An Opportunity for Globalist Centrist Liberalism

Source: National Review

The world may appear to be sharply divided among the far left and the far right on the social media, and even on the mainstream media these days. However, you could make the case that with the election of Emmanuel Macron as the French President, some hope has been revived in centrism and globalist liberalism. Because the polls in late April were nothing less than a scare with Marine Le Pen ending up neck-a-neck.

One of the features of the shifts to far left and far right camps in public discourse has been the cynicism toward centrism and pragmatism. Candidates such as Hillary Clinton have been condemned as “neo-liberal” by progressive and leftist activists, who could have prevented the Trump Presidency by turning out in greater numbers for her favor. The shift toward absolutism might sound romantic to some in a twisted way, but it has given us politicians such as Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and perhaps even Trump on the right and Jeremy Corbyn and Tulsi Gabbard on the left. Of course, each honest in their own dangerous way. I am deliberately not mentioning Bernie Sanders in this list, whose proposals of single payer healthcare is anything but an extreme view for a centrist liberal, but he has a rather unhealthy obsession with the Wall Street.

While still both the left and right in the West are variants of liberalism, relatively speaking, but both have seemed to lose the essence of its ideals of late. The left continues to demonize the idea of private property while the right frequently compromises the liberties of people who either look different or are less fortunate. And another group simply refuses to pay for just about anything. Did I mention Ron Paul in the list?

Since when have these ideas become abominations to the people?

There is no wonder even today a majority of the population might agree on centrist ideas and fortunately that is still what a lot of voting pattern around the world follows. Though that voting pattern has been consistently shifting rightward, evident in Turkey, India, and Israel. Common sense, yes, you hear this expression very frequently in the campaigns of more conservative politicians in the West. But actually, you would rather associate this term with more centrist and pragmatic liberals beyond party lines.

The disillusionment and cynicism of the recent years have particularly been on the rise as a “people’s awakening” of sorts. This has been generally true for the attitude toward the United Nations but the precarious unity of the EU has particularly brought it into light. Blame it on the operational and bureaucratic flaws of these globalist bodies but there is no reason why the ideals behind them should be targeted without anyone putting up a reasonable defense for them.

On the other hand, there is really nothing about centrism or economic liberalism that necessitates apathy toward those who are less fortunate in the society. This ideological direction does not necessarily eliminate a social democracy. It is not as if most of the moderate British conservatives would be effectively killing the NHS, despite their fiscal conservatism. Certainly, not the Liberal Democrats. I guess centrist liberals would only be more respectful of private property and freedom for businesses than obsessing over bringing the budget into surplus too much.

Most moderate Republicans would not dare criticize late night host Jimmy Kimmel making a case for healthcare safety nets by bringing up his sick child. It is precisely the mindset that attacked him for it that a centrist liberal would discourage. Long story short, centrist liberals are more likely to side with a pragmatic, practical direction, keeping a balance between the bleeding heart and the facts of the world. Most of them would at least entertain the idea of a single payer healthcare approach while respecting private caregivers for humanitarian reasons, despite the controversy around its ideological correctness.

Another reason why globalist and centrist liberals are important is their interventionism, another point that gets under the skin of people on both extreme left and right. While there is no point getting behind a warmonger, an isolationist progressive or libertarian would be as caustic to world peace as a relentless hawk.

As much as we would like to hate President Bill Clinton and President George H. W. Bush, their timely humanitarian action in Bosnia and Kuwait goes unappreciated. It is amazing how the critics of American imperialism completely fail to recognize how the intervention has saved the freedom for the people of South Korea and West Germany. Furthermore, globalist liberals would be all for aid and accepting refugees and intervening to prevent a genocide, while an isolationist nationalist or an apathetic progressive could prove to be a humanitarian disaster. But enough of what they might mean for a government.

Despite the apparent lack of enthusiasm, the ideological polarity itself ironically presents an opportunity to the third way liberalism to bring people from left and right together. At least as a practical electoral alliance holding your nose. In a way, the rise of Donald Trump represents that possibility as opposed to someone like Sen. Ted Cruz who could become the President too. Although some could argue the same about Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton.

The person of Donald Trump has always appeared to be pragmatic and centrist, even liberal, in his approach to things but it is unfortunate that he relied on more far right policies and people to run his campaign. Perhaps that was the only way he could win this election. The policies he is enacting are not any more encouraging either. But who knows, that might change with time as he is beginning to figure out the realities of the political world and governance. And say, if Jared and Ivanka do not stay too far. Hanging on to a thread, are we not?

But don’t get too depressed. The world may still give sanity a chance.

It’s not too late.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.
Advertisements

Proactive, Not Reactive, Military Action Needed Against ISIS

Source: thequint.com

Source: thequint.com

Some of the worst fears about ISIS were realized during the November 13 Paris attacks that involved a suicide bomber, who turned out to be a Syrian refugee, and three groups of terrorists shooting out at three different locations. More than a hundred people lost their lives that night and several were injured as the terrorists mercilessly slaughtered peace loving French citizens. ISIS has taken responsibility for the heinous attack.

The incident has shocked and saddened everyone around the world, but it is just a reminder of how dangerous ISIS has become and how urgently substantial action against it is required.

The French President stated that his country would unleash a “pitiless” war against the terrorist state as revenge for the attack. While cynical critics would find that the hawks and the right wing rejoicing at this incident for using it for gaining support for the war, the truth is that many would see this as acting too late, though at least doing the right thing at last.

No wonder this atrocity is sufficient to warrant adequate military action by any standards. You know things are different when Democratic candidates sound as hawkish as the Republicans in their debate the following night, which gives you even more faith in the US leadership regardless of the political affiliation.

However, I find something else wrong with the approach of France to attack ISIS. While I am glad that France is finally prepared to strike ISIS locations in Syria and that it has every right to avenge the death of its citizens, they should have known better than just carrying out reactive vengeful strikes.

The French approach is precisely what is generally wrong with the reaction of the Western powers in terms of countering ISIS. They see ISIS as a distant security threat, which they do not need to do anything about unless their homes are threatened, instead of proactively intervening to prevent a humanitarian crisis and to destroy a local threat in the Middle East. The French reaction also suggests that up until this time it was not at war with the entity and did not consider its atrocities worthy of an intervention, as it considered necessary in the case of secular Libya. Sadly, it is only now that the French seek a global coalition against Islamic State.

Source: rare.us

Source: rare.us

Europe apparently did not have a problem with the existence of ISIS, without being bothered by the massacre they have been committing in Iraq and Syria. Even Israel has not taken any active action against it, because probably ISIS has been working to weaken Bashar Al-Assad, one of their archenemies. Or probably because the main victims of ISIS have primarily been Muslims of the Middle East, but by that rationale, you would expect Arab countries of the region to act against them, the reaction of which has been terribly dishonest and irresponsible. Nevertheless, you cannot expect much from morally bankrupt regimes.

The United States is probably the only exception, and they had better be, due to the enormous responsibility they bear following the Iraq War and their intervention in the Syrian Civil War. And they have been fighting ISIS alone without any considerable help from any ally in the region. However, despite reassurances by President Obama, his strategy has fallen short of effectively reducing the threat. Furthermore, he completely rules out deploying ground troops despite demands from the Republican leaders.

Such a reactive and defensive approach is what has resulted in the strengthening of ISIS in the first place. This should surely offer fodder to moralist critics who would accuse the Western powers of valuing the loss of life in Europe but completely ignoring the bloodbath in Syria and Lebanon, and genocide and human slavery in Kurdish Iraq.

Instead of striking back at ISIS as a reaction to some terrorist attack, proactive military action should be carried out against its targets until the complete annihilation of the terrorist entity as a state. This would not be possible without ground forces and occupation of the area making up the terrorist state.

The United States should also reconsider its withdrawal from Iraq, which has resulted in the breakdown of the security of a weak state with a Shia leadership unpopular with the local Sunnis. While President Obama could blame the Iraq War in 2003 initiated by George W. Bush for the rise of ISIS, history could see it as more of an unfinished business of his administration, or even a part of his Middle East foreign policy legacy.

As a matter of fact, President Obama has a great and rare opportunity to achieve undisputed greatness as a statesman following his historic Cuba initiative and the Iran Nuclear Deal. When he was elected President with the slogans of hope and change, even his fiercest enemies would have expected him to be destined to do great things. With the peace of the world at peril, and the Pope talking about the signs of a Third World War, his leadership can restore peace to the world if only he is willing to do what is necessary.  It is up to him to execute a swift blow to the terror network or wait for the next President to replace him to get the job done.

The United States is already tackling ISIS at his own pace, but in the words of Hillary Clinton, President Obama’s policy of “containment” of ISIS is not enough. President Obama tried calming the demands for more military action by using the very word just the night before ISIS attacked Paris and immediately came under fire. This incident seems to prove the last straw to wake the world up. The world must not rest until ISIS is destroyed. And since nobody else would even bother until the threat reaches their shores, United States remains the only moral leader in the world to take on the challenge.

However flawed the military strategy of Obama administration maybe, it still deserves greater respect for its principled action than the reactive measures France is going to take as revenge. If only a global coalition had been formed in a timely manner, the resources of ISIS could have been greatly reduced to carry out such attacks, though it would have required active pursuit of its presence in the continental Europe as well. But ISIS is feeding off the oil in the region and its supply lines must be destroyed.

ISIS has also threatened terrorist attacks in Washington D.C, and against any country that participates in bombings against them. The US intelligence believes they lack the resources to do so at the moment, but we must not let them grow strong enough to become capable of it, and must certainly stop underestimating the threat. The world still has time at its hands to prevent another tragedy like 11/13.

United States certainly does not need to bear this burden alone. The rest of the powers of the world have a chance to redeem their ignorance of the humanitarian crisis created by ISIS by joining a global coalition under US leadership. The United States, under the leadership of President Obama, is perfectly capable of rallying allied powers from around the world, not only from Europe and the Middle East, but from Asia Pacific as well to combat this threat together.

As long as the focus of the war becomes averting a humanitarian crisis in Iraq and Syria instead of just defense of Western countries, the war should not feel like such a burden. However, I am not too sure if many in the West are still too concerned about the situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

There are No Lies in the Battlefield

Courtesy: James Montgomery, acclaimimages.com

What is it about wars that thrill us? What is it that makes us feel so good, so proud, as if we have accomplished something. Is it the bravery, the chivalry, the defiance to death that men can display, or simply because it makes great stories to tell? It does not matter, because in our world it is a glorious thing to go to wars.

But war is an intellectual concept nevertheless. I have to acknowledge that fact. It is as intellectual as it is stupid and nonsense. This is why it is fought by people far away from action in the battlefield. You know, far away from those mindless soldiers, who are brainwashed the moment they land into Boot Camp. They are fed lies, and they are fed truths. But one thing is for sure. They take away from them a part of humanity and they get to earn a part of it that no one else would ever know about.

But even more cruel are the ones who do not even set foot on the battlefield and expect others to sacrifice themselves for them. The one who dodges the bullet, the one who bears the wounds and the one who witnesses the horrors of war can only know what war is like and how vain national glory means when you only have your life to lose, unless they are hardened by war and it becomes their way of living. Some do it by choice and suffer, others are forced into it and made to suffer.

You would have heard about, if not watched, All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), based on the novel of the same title by German veteran Erich Maria Remarque. It is just a movie, maybe a touch too exaggerating and maybe overdone for some, but it tells the story of men who lived through World War I, an overdone war after all,  if it is not too much to say. The film emphasizes this very idea more explicitly and deliberately than most of the others about the war that you would come across.

The film talks about sending the youth to the front lines for glory and their subsequent discovery of what war really is. The film was banned in the Nazi Germany for its anti-war content, which for no surprise was taken to be an attack on German nationalism. Rats were used to disperse audiences during the initial screening of the film in theaters. But let’s not take any sides here. To my mind, the American filmmakers have emphasized the human side of the war by choosing to tell the story of a non-allied nation.

How many politically motivated artists talk about the human side of the enemy soldier? Most of the war movies even have no faces for them, just silhouettes. The silhouette of the enemy.  There is no enemy soldier, just humans who agree to kill each other over something they are not even aware of. The film applies as much to France as it does to Germany. It applies as much to Britain, or any other allied nation. It applies to each and every nation of the world. It applies to humanity. The blood-thirsty humanity.

A Few Important Excerpts 

(Note: Right now, the complete movie is available on YouTube. However, I have only posted the excerpts in context of the post. It may or may not be accessible from different parts of the world.)

For those familiar with the history of World War I and Trench Warfare in the Western Front, are also familiar with the toll it took on men.  This film, also the novel, is about how a war changes a man, how a war destroys a man and how they are sent by civilization to die to lift their spirits. A remarkable motion picture for its time, it effectively portrays what a soldier goes through before, during and after war, whether an exaggerated portrayal or not. I think it really is a lot worse than this.

What I learned from this film and what shook me the most is this.

There are no Lies in the Battlefield.

But have we learned the lesson?

That’s why we are an intelligent species.

The Advance to a New Low

65 years ago, on August 6, 1945, the United States took the human race to a new low by making the first nuclear strike on a human population center. It would be fair to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a Holocaust end to a Holocaust war.

There is no doubt that it was an event to feel sad about, but for all the years to come, nuclear weapons became a symbol of power, glory, patriotic superiority and pride, unfortunately.

If you think I am exaggerating, then revisit all the clips of nuclear tests and you will find out how they were filmed, showcased and presented in front of the people as remarkable feats and were encouraged to be considered as a symbol of national pride. No nuclear power was an exception to this case.

The following clip from the US archives as can be seen on YouTube of the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki bombs.

Apart from that, the following clip of the same event clearly signifies the triumphant tone of the narrator.

The Aftermath of Hiroshima – This clearly shows why this act was nothing to be proud of.

Although no one is proud of Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks anymore, but we are still holding the nuclear weapons dear, aren’t we?

To illustrate a few more examples of how nuclear tests are associated with nationalism and pride, since the possession of this killer device automatically qualifies you to become one of the powers of the world, a term which sits ironically on India, Pakistan and North Korea, the following are the footages taken from the YouTube of some of the nuclear tests conducted by some of the world’s declared nuclear power.

United States

Trailer of a Movie Based on the Trinity Bomb Test, the first ever nuclear test carried out on July 16, 1945 in Almogordo, New Mexico.

The Actual Footage

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s speech on the occasion of the test of the first ever Hydrogen bomb, merged with the test in the official footage and of course presented in the dramatic, patriotic way, which was the need of the hour in the Cold War era.

Russia’s Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear bomb ever tested

The Chinese Hydrogen Bomb Test footage with a lot of dramatic effects

The footage of the French Tahiti Test merged with the patriotic  speech of Charles de Gaulle from the documentary “Blowing Up Paradise”.

India’s Smiling Buddha test carried out in Rajasthan in 1974 – How ironical could they get? The following clip has been taken from a custom-made tribute of a YouTube user.

And finally, Pakistan’s 1998 Nuclear Test with the chants of “Allah-o-Akbar”, which I’m sure would have sent tremors down the spines of the infidels.

Given the impact of these tests on the environment and the planet, it is clear that carrying out these tests are totally unnecessary. But unfortunately, the leaders of the world consider the need to display their power much more important than the need to protect the environment of the earth. No wonder why we have so many failed summits for the environment like the 2009 UN Climate Change Summit held in Copenhagen, Denmark .

I know that the climate change summit has little to do with nuclear tests directly, but I have referred to the Copenhagen summit just to illustrate the commitment of the leaders of the world to the protection of the environment.

It is a shame that nuclear scientists all over the world are hailed as heroes, such as Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan in Pakistan and Dr. Abdul Kalam in India. In fact, Dr. Kalam was even elected as the President of the country from July 20002 to 2007. Of course, they had offered great service to their respective countries, but committed great crimes to the humanity.

Finally, see for yourself how human beings have “advanced” to a new low, and what better could elaborate that but the words of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the architect of the nuclear bomb himself, who quoted from the Bhagavad-Gita, when he was overwhelmed by the magnitude of the explosion:

“Now I am become death. The destroyer of the Worlds….”

The truth is that the nuclear weapons technology is like an opened Pandora’s Box, which cannot be undone or reversed. Even if all the nations of the world agree to destroy all the nuclear warheads in the world, there always will be an uncertainty and a lack of confidence among them, knowing that anyone could build more bombs at any time.

Since humans are so proud of their intelligence and for being a so-called “superior species”, maybe some day they will finally figure out that these weapons are not only a danger for their own existence, but even if they do not use them in wars, their testing could cause significant damage to the environment.

Maybe some day we will stop advancing further low and stop for a minute to realize that any more nuclear tests will be disastrous to everything important to us, even pride and power.