraculous formula will produce results. Just how stupid do we look?
And yet, beyond the hopelessness, there is a deeper issue which is a large part of the reason why the talks are hopeless; the Palestinians are not represented at these talks.
Mahmud Abbas is a puppet representative. He never did represent the half of Palestinians residing in Gaza; his "election", if you can call such a heavily-rigged farce an election, was only in the West Bank. And that term of office expired in February of 2009. He has no authority to represent anyone, even in the West Bank, let alone Gaza.
Hamas, on the other hand, is the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Yet the US and Israel insist that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and will not be allowed to participate in any "Peace Talks", now or ever.
So, we invite the unelected leader to to the "Peace Talks", and refuse to even speak with the elected leaders.
And we call this building democracy?
If you'd like to hear what the people of Gaza have to say, in their own words, here it is.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Diplomatic Escalation In Japan-China Row Over East China Sea
China today upped the diplomatic pressure on Japan over recent incidents between the ships of the two nations in the disputed region of the East China Sea.
China and Japan have long-running disputes over a number of territorial issues, including ownership of the islands in the East China Sea known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Japan has physical possession of the islands, and China claims them.
In recent years, as China finally begins to exercise the power represented by its newly-constructed blue water navy, China's posture in both the East China Sea and the South China Sea has become more openly aggressive and belligerent. As one example of this, China has been sending fishing boats into disputed waters, in order to provoke incidents which would give its navy an excuse to act.
The most recent example of this took place last week, near the Senkaku islands mentioned above. When two Japanese Coast Guard vessels approached the Chinese fishing vessel, the captain rammed the Japanese vessels and refused to stop. The ship was finally boarded and the captain and crew were arrested. They remain in custody, and the diplomatic catfight has been ratcheting up since Friday.
On Friday, the Chinese cancelled planned negotiations over another dispute in the same region, this one involving ownership of undersea gas deposits.
On Saturday, a Chinese vessel and a Japanese Coast Guard vessel were involved in another incident northwest of Okinawa.
Today, (Sunday 9/12/10), Japan's ambassador to China was summoned in the hours before dawn to listen to a list of angry demands presented by State Councilor Dai Bingguo, who is a high official in the Communist Party, thus out-ranking the Foreign Minister.
Chinese politics are always difficult to interpret. Is this just another round of diplomatic rubber chicken antics? I will confess to being without a clue. But it does seem clear that China is determined to expand its territorial claims in an aggressive manner, and feels it now has the preponderance of military force in the region.
As Chairman Mao said long ago, "Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
More on the current incident at Arab News
Related issues in Asia Times Online
China and Japan have long-running disputes over a number of territorial issues, including ownership of the islands in the East China Sea known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Japan has physical possession of the islands, and China claims them.
In recent years, as China finally begins to exercise the power represented by its newly-constructed blue water navy, China's posture in both the East China Sea and the South China Sea has become more openly aggressive and belligerent. As one example of this, China has been sending fishing boats into disputed waters, in order to provoke incidents which would give its navy an excuse to act.
The most recent example of this took place last week, near the Senkaku islands mentioned above. When two Japanese Coast Guard vessels approached the Chinese fishing vessel, the captain rammed the Japanese vessels and refused to stop. The ship was finally boarded and the captain and crew were arrested. They remain in custody, and the diplomatic catfight has been ratcheting up since Friday.
On Friday, the Chinese cancelled planned negotiations over another dispute in the same region, this one involving ownership of undersea gas deposits.
On Saturday, a Chinese vessel and a Japanese Coast Guard vessel were involved in another incident northwest of Okinawa.
Today, (Sunday 9/12/10), Japan's ambassador to China was summoned in the hours before dawn to listen to a list of angry demands presented by State Councilor Dai Bingguo, who is a high official in the Communist Party, thus out-ranking the Foreign Minister.
Chinese politics are always difficult to interpret. Is this just another round of diplomatic rubber chicken antics? I will confess to being without a clue. But it does seem clear that China is determined to expand its territorial claims in an aggressive manner, and feels it now has the preponderance of military force in the region.
As Chairman Mao said long ago, "Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
More on the current incident at Arab News
Related issues in Asia Times Online
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
