Genocide...what genocide?
That's still the word from Ankara as Turkey continues it's epic battle with political semantics.
Following the lead of other Western government, congress recently decided to take up the issue of the half million or so Armenians who were killed during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire. As we have long known, this is a bit of a sore spot among our Anatolian friends, who are now threatening unspecified consequences for the U.S. should the resolution pass, presumably relating to our dependence upon Turkey for continuing operations in Iraq.
Turkey has never really come to any conclusions about how to label the events that took place during the First World War. They point to what they call "suffering on both sides" as evidence that the West has blown the whole thing out of proportion. Apparently they feel that if a Turk stubs his toe while leading an Armenian death march, then the suffering should officially be counted as mutual.
Unfortunately the picture remains relatively murky. Estimates on death toll range from 300,000 to 1.5 million, and the systematic nature of the massacre has never been fully established. Nevertheless, there is more than enough evidence to determine that this was much more than simple wartime happenstance.
Sadly, the Bush administration is probably correct in it's decision to come out against the genocide resolution. It's not just about Iraq either. Turkey remains a major geopolitical player on the world stage, and the end of the Cold War has brought Russia into the mix as a competitor for influence in Ankara. Turkey will almost certainly be the primary transportation hub for newly discovered oil and gas in central Asia, and given the West's growing energy dependence, we can hardly afford to lose ground to Russia as they attempt to monopolize those supply routes.
On the other hand, Turkey still clearly looks to the West when they debate their future, and the West wants to talk about genocide.
I've never been to Turkey, and I can't claim to understand the emotional factors involved in the debate, but it seems to me that this is an issue that Turkey will have to come to terms with at some point. If nothing else, can't they at least count on a few brownie points from the EU if they put it all out on the table?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Reviving the Road Map
It appears as though this years round of Israeli-Palestinian disappointment (peace) talks will be held in November at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD.
If you were thinking that this round can't possibly match the disappointment of the 2000 round at Camp David, consider the fact that the actors involved in these talks are far more incompetent, and in far worse positions than their predecessors.
In the left corner, we have embattled Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, whose continued ability to stay in power in Jerusalem now borders on mind boggling. Maybe he never really had a chance. He hasn't ever been able to truly step out of the shadow of his predecessor, the legendary and controversial Ariel Sharon. On top of that, he's still haunted by the debacle in Lebanon last summer and his failure to stake out any discernible governing philosophy.
In the right corner, there's Mahmoud Abbas, the man who so many of us pinned our Mideast peace hopes on as recently as two years ago. Unfortunately those two years haven't gone so well for Mr. Abbas. He too has failed to step into the large shoes of his predecessor, and that's pretty much the good news for Abbas. He's managed to lose more than ideological ground to rival Islamist factions in Palestine, he's actually lost Palestine, or a sizable portion of it at least.
Then of course there's the referee in the middle. Remember that tough talking professor from Stanford that Dick Morris claimed was going to challenge Hillary in a 2008 political cat fight. Yes, Condi Rice is still around, and she's the latest American diplomat to be stuck in the middle of this mess. She been a faithful member of the Bush team since the beginning, which should, and probably does, disqualify her from making a serious run in 2008. Nevertheless she, like her boss, has a legacy to salvage, and she's as in need of a victory as much as anyone. If nothing else, it would give her something to talk about on the lecture circuit for a while before she slips back into the anonymity of academia.
It would seem that the stage is just about set for the most anti-climatic moment yet in the never ending series of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. On the other hand, if so many competent people can fail, maybe three mediocre leaders is exactly what they need to make peace.
Never underestimate the power of desperation. With those three it the room, it might be the only thing they have in common.
If you were thinking that this round can't possibly match the disappointment of the 2000 round at Camp David, consider the fact that the actors involved in these talks are far more incompetent, and in far worse positions than their predecessors.
In the left corner, we have embattled Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, whose continued ability to stay in power in Jerusalem now borders on mind boggling. Maybe he never really had a chance. He hasn't ever been able to truly step out of the shadow of his predecessor, the legendary and controversial Ariel Sharon. On top of that, he's still haunted by the debacle in Lebanon last summer and his failure to stake out any discernible governing philosophy.
In the right corner, there's Mahmoud Abbas, the man who so many of us pinned our Mideast peace hopes on as recently as two years ago. Unfortunately those two years haven't gone so well for Mr. Abbas. He too has failed to step into the large shoes of his predecessor, and that's pretty much the good news for Abbas. He's managed to lose more than ideological ground to rival Islamist factions in Palestine, he's actually lost Palestine, or a sizable portion of it at least.
Then of course there's the referee in the middle. Remember that tough talking professor from Stanford that Dick Morris claimed was going to challenge Hillary in a 2008 political cat fight. Yes, Condi Rice is still around, and she's the latest American diplomat to be stuck in the middle of this mess. She been a faithful member of the Bush team since the beginning, which should, and probably does, disqualify her from making a serious run in 2008. Nevertheless she, like her boss, has a legacy to salvage, and she's as in need of a victory as much as anyone. If nothing else, it would give her something to talk about on the lecture circuit for a while before she slips back into the anonymity of academia.
It would seem that the stage is just about set for the most anti-climatic moment yet in the never ending series of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. On the other hand, if so many competent people can fail, maybe three mediocre leaders is exactly what they need to make peace.
Never underestimate the power of desperation. With those three it the room, it might be the only thing they have in common.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Enough Whining Already!
Well this has been quite an offseason, hasn't it?
I'll spare everyone the displeasure of reading yet another diatribe about Tim Donaghy and the integrity of the NBA and instead just go straight into one about the countless number of overpaid prima donnas who are garnering all of the media's attention these days.
First Garnett wanted out, then Kobe, then O'Neil. Finally we were hit yesterday with the most predictable dramatic episode of the summer. Yes, Shawn Marion wants out of Phoenix.
Can somebody please tell me when this unholy trend started? I know that players and their agents have always maneuvered behind the scenes in attempts to carve out the best possible situations for themselves, up to and including trade demands when it suits their interests. This summer, however, seems to be the first time that players have done so in such a public and adolescent manner.
At least the first three agitators of the summer had something of an excuse. They were all in the prime of their careers, and they were all stuck on go-nowhere teams that had very little prospect of getting better any time soon. Marion, by contrast, is a major factor on a championship level squad. He says that he wants to be "the man" on another team, but let's face it, he's just not a team leader. No one can run their offense through Marion, and if they do then he can look forward to a lot of 26-56 seasons.
Remember Shawn, you were "the man" in Phoenix for most of a season back in 2003. Perhaps you don't remember the 29 games the Suns won that year. You might be the greatest complimentary player in NBA history, but you're still a complimentary player.
So quit your complaining and show up on Monday. If you stay with Phoenix, then two years from today you'll have $32+ million and possibly a championship or two.
Is that not enough to sooth your fragile psyche?
I'll spare everyone the displeasure of reading yet another diatribe about Tim Donaghy and the integrity of the NBA and instead just go straight into one about the countless number of overpaid prima donnas who are garnering all of the media's attention these days.
First Garnett wanted out, then Kobe, then O'Neil. Finally we were hit yesterday with the most predictable dramatic episode of the summer. Yes, Shawn Marion wants out of Phoenix.
Can somebody please tell me when this unholy trend started? I know that players and their agents have always maneuvered behind the scenes in attempts to carve out the best possible situations for themselves, up to and including trade demands when it suits their interests. This summer, however, seems to be the first time that players have done so in such a public and adolescent manner.
At least the first three agitators of the summer had something of an excuse. They were all in the prime of their careers, and they were all stuck on go-nowhere teams that had very little prospect of getting better any time soon. Marion, by contrast, is a major factor on a championship level squad. He says that he wants to be "the man" on another team, but let's face it, he's just not a team leader. No one can run their offense through Marion, and if they do then he can look forward to a lot of 26-56 seasons.
Remember Shawn, you were "the man" in Phoenix for most of a season back in 2003. Perhaps you don't remember the 29 games the Suns won that year. You might be the greatest complimentary player in NBA history, but you're still a complimentary player.
So quit your complaining and show up on Monday. If you stay with Phoenix, then two years from today you'll have $32+ million and possibly a championship or two.
Is that not enough to sooth your fragile psyche?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Climate Change and Western Hubris
I don't mean to sound fatalistic, but this planet is going straight to hell. Despite a few scattered non-believers, the fact is that global warming is happening. Worse yet, it seems that there is really not a whole lot any of us can do about it.
I know that some of us in the West desperately want to believe that there is something we can do to stem this ominous tide. The environmentalist movement in the U.S. is constantly imploring the rest of us to do more to stop the climate trend. What is implied, if not stated outright, is the necessary fact that the rest of the world must do their share as well.
Is anyone else seeing just a touch of good ol' fashioned Americo-centric arrogance here? While I appreciate those who spend enormous sums of money to maintain eco-friendly lifestyles, it's time to realize that for most of the world this is simply not an option, and that it is absurdly naive of us to make such requests.
While the U.S., Western Europe and Japan are becoming environmentally savvy, the rest of the world has been busy just trying to get by. While we've been saving the earth, the developing countries of the world have been trying to improve the lives of it's billions of citizens through economic development. Why would China, India or Brazil ever consider trading the betterment of their nations and their people for some environmental dividend to be paid at some point in the distant future? And how can we sit in our comparative luxury and realistically demand that they do so?
So it's time to face some harsh realities: global warming is happening, and there's probably nothing we can do to stop it. Perhaps it's time for paradigm shift. Rather than worrying about how to stop climate change, maybe we should start putting more thought into how we will deal with it when it does happen.
Of course, if you think I'm wrong, then you can always keep on driving your hybrid car down the environmentally friendly street of denial.
I know that some of us in the West desperately want to believe that there is something we can do to stem this ominous tide. The environmentalist movement in the U.S. is constantly imploring the rest of us to do more to stop the climate trend. What is implied, if not stated outright, is the necessary fact that the rest of the world must do their share as well.
Is anyone else seeing just a touch of good ol' fashioned Americo-centric arrogance here? While I appreciate those who spend enormous sums of money to maintain eco-friendly lifestyles, it's time to realize that for most of the world this is simply not an option, and that it is absurdly naive of us to make such requests.
While the U.S., Western Europe and Japan are becoming environmentally savvy, the rest of the world has been busy just trying to get by. While we've been saving the earth, the developing countries of the world have been trying to improve the lives of it's billions of citizens through economic development. Why would China, India or Brazil ever consider trading the betterment of their nations and their people for some environmental dividend to be paid at some point in the distant future? And how can we sit in our comparative luxury and realistically demand that they do so?
So it's time to face some harsh realities: global warming is happening, and there's probably nothing we can do to stop it. Perhaps it's time for paradigm shift. Rather than worrying about how to stop climate change, maybe we should start putting more thought into how we will deal with it when it does happen.
Of course, if you think I'm wrong, then you can always keep on driving your hybrid car down the environmentally friendly street of denial.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Your Move, Bashar
Israel's brazen decision to bomb a suspected nuclear facility in Syria earlier this month has raised a number of intriguing questions about the country's future, and has left President Bashar al-Assad in a very hot seat.
So how will this affect the overall geopolitical situation in middle east? Perhaps the better question is: Does this change anything at all? At a glance the whole event looks like business as usual in a normally volatile region, but for those who read between the lines there are some very interesting developments to take note of.
At the end of the day, it may be Mr. Assad himself who pays the price. Bloggers and journalists have already contributed much speculation about how this might shake up the political status quo in Damascus, and it certainly does seem that the Syrian right is getting anxious, some to the degree that they are advocating war with Israel.
Now I'm no military expert, but my limited studies of the balance of power in the middle east does lead me to one conclusion: Syria does not have a chance of defeating Israel militarily. Furthermore, the ease with which Israel pull off this raid does not do much to reinforce Syria's image of strategic readiness.
Damascus might be wise to take note of the wider Arab reaction to this whole series of events, and by that, of course, I mean the complete lack of reaction. Does this failure to respond mean that the Arab world is no longer opposed to unilateral acts of Israeli aggression? For those of you considering this possibility, the answer, by the way, is no. What it does seem to indicate is that the predominately Sunni nations in the Gulf are no longer willing to go to bat for what they view as an Iranian client state. The growing partnership between Syria and Iran has long since become a liability in Syria's relations with nervous Arab capitals. Damascus may have found a willing partner in Tehran, but Syria is starting to look more alone then at any time since Camp David in the 1970s.
So at this point you may be asking yourself "What advice might the DudaBlog editorial committee have for an isolated and downtrodden President Assad?" For starters, how about grabbing yourself a seat at the negotiating table? I admit, this may be a risky move for the president, and it is certainly not what the right wing of the Syrian military establishment is looking for. On the other hand, if nothing happens soon then what they might look for is a new boss.
Could peace really be that bad?
So how will this affect the overall geopolitical situation in middle east? Perhaps the better question is: Does this change anything at all? At a glance the whole event looks like business as usual in a normally volatile region, but for those who read between the lines there are some very interesting developments to take note of.
At the end of the day, it may be Mr. Assad himself who pays the price. Bloggers and journalists have already contributed much speculation about how this might shake up the political status quo in Damascus, and it certainly does seem that the Syrian right is getting anxious, some to the degree that they are advocating war with Israel.
Now I'm no military expert, but my limited studies of the balance of power in the middle east does lead me to one conclusion: Syria does not have a chance of defeating Israel militarily. Furthermore, the ease with which Israel pull off this raid does not do much to reinforce Syria's image of strategic readiness.
Damascus might be wise to take note of the wider Arab reaction to this whole series of events, and by that, of course, I mean the complete lack of reaction. Does this failure to respond mean that the Arab world is no longer opposed to unilateral acts of Israeli aggression? For those of you considering this possibility, the answer, by the way, is no. What it does seem to indicate is that the predominately Sunni nations in the Gulf are no longer willing to go to bat for what they view as an Iranian client state. The growing partnership between Syria and Iran has long since become a liability in Syria's relations with nervous Arab capitals. Damascus may have found a willing partner in Tehran, but Syria is starting to look more alone then at any time since Camp David in the 1970s.
So at this point you may be asking yourself "What advice might the DudaBlog editorial committee have for an isolated and downtrodden President Assad?" For starters, how about grabbing yourself a seat at the negotiating table? I admit, this may be a risky move for the president, and it is certainly not what the right wing of the Syrian military establishment is looking for. On the other hand, if nothing happens soon then what they might look for is a new boss.
Could peace really be that bad?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)