Watching History

US Intervention: Success or Failure?

2010-02-24T09:39:00.000-05:00

The US frequently intervenes in foreign countries. This can the take form of supporting one group or leader over another, providing financial aid to one faction, imposing sanctions, sponsoring or actually engaging in a coup, engaging in covert action, spreading propaganda, or actually invading and occupying a country. We should be able, therefore, to look at the history of US foreign intervention and determine whether this has been largely a success or a failure.

Note that for the purposes of this article, I will generally be defining success or failure in terms of the United States own goals and objectives. Success does not necessarily mean the outcome was good or moral, only that the outcome corresponded to US interests. It should also be made clear that just because the US publicly states that a given goal is their aim, we should not assume that is their true aim, we need to look at the broader context. The purpose here is to determine whether US foreign intervention has been productive, from their own point of view.

Let's start with the Vietnam war. This began as a fight for independence from France, which started the First Indochina War from 1946 to 1954, which ended with the artificial partition of the country into two states. The US feared the country would be united under communist rule, so it intervened to support the leadership in the South. This would lead to a long war from 1959 to 1975 in which millions of South Asians would be killed. In the end, the US was defeated, withdrew, and the country was united under communist rule.

Today, of course, the US trades with Vietnam and many Americans visit the country. The entire war accomplished nothing, except for millions of deaths, and doesn't appear to have been needed in any event. Of course, for the Vietnamese, the war never really ended. The use of chemical warfare agents, such as Agent Orange, has left much of the countryside toxic, and many babies continue to be born stillborn or deformed as a result.

In Iran, after the second world war, the country had a popular and democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mosaddeq. When he tried to nationalize the oil industry, however, he was removed in a US/British coup and replaced by the Shah, who ruled as a brutal dictator, and who used secret police and death squads. During the rule of the Shah, at US urging, almost all political opposition was suppressed. The only group that managed to survive as an opposition force was the Islamists. This explains why when the people finally got fed up with the Shah, they rose up within the context of the Islamic movement to stage their revolution. There were no liberals, democrats, communists or nationalists left to lead the fight.

The result of the US coup, then, was a strengthening of the Islamist movement around the world, and a general distrust of the US and enmity towards it in the middle east. The current relationship between Iran and the US is a direct result of previous US actions. Why should they be surprised when Iranians react strongly to US attempts to interfere in their country?

In Iraq, the US provided support and weapons to Saddam Hussein after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and supported their invasion of Iran, which led to a bloody eight year war. The US blocked UN resolutions condemning Iraq, and even supplied them with chemical weapons. Only after the Iraq invasion of Kuwait did the US turn against Iraq, which led to the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions that resulted in roughly a million deaths, half of them children. In 2003, the US used 9/11 and fictional weapons of mass destructive as a pretext to invade the country, resulting in perhaps another million deaths, millions of people displaced, and the widespread destruction of infrastructure. As a result of all this, Iran has now become one of the main powers in the region.

In the case of North Korea, the US has imposed crippling sanctions and tried to isolate the country as much as possible. The result is that the country has developed nuclear weapons, which they see as the only possible method of resisting US attack or invasion. Indeed, of the three countries originally listed as part of the "Axis of Evil", one has been invaded and occupied, and one is being threatened with attack. But the US is not threatening any attack against North Korea, and the reason appears clear.

The US has had an embargo in place against Cuba for almost 50 years. Yet there has been no change in government in Cuba, and despite their poverty and isolation, they have managed to achieve one of the highest standards of living in Latin America, and one of the best health care systems. Again, the policy has gained the US nothing but ill will, which has especially been growing in recent years in the region.

The War in Afghanistan appears to be another Vietnam in the making. After almost 10 years, the Taliban are as strong as ever, and are in control of large parts of the country. Many European countries (and Canada) are due to pull out their troops soon. Even the US, despite the new troops, has talked about beginning a withdrawal by 2011. The Taliban and other resistance groups are clearly going to wait out the West, and will almost certainly regain power in the end.

During this war, the relationship with Pakistan has also been badly damaged. The US has propped up a military dictator and used unmanned drones to bomb and kill many innocent civilians (violating Pakistani sovereignty in the process). They are fighting a war against a group of people many Pakistanis share a common ethnicity and history with. Correspondingly, most Pakistanis now view the US as their greatest threat, and the current government, which is supporting US interests, has the support of less than ten percent of the people. As a result, it is very likely the next government of Pakistan will break with the US and look toward their own interests instead.

Of course, many of the coups and wars the US has engaged in since the second world war are rightly viewed as morally repugnant or criminal, but even when you look at things from the point of view of US interests, these interventions don't appear to have resulted in any gain, and in some cases they have greatly harmed US interests. In some cases, even though wars may have been lost, a lot of money may still have been made, but I don't think this makes up for strategic loses. Much of the world now views the US as a potential threat, if not an outright enemy, and this is largely a result of prior US actions, and its current military deployment around the world.

Obviously, the US remains a very powerful and influential nation, and it often get what it wants from many countries. I am not arguing that the US is impotent, only that it is not all-powerful, and many US interventions have failed or backfired. As US debt grows, and its military becomes stretched, US influence and power are set to wane. Further US interventions appear more likely to accelerate this process, rather than slowing it down.

Gandhi and Non-Violence

2010-02-07T12:24:00.000-05:00

Mohandas Gandhi is often hailed as a hero who achieved independence for his country through the use of purely non-violent resistance. He is also famous around the world for his philosophy of non-violence. Unfortunately there are a couple problems with this picture of Gandhi. First, India's independence was not achieved through non-violence alone, despite the common myth. Second, Gandhi's positions on non-violence require complete submission to evil. They would have led to the loss of World War II, a greater genocide of the Jewish people, and many other terrible events. Gandhi was certainly a noble man, with noble goals and many powerful ideas, but is important to understand his true role in history so that we do not learn false lessons. After all, we can only learn from history if we have accurate historical facts.

Independence from Britain

During the late nineteenth century, there were many revolts and rebellions against British rule in India. This struggle would continue to grow and by the early twentieth century, a strong nationalist movement was taking shape. Gandhi returned to India in 1915, after having lived in South Africa for more than twenty years. He did not yet appear fully committed to his philosophy of non-violence. In fact, near the end of World War I, Gandhi was actively engaged in recruiting Indian troops for the British. While he privately stated that he would not personally kill or injure anyone, he published the following in a leaflet called "Appeal for Enlistment":

To bring about such a state of things we should have the ability to defend ourselves, that is, the ability to bear arms and to use them...If we want to learn the use of arms with the greatest possible despatch, it is our duty to enlist ourselves in the army.

While many other Indian leaders did not see Gandhi's idea of civil disobedience as practical, his personal acts of non-violent resistance inspired many, and helped to bring millions into the nationalist movement, which also helped to make it more of a popular movement. This growth in numbers meant it was possible for widespread strikes to take place, putting real pressure on the British. The British responded in 1919 with the Amritsar Massacre, where they locked a group of 5000 unsuspecting men, women and children into a courtyard, then maintained continuous fire into the crowd for more than ten minutes, killing hundreds.

During the twenties, the nationalist movement grew, and Gandhi continue to push for non-violent resistance. Despite his views, however, many groups within the movement took up armed resistance and actively fought and killed British troops and police. Gandhi often denounced this, yet regardless of whether or not he supported such action, that action gave his threats of non-violent resistance teeth and to some degree provided protection for him and his supporters. British authorities knew that ignoring Gandhi's demands, or actively hurting him and his supporters, could be met with a violent response. If this threat did not exist, many more of Gandhi's supporters may have been killed, and indeed Gandhi may have been executed himself.

By the end of the decade, the nationalist movement had finally reached a consensus on total and complete independence as their goal. The British continued to crack down by imprisoning tens of thousands and they killed hundreds of unarmed protestors in another massacre. During the thirties, non-violent protests were on and off as Gandhi tried to negotiate various deals with the British. At the same time, armed resistance continue to escalate. Arms and ammunition were raided, communications sabotaged, and assassinations attempted.

There were many factors which led to the British finally leaving India. The second World War had crippled the country, and weakened its military. Armed resistance continued to wear the British down in India. And, of course, Gandhi's non-violent movement also made a large impact. All of these factors were important. But it is clear that the non-violent movement was not the only force, and almost certainly would not have been successful in isolation. Gandhi's role is rightly viewed as just and heroic, but claims that India won its independence through non-violence alone are disingenuous, and unfair to the millions of others who also struggled and sacrificed for this goal.

Philosophy of Non-Violence

Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence is often praised, but few people understand just what he was proposing. Everyone remembers the popular quote "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." But people either forget, or are unaware of, many more controversial statements he made. In early 1940 a German invasion of Britain was imminent, and at the time it appeared almost certain to succeed. Gandhi gave the following advice to the British people:

I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.

It is almost impossible to overstate the degree of repugnance elicited by such a statement. Indeed, anyone making a statement even half as inflammatory as this within the UK, at the time, would have been summarily executed for sedition. Gandhi is seriously proposing that the British people voluntarily ethnically cleanse themselves from their home, and failing that, give themselves up to the slaughter. But he goes even further than this. In 1946, after the horror of the Holocaust had become known, he said this:

Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.

Again, one cannot help but to respond to such an idea with disgust and disbelief. Statements like these, and others, are an insult to every Jew, and to every man, woman and child who fought and died fighting the evil of Fascism. There was a group within Germany that believed in non-violent resistance to the Nazis. They were a tiny group called The White Rose. They distributed leaflets protesting the Hitler regime. They gained no support, accomplished nothing, and were all executed. Instead we look to the heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as a more fitting inspiration and example.

Conclusion

Gandhi had many noble goals. He wanted India to be free from colonialism. He wanted to end the cruelty of the caste system and the suffering of the "untouchables". He wanted to improve women's rights, end poverty and increase peace and cooperation between different religious groups. He struggled long and hard to help make some of these a reality. For this, he deserves our thanks and respect.

However, India did not achieve independence solely through non-violence. Armed resistance was a vital component, and a legitimate one, in this struggle. We should honour all those who sacrificed through their civil disobedience, but we must also honour all the others who fought and died, and not dismiss or forget them. Gandhi also had some nice ideas in his philosophy of non-violence. But this was a facile and idealistic philosophy, cruelly disconnected from reality. No one should casually uphold it without understanding it what it truly means.

Guantanamo Bay

2010-01-29T11:59:00.000-05:00

The Guantanamo Bay prison is frequently in the news. We often hear about controversy surrounding the prison, the issue of prisoner rights, and speculation on when the prison might finally be closed. One thing rarely discussed, however, is why the US has a naval base in Cuba, and when the Americans plan to leave the country. This is, after all, the only US base in the world located in a country with which the US has no diplomatic relations.

During the nineteenth century, the young United States began a period of expansionism. This included expansion to the west as the "frontier" was pushed back further and further as native peoples were wiped out or ethnically cleansed and their land seized. But the US was also interested in maintaining sole control over the Western hemisphere to the exclusion of European powers. This was formalized in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. This stated that the US would view any attempts by Europeans to colonize land as an act of aggression, but also that the US would agree to not interfere in European affairs.

This idea was later popularly expressed using the concept of Manifest Destiny, which suggested that the US was destined to control all North American territory, including Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Central America. This expansion of control was viewed as ethical, and even divinely inspired, and it is from this ideology that the term "From sea to shining sea" originated.

Starting in 1868, Cubans began a series of wars fighting for independence from Spanish colonial rule. The third of these wars is now known as the Cuban War of Independence and was launched in 1895 and led by Cuban intellectual and revolutionary José Martí. Martí was killed early in the war during a battle against Spanish troops. He is considered a national hero in Cuba and is widely admired across Latin America.

During this period, Spain was dealing with battles for independence in colonies around the world, and the remaining Spanish Empire was under serious threat. The US saw this as an opportunity to expand its territory, and began to set the stage for war. A global naval deployment began, with ships sent to the Gulf of Mexico, Hong Kong, and the coast of Spain. The USS Maine was sent to Havana in January 1898, and was destroyed in an explosion three weeks later. The cause is still not known definitively today. The ship was loaded with munitions, so it may have been caused by an internal accident, or it may have hit a mine. Some have suggested it was deliberately destroyed by the Americans as a pretext for war.

Whatever the cause, a massive media campaign was begun in the United States to build support for a war against Spain. A common rallying cry was "Remember the Maine, To Hell with Spain!" The media also began spreading stories about atrocities committed by the Spanish against Cubans, and promoted the idea that the US should help support the "liberation" of Cuba. The campaign was successful, and in April the US Congress declared war against Spain.

The Spanish–American War lasted just four months and ended in a decisive US victory. The US gained colonial control over Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, and temporary power in Cuba. The Philippines eventually achieved independence, but Guam and Puerto Rico remain American territories to this day. During the war, the US fleet used Guantanamo Bay as shelter from hurricanes. Their temporary presence was expanded and they began to construct a full naval base.

While the US withdrew most of its troops from Cuba after the war, it maintained control over the country. The first president of Cuba was Tomás Estrada Palma, an American citizen. It was President Palma who signed the Cuban–American Treaty in 1903, giving the US a perpetual lease on Guantanamo Bay for use as a naval station. Despite being a US citizen, however, Palma had been fighting for Cuban independence for decades, and did not wish to give the US territory. However, the US had initially wanted five bases, and he felt it was a victory limiting them to just one. It is important to note that US troops were stationed on the island at the time, and there was an implied threat underpinning treaty negotiations.

In the following years the US would continue to interfere in Cuban affairs, including a three year occupation and governorship. In 1934, another treaty was signed with Cuba, reaffirming the lease of Guantanamo Bay, for which the US agreed to pay $4,085 a year. After the Cuban Revolution of 1959, only a single one of these cheques was cashed by the Cuban government. The Cubans argue that was done by mistake in the confusion of organizing a new government, while the US claims it means Cuba has validated the treaty.

For over 50 years, Cuba has consistently maintained the lease is invalid and demanded that the US leave, which they have obviously refused to do. The treaties claimed by the US have been largely signed by puppet governments, or under the threat of military force, making their validity today dubious. Additionally, the US is a large and powerful country, with hundreds of military bases throughout the world, so it is unclear why they insist on maintaining this base. Certainly they do not need it for any strategic purposes. A base in Florida, for example, just 150 kilometres away, could serve the same function.

If the US hopes to eventually reestablish diplomatic relations with Cuba, leaving Guantanamo, as well as ending the embargo, would be a couple good first steps. Or put another way, the US needs to simply do the right thing, and not stay where they are not wanted. If this helps to provide a rationale or excuse for closing the prison, so much the better.

Haiti's Long Tragedy

2010-01-17T12:21:00.001-05:00

The island of Hispaniola, which today contains the two states of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, had the misfortune to be "discovered" by Christopher Columbus in 1492. The native Taíno peoples called the island by various names, including Ayiti, Bohio, and Kiskeya. The vast majority of the natives would be wiped out in the following years, succumbing to disease, murder, and slavery.

During the 17th century, the Spanish withdrew to the east of the island in order to defend their capital of Santo Domingo, and the French established colonies and took over control of the western part of the island, which they called Saint-Domingue. This is why today, the official language of the Dominican Republic is Spanish and the official languages of Haiti are French and Haitian Creole (a french derivative).

In the 18th century, Saint-Domingue was an extremely profitable colony, exporting millions of tons of sugar and later coffee. Late in the century the colony was producing 40 percent of all the sugar and 60 percent of all the coffee consumed in Europe. The labour used to produce these commodities was provided by 800,000 African slaves. As many as 40,000 slaves were "imported" annually at one point, in order to replace those who had been killed or worked to death.

Shortly after the French Revolution of 1789, as many as 400,000 slaves rose up and the Haitian Revolution began. After more than 10 years and roughly 100,000 casualties, the former slaves achieved liberation and the independent Republic of Haiti was established. This was the only successful slave revolt in the New World, although hundreds of rebellions were fought.

During the early 19th century, there were many power struggles in the new republic, with Alexandre Pétion eventually becoming the first President of Haiti in 1806. He was a large supporter of democracy for most of his tenure, and he engaged in land reform and promoted educational programs. He also gave sanctuary to Simón Bolívar in 1815 and provided arms and troops to aid in Bolívar's fight for independence from Spain.

In 1825, France stationed 14 warships off Port-au-Prince and under this military threat, an agreement was reached where Haiti agreed to pay France 150 million francs (later reduced to 60 million) and in exchange France would recognize its independence. Because Haiti did not have these funds, France agreed to loan the government 30 million francs to order to make their first payment. In other words, Haitians was forced into indebtedness in order to pay reparations to France for liberating themselves. These payments had a devastating effect on Haiti's economy. The debt to France would not be repaid until 1879.

During the late 19th century, Haiti finally began to recover and develop its economy. Constitutional government was established and new industries were setup. For a period, Haiti was considered a model for economic growth in the region. Unfortunately, though the debt to the French government had been paid, Haiti had also incurred new debts to US and French banks. During a period of political instability in the earth 20th century, American investors expressed concern that their debts might not be repaid. The US responded by sending in the Marines and began an occupation of the country in 1915.

The US immediately took control of the government, including banks and the national treasury. They then used a full 40 percent of all national income to repay debts to US and French banks. Many Haitians rebelled against US rule, and thousands were killed. While the occupying government did improve some of the infrastructure, they also enforced segregation and destroyed the exiting French-style Liberal Arts education system, and replaced it with one focused on "vocational training". The US would eventually leave in 1934, though they maintained control over external finances until 1947.

The dictator François Duvalier ("Papa Doc") came to power in 1957 in an election viewed by many as rigged. His rule was viewed as one of the most repressive in the hemisphere and as many as 30,000 Haitians were murdered by death squads. While the US initially criticized some of his actions, they also wanted an anti-communist ally in the region, and Duvalier was able to exploit this to his benefit. After his death in 1971, his son Jean-Claude Duvalier ("Baby Doc") came to power. Strongly supported by the US, he would continue the repression of his father. He was finally ousted in a popular uprising in 1986.

Throughout the 20th century, Haiti became massively deforested. In 1923, over 60 percent of the country was forested, by 2006 this was under 2 percent. Originally the country was covered almost completely by forest. The first stage of deforestation happened during colonial times, when much of the land was cleared for slave plantations. Much of the rest occurred under US occupation, or under repressive governments supported by the US. Some of the wood was logged by or for Western companies and exported. WIth little economy, and extreme poverty, many of the remaining trees have been cut down in order to build shacks or simply to use to cook food.

Haiti's history is a sad and depressing one. It is a tale full of genocide, slavery, extortion, invasion and occupation, resource theft, and severe repression. It is a cruel joke that a country that has endured so much, and has so little ability to deal with catastrophe, must endure even more suffering. It is heartbreaking and unfair. All we can do is to provide as much aid and support as possible, without any strings or conditions, or political manoeuvring. We owe them much more than that, but that is the very least we can possibly do.

Context in Yemen

2010-01-06T13:21:00.000-05:00

Recent news reports have been focusing on the conflict in Yemen, and the potential for an escalation of US involvement. These reports, however, usually provide little historical context that might help in understanding current events. For two centuries Yemen was subjected to invasion, division and colonization. Several foreign governments have intervened militarily on behalf of different factions. These are not situations conducive to stability or peace. Hopefully, by learning from history, we can avoid past crimes and mistakes.

Yemen has been largely muslim for over a thousand years, with Islam arriving around 630. From roughly 900 the territory was ruled by Imams from the Zaidi sect of Shia Islam. At several points, the country was invaded and occupied by various powers, with the longest being by the Ottomans, which lasted several hundred years and largely ended in 1630 through Zaidi resistance. Throughout this period, even during occupations, the Zaidi imamate remained and had a great deal of local support and influence.

During the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire invaded and occupied northern Yemen. In 1832, British forces captured the south port of Aden, which they used to provide refuelling for British East India Company ships en route to India. Their control was later expanded to the surrounding land, and colonization was increased. The British established the Aden Protectorate in 1886 which comprised the southern territory.

It should be noted that the parts of the country referred to as "northern" and "southern" Yemen are probably more accurately described as "eastern" and "western" Yemen, respectively, when viewed on a map. The southern and northern designations likely came about because the Ottomans invaded from the north and the British came in from the south, starting with the southern port of Aden.

In 1904 a treaty was signed between the Ottoman and British empires establishing a border between the two territories. The Zaidi Imamate began to rebuild its forces and local tribes began to engage in guerrilla warfare against both occupiers. However, both the British and Ottomans worked to make deals with local leaders, often reinforced with threats or bribes. The goal was to maintain control and prevent a unified resistance.

The Ottoman empire began to collapse near the end of World War I, and in 1918 Turkish troops withdrew from northern Yemen. Local Zaidi Imam Yahya Muhammad took control in the north and established the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen, also known as North Yemen. The British remained in control of the south, however, initially as part of British India, until 1937, afterwards as a separately administered colony.

During the late fifties and early sixties, pressure grew for the British to leave. Arab nationalists, many who were inspired by Egyptian President Nasser, began to fight and agitate against British rule. Britain worked to unite the territory in its Protectorate and many states were incorporated into the Federation of Arab Emirates of the South in 1959. This is the territory that would later become South Yemen.

In the North, Crown Prince Muhammad al-Badr, grandson of Imam Yahya Muhammad, was deposed by revolutionary nationalist forces in 1962, and the Yemen Arab Republic was established, also known as North Yemen. Egypt provided troops to solidify nationalist rule. Saudi Arabia and Jordan supported the royalists, leading to the North Yemen Civil War. Egyptian forces would withdraw by 1967 and the Republic was recognized by Saudi Arabia by 1970.

In the south, the National Liberation Front (NLF) was formed to fight the British. Later a rival group, the socialist Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen (FLOSY) also began to fight the British, but also began fighting the NLF in a bid for power. After the closure of the Suez Canal in 1967, the British finally began to withdraw. The NLF managed to defeat the FLOSY and gain power and the southern state was renamed the People's Republic of South Yemen. Ironically the socialist FLOSY had been defeated, yet a marxist wing of the NLF gained control and the country took the socialist route anyway.

Despite the cold war ideological divide, relations between the North and South were never as poor as between East and West Germany. Discussions on unification began before the Berlin Wall fell, and once the cold war ended, unification was rapidly achieved. The unified Republic of Yemen was established in early 1990. A new constitution was written, and ratified by the people in 1991. Elections were held in 1993. Unfortunately tensions were high in the new government, and many in the south wanted to secede. This led to civil war in 1994, with the south declaring itself a separate state. Southern forces were defeated, however, and the civil war ended after a few months.

During the civil war, Saudi Wahhabis supported the fight against the south. Wahhabism is a form of Sunni Islam. The Zaidi are Shia muslims, and they form a majority of the population in the northern state of Sa'dah, which borders Saudi Arabia. Today there is a new civil war in Yemen, which begin in 2004 when Zaidis in Sa'dah launched an uprising against the Yemeni government.

Recently the US has provided arms and support to the Yemeni government and launched airstrikes against targets in the North. Rebels claim that these strikes have resulted in many civilian casualties. The US, on the other hand, has accused the rebels of involving Al-Qaeda, and has suggested it may need to send in troops. There have also been clashes between northern rebels and Saudi forces along the border. At the same time, there is a revived separatist struggle in the south. In other words, there is now essentially a three-way civil war going on between the Yemeni government and Shia rebels in the North and Socialist rebels in the South.

Yemen has a long and complex history, which I have only touched on in this article. The past couple hundred years, especially, have been violent and oppressive. The past cannot be undone, and two hundred years of conflict and occupation cannot be overcome quickly or easily. If we can learn anything from history, however, it is that foreign military involvement is likely only to make things worse. Additionally, if foreign militaries do not intervene, none of the factions would have any motivation to engage in external terrorist acts. The future of Yemen, and whatever state or states might result, should be left to the Yemeni people.

Predictions for 2010

2009-12-27T08:02:00.000-05:00

Since this is a site that concerns itself with historical trends, I feel somewhat obligated to make a set of predictions for the coming year. Below I will list five relatively specific predictions for 2010. Next year, we will return to analyze how accurate (or inaccurate) they were. Without further ado, here are the predictions:

1. Space Exploration

NASA will complete its remaining shuttle missions successfully, without accident, though with the possibility of one or two being postponed to 2011. Though it may receive a small increase, NASA will continue to suffer from budget problems, and plans to return to the moon will continue to be delayed. The prospects for the future of space exploration will not improve.

2. Afghanistan

Despite the recent increased troop deployment by the US, the War in Afghanistan is still essentially winding down towards its end. As predicted, with the new troops, the US also began discussing an exit strategy with specific dates. They have proposed that troops will begin withdrawal as soon as mid-2011. Of course, this date is likely to change, but we are now talking in terms of real dates.

I predict that during 2010 the majority of allies will maintain their existing troop deadlines, and others will begin to set specific dates for their disengagement. There will likely be no significant change in the strategic situation on the ground, though insurgents may be forced to move around to a larger degree during the US escalation. The Karzai government will continue to have large problems with corruption and its legitimacy will decline further.

3. Pakistan

The extreme unpopularity of the Zardari administration, combined with the recent repeal of the amnesty law that protected Zardari from corruption charges, will put increasing pressure on him to resign in 2010. I predict that during 2010 he will likely be eventually forced to resign, leading to an election, or he will accede to a new election himself. Nawaz Sharif, of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) will almost certainly win any election as he is by far the most popular leader according to recent polls. I predict also that there will not be a return to military rule, as both Zardari and Sharif are opposed to this, and Sharif would not want to jeopardize his almost certain victory in the next election.

4. Israel

Several trends relating to Israel will continue in 2010. The global movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) will likely continue to grow and expand, become more mainstream, and will achieve more victories. It will also become much more clear that the two-state solution is dead, and there will be growing recognition and support for the idea of a binational (or one-state) solution.

5. Climate Change

New data will continue to show that climate change is accelerating faster than predicted a few years ago, and climate models will improve, providing a better (and bleaker) picture of our future. Despite this, there will be little progress in international UN-mediated talks following the failure in Copenhagen, and carbon emissions will continue to grow. These trends will combine in 2010, leading to a shift in strategy by third world nations and many Western environmental activists. Third world nations, especially in Africa, will begin to align themselves more closely to each other and begin to develop policies to put pressure on Western countries to reduce carbon emissions.

Relative Beauty

2009-12-15T07:41:00.000-05:00

The famous expression says "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". And while there is undoubtedly a subjective factor in the perception of beauty, it is much more socially and culturally defined than many believe. Different societies, throughout the world, and throughout history, have held many different views of the "ideal" female form, and this ideal is generally defined by the dominant social class, and almost always by men.

Why the focus on only female beauty? Throughout the vast majority of history, women have had few or no rights. They usually did not have the ability to make choices, whether about a mate, their own bodies, their profession or anything else. It was generally men who made the decisions, either as fathers or husbands, and it is they who determined (for themselves) the value of women. Art and literature were primarily made by and for men. While male beauty was certainly recognized (see many ancient Greek statues, for example, or the work of Michelangelo), this was primarily independent of gender relations.

Consider the view of beauty in Europe from the Renaissance through the Victorian era. This was a period dominated primarily by Monarchy and Aristocracy. As we can see in many paintings of the time, women were often portrayed as voluptuous and pale. This was considered the ideal for several reasons. Status and wealth meant that a woman could be well fed, as opposed to the many struggling poor. A pale complexion indicated that one didn't have to work outdoors, and be exposed to the sun. Within the social and economic setting of the times, these attributes represented the archetype of high standing, and thus were viewed as beautiful.

During the Victorian period, this view can be seen reflected in the consumer products of the time. Many fatty products were marketed to women as being able to make them plump and (therefore) more attractive. This view of beauty was still evident in the pin-ups of the early twentieth century, where the women portrayed were somewhat larger and rounder than those usually portrayed today. Around the middle of the century, however, this began to change.

From the fifties forward, portrayals of women in art and photography began to move towards a slimmer figure and skin that was more tanned. This corresponds to changing social conditions. The aristocracy was no more, and there was a growing middle class in Europe and especially the US. Air travel also started to become more common. Slimness became more highly valued as it represented activeness and health. Those with means were able to travel widely and have vacations in tropical areas, so tanned skin started to be associated with wealth and privilege.

Other cultures show similar correlations. In some African tribes, for example, the ability to have many offspring is highly valued, since it allows for a larger family and helps to grow the tribe. In such cultures, women with larger waists are considered to be more likely to give birth easily, and with less complications. Correspondingly, women with this attribute are usually considered the most attractive within such a culture. Local art forms do not generally portray women as thin with slight figures.

Most societies have historically been patriarchal, that is dominated by men. In many cases, this means that women have often been valued as status symbols or even as property. In this context, younger women are more highly valued, and there is a long record of men (often much older) paying a "bride price" to acquire such women or girls. Younger women also have the ability to produce children for a longer period of time. It is unsurprising, then, that in such societies, a young, healthy woman represents the ideal of beauty.

In some of the few matriarchal societies that have existed throughout history, however, women have often been viewed much differently. Older women are sometimes considered "wise women" and make many of the tribal decisions. They have more status, wealth, and power than younger women. Unsurprisingly then, older women are often considered more attractive in such cultures and are more desirable as mates. This is similar to why successful, wealthy, older men, are frequently considered more attractive in some modern societies.

We all live in a specific society with a specific culture, and we often consider our values and beliefs to be universal and eternal. But with only a little exploration, it becomes clear that views about female beauty, as well as many other things, are largely relative. In the case of some beliefs, such as slavery, or female emancipation, we can well and properly argue that while different societies have different values, some of those values are better than others. I am not making an argument for cultural relativity.

In the case of aesthetics, though, I do not believe any such arguments can be made. There is no reason why one view of beauty is any better than another. Indeed, the entire concept of an "ideal" of female beauty is essentially sexist and patriarchal. If our view of beauty has been defined throughout history by social, cultural, and economic factors, and, of course, by men, then a progressive position would be to reject such definitions, including our own, as having any innate value. Only in this way can we look forward to a day where beauty truly is in the eye, or the mind, of the beholder.

The Age of Oil

2009-12-04T09:33:00.000-05:00

The Age of Oil will likely turn out to be one of the most important historical periods in human history. The end of this Age may also be as important to the future of our species as the end of the Age of Dinosaurs was to the future of mammals. The entire basis of our modern civilization is built on oil and other fossil fuels. It has enabled the industrial revolution, a massive increase in population, and our current standard of living in the West, as well as our extravagant levels of consumption. One way or another, the passing of this Age will change us irrevocably.

The idea of peak oil is a relatively simple one. As with all non-renewable resources, there is only a finite amount of oil in the ground. There must therefore come a point when we have reached a maximum in the rate of extraction of this resource. This is not about running out, but rather reaching a limit on how much we can produce in a given year. This is not controversial, it logically follows for any finite resource. The debate around the issue of peak oil usually involves questions about when the peak will come, and what the consequences of this will be.

There is a growing consensus among geologists that the world has either reached peak oil, or is rapidly approaching this point. There are several reasons for this. First, the rate of discovery of new oil deposits peaked in 1964. Since then we have continued to discover new deposits, but at a slower and slower rate. Since 1981, we have been consuming oil faster than we have been finding it. Most of the large and easy to find oil fields have already been discovered.

Another reason is that many of the large old fields are becoming depleted, and are long past peak production. They are still producing oil, but it is becoming much more difficult and expensive to extract this oil, and the rate at which it can be extracted is decreasing. There is a similar situation in the search for new fields. There may be more oil under the ocean floor, or in the arctic, but conditions in these areas make oil exploration and production much more difficult, expensive, and energy-intensive. This limits our rate of discovery, as well as the rate at which we can exploit these resources if they are found.

A UK study has calculated that in order to maintain current production, we would need to discover a new Saudi Arabia every 3 years, just to replace the loss from declines in existing fields. This may explain why oil production has been roughly stagnant since 2005, with a small drop this year. This is the main reason why prices rose to record levels leading up to 2008, and only dropped when the economy contracted, after the bursting of the housing bubble and the banking crisis. The recession has caused demand to drop, allowing oil prices to decline. Many geologists now believe we may never exceed production rates from 2008, or if we do, this will reach a peak within 10 years.

Over the past hundred years, our use of oil has risen from almost nothing to a current level of roughly 75 million barrels a day. Continuously over this period, oil production has increased every year, with the exception of brief disruptions caused by wars or embargoes. During this period, we have industrialized, electrified, and paved the world, and especially Western countries, and our population has quadrupled in size. This has allowed for our current access to electricity and our transportation system, as well as our standard of living and ability to consume a large quantity of material goods.

The good news is that peak oil does not mean we will run out of oil any time soon. What it means is that after the peak, we will have a bit less oil available each year than the year before. However, all the changes described above were made possible by a continually growing supply of oil. Indeed, our economy itself has been largely driven by oil over the past hundred years. This is what has made it possible for us to enjoy continued growth, year after year, with the exception of occasional recessions and the Great Depression. One hundred years is long enough for several generations to live and die, and has led us to believe that economic growth is a natural, or even inevitable, phenomenon.

This is what makes peak oil, and the Age of Oil itself, so historically important. Over the course of human history, the Age of Oil is very short. We have had a hundred years of growing access to oil, and may have a hundred more of diminishing supplies, and then oil will be gone, for all practical purposes. Two hundred years is not that long a period when measured over the scale of human history. Yet, like all other generations, we consider our current circumstances to be normal and natural, and cannot imagine that they could change.

With oil production at a plateau, economic growth will no longer be possible. At production declines, the economic will have to contract. We have access to other sources of energy, such as wind, solar and nuclear, but none of these are as dense or cheap as oil. They can never replace the energy provided by oil, nor allow for continued economic growth, but they could provide enough energy to meet basic needs. Of course, other factors such as damage to the environment and global warming will make the situation that much worse.

Oil and other fossil fuels also made the Green Revolution possible, which dramatically increased food production, through the use of mechanized farming methods and fertilizer. Without access to oil, it will be much more difficult to grow enough food to feed the world, although a transition to sustainable farming methods could mitigate this to some degree. Still, without oil, it will be much more difficult for the planet to support a growing population, and food production will become much more labour-intensive.

The Age of Oil has allowed us to make dramatic advances, but it has also badly damaged our environment, and committed us to a level of global warming that will have many adverse affects on the world and on our lives. As this Age wanes, we will see many dramatic changes. Our economic system, the structure of our society, and our culture will all change in ways that are difficult to predict. Only one thing is clear, nothing will ever be the same again.

End of Economic Growth

2009-11-24T10:47:00.001-05:00

It is commonly said that we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. This this is clearly understood, at least intellectually, by most people. The implications and consequences, however, are often ignored. On the one hand, we have physical limits imposed by the planet that prevent infinite expansion, and on the other we have only a finite amount of resources, especially energy, without which continued growth cannot be maintained.

Our current economic system, which is primarily measured in terms of GDP, depends on continual growth, year after year, over time. There can be temporary periods of economic contraction, which are called recessions or depressions, and are something to be avoided as much as possible. Interestingly, contraction is often referred to as "negative growth", which reinforces the idea of how much the idea of "growth" is implicit within the system. Other than these temporary setbacks though, for the system to survive, a long term trend of increasing growth is required.

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the standard measure of overall economic activity. That is, the amount of goods produced, the amount of construction and infrastructure built, and the amount of services provided. It usually doesn't take into consideration any external factors such as pollution, carbon emissions, or other environmental or human impacts. This means that a coal mining operation is much more "productive" than conservation, for example. Conservation means reducing GDP, which benefits the environment, but lowers economic activity.

Another example would be the Iraq war. Massive construction and private security services have been extremely "productive" economically (for the US). The war has resulted in many human deaths and the destruction of infrastructure in Iraq. However, not only is the rebuilding of infrastructure productive, much of this is being destroyed continually, which means it must be continually rebuilt, which makes it even more "productive" for construction companies operating in Iraq, and this raises GDP.

The point here is that GDP is not a measurement of health, happiness, or sustainability, it is merely a measurement of the intensity and scope of economic activity. It is up to humans to make a value judgement about what economic activity is beneficial and which is detrimental. Ironically, GDP measurements also fail to take into account economic activities that can reduce the potential for future economic productivity.

This is similar to the idea of human carrying capacity. We also have, essentially, an economic carrying capacity as well. Just as we are drawing down ecological capital, in the case of human carrying capacity, we are drawing down our economic capital as well. In fact, in many ways, ecological capital is economic capital. With less arable land, less farming is possible, with ocean acidification and species loss, we have less fishing, with rising sea levels, we also have less productive land. These are all economic activities that are being curtailed by our present economic activity. By using our renewable resources faster than they can replenish themselves, we are drawing down our future capital.

Another area where this is even more obvious is with the use of non-renewable resources. We are at, or close to, the point of peak oil. This means that going forward, there will be a bit less oil available every year than the year before. Other energy resources, and some types of rare metals, are also nearing peak. This doesn't mean we run out, but with declining resources, economic activity cannot expand, indeed it will need to contract. The faster we use these resources today, the less will be available as inputs to economic activity tomorrow.

The planet started off, before humans, with a massive amount of resources, both renewable and non-renewable. Especially during the past hundred years, we have been exponentially increasing our use and consumption of these resources. This has been the engine behind 100 years of economic growth. But this is not return on investment. We are draining our bank account, essentially drawing down principal, not living off the interest. This is why our current level economic activity is not sustainable, let alone future growth.

Future of Space Exploration

2009-11-13T16:57:00.001-05:00

Human spaceflight, and space exploration, took off dramatically half a century ago. Shortly after World War II, during the height of the cold war, there was an explosion in technology, practical knowledge and experience in launching spacecraft and operating in space. The technological advances required during WWII were further built upon during the rivalry of the cold war and led to rapid and dramatic advances, far beyond most people's expectations. In the past couple decades, however, we have lost much of our practical knowledge and ability to explore space, as well as the drive to do so.

When President Kennedy first made his speech in 1961 declaring that the US would land on the moon by the end of the decade, few thought it possible, including many at NASA itself. Yet, through competition with the USSR, determination, sacrifice, and strong funding, technological leaps were made on an almost yearly basis leading to a triumphant landing by Apollo 11, on July 20, 1969. Kennedy's outrageous goal had been met.

After the six successful missions to land on the moon (and the safe recovery of the failed Apollo 13 mission), however, despite many advances made in technology and considerable advances in our scientific knowledge, humans have never since left the orbit of the Earth. The last time we did so was in 1972, during the final Apollo mission, Apollo 17. That was 37 years ago.

The reason for this has not been a lack of technology, but a lack of will (and funding). Some have suggested that if the Soviets, after losing the moon race, had immediately announced their intention to beat the US to Mars, there is little doubt a successful Mars landing, by either nation or both, could have been achieved by 1985, or even earlier. Indeed, NASA was already actively planning for a Mars mission during the Apollo years, but this was abandoned when Apollo was terminated. The Soviets were planning missions as well, but also shelved them after NASA did.

NASA has recently decided to return to the moon, officially setting a date of 2020 for the first mission, with the subsequent goal of going to Mars by 2037. Unofficially, however, these dates appear ready to slip. These missions would involve the Constellation program, which includes the Ares I rocket for launching humans and the Ares V rocket for launching cargo. The Ares I rocket, with the Orion capsule, is also intended to replace the Space Shuttle, which is due to be retired next year.

The Orion is not scheduled to launch until at least 2015, which means that unless the Shuttle program is extended, the US will have zero ability to launch humans into space during this period, and will need to rely on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft in order to send crew to the ISS. As the International Space Station is currently scheduled to cease operations in 2015, it is possible it will never again be visited by a US spacecraft after 2010.

A recent review of NASA, which comes after a recent change in the US administration, suggests that there may not simply be delays in the already unambitious targets, but some parts of the program could even be cancelled, which would make the whole issue of target dates academic.

Other countries, such as Russia, China and even India have also proposed manned missions to the Moon and Mars, though these are somewhat speculative at this point. Perhaps the most serious proposal has been from Russia, which has suggested it could send a crew of four or five to Mars as early as 2016 to 2020. The European Space Agency has indicated some interest in this, and it is possible there could be a joint EU-Russian mission. However, there has been no official blessing or funding for this proposal.

It therefore seems extremely unlikely that any manned mission by any nation, or group of nations, will expand human space exploration any further than the first moon landing in 1969, within the next 30 years. That would be a total of 70 years without any real progress. Unfortunately, beyond 30 years, our ability to launch humans, or even robots or satellites, may be more limited than today.

We have two main crises facing the planet today, which are likely to significantly increase in the next few decades. First, there is global warming which is already having a large impact on the world, with much more serious consequences to follow. Failure to address the problem could lead to significant economic and political disruption. At the same time, if we do move swiftly to address the problem, we will need to impose constraints on carbon emissions and some types of economic activity. Neither situation is conducive to the expensive endeavour of human space exploration.

The second crisis is that of peak oil. Most geologists think we are either at, or very close to, the peak of oil production. This does not mean that oil will run out, just that each year there will be a bit less than the year before. This is something the world has not experienced before, as oil supplies have been continually growing (except for brief wars or embargoes) during the past 100 years. This could lead to dramatic price increases and shortages. Again, this is not a situation in which human space exploration can be easily pursued.

Based on the above, and the current state of human space exploration, then, the conclusion seems to be that humanity is unlikely to expand space exploration significant in the next century, or perhaps longer. It is possible we might witness a one-off Mars mission, but even that is looking less likely as each year passes. Perhaps in a few hundred years, if the environment has recovered and there is a smaller population, these efforts might continue. Or perhaps by then, we'll have too few resources left to easily try again.

African Union

2009-11-05T20:53:00.000-05:00

The idea of a politically united Africa, Pan-Africanism, has been around for over a hundred years. While the pan-african movement has been involved in anti-slavery and anti-colonial struggles and the fight against Apartheid South Africa, there has never been any significant movement towards a political unification. However, recent historical events, quite unexpectedly, may provide an impetus in this direction.

During colonial times, there was a common goal in Africa of trying to gain liberation from European masters. Even while such successes were being achieved, however, division was also being created by the alignment of various countries with either the Soviets or Americans during the cold war. Each side would provide aid and assistance to certain countries, in return for their governments siding with either the Eastern or Western blocs, in other words becoming client states.

Such formal arrangements have largely disappeared since the end of the cold war, theoretically allowing for greater African independence and making unity more feasible. However, while there is no longer a dual-polar world, a new situation has been developing where African countries are being courted by both the US and China and are generally responding by being more favourable to one side or the other. Unlike during the cold war, these are no longer exclusive arrangements, it is more like "client state light".

The US has obvious economic interests in the region, with many countries having very rich resource deposits. This includes oil, diamonds, gold, uranium, and other specialized metals. The US and other Western companies have been very active in African countries with these resources. Often the US, or the IMF or World Bank, will provide substantial aid to these countries in return for the permission to develop and extract these resources. These funds rarely go to the people in these countries, while they still have to bear the consequences which often include increased pollution, local conflict, corruption and labour abuses. Accordingly, this has become known as the "African Resource Curse". Statistics show that countries with these resources have lower GDP and less general development that those without.

During the past ten years, China has dramatically increased trade with Africa, for similar reasons. A recent report says that China's trade with Africa has increased by ten times since 2000. China is taking a somewhat different approach from the West. They have been building infrastructure, roads and other facilities these countries are lacking. This is not just infrastructure needed to transport the resources, but real development these countries need such as hospitals and schools. Often, to avoid corruption, Chinese companies and employees will build these facilities themselves, then hand them over after completion, ensuring the funds go to the right place. Usually this aid is provided with "no strings" as opposed to most Western aid. They are taking a sort of "kinder, gentler" approach, though with similar goals as the West.

What is clear is that both China and the West have a vast demand for resources, especially energy. The US is the largest per capita consumer in the world, and China is the fastest growing industrial nation in the world. A recent radio broadcast said that fully half of all the world's construction is currently happening in China. Despite this, however, this is unlike colonialism, since there are no military occupations, and there is not the same level of aggressive insistence on partisanship there was during the cold war. The intense ideological debates are also largely gone.

There is, however, one issue and common concern today that is uniting Africans beyond these short term economic and trade interests: Climate Change. A symbolic demonstration of this new unity was displayed in recent days, when all African delegates walked out of UN climate change meetings in Barcelona. Their main concern is that Africa will suffer disproportionally from the effects of global warming, and the tentative carbon reduction targets being discussed prior to Copenhagen are far short of the mark. This is likely a fair criticism, as a new study shows the dramatic targets scientists believe are now necessary to avert catastrophic consequences.

While this is likely purely a symbolic move, I believe it signals a recognition by most African countries that their interests, and their future, are separate and independent from the West or the East. Like under colonialism, they are beginning to realize this is a struggle for not just freedom or independence, but for survival itself. There are many competing interests among African nations, and even armed conflicts, but African history shows that these differences can be set aside in the case of a greater threat (or a greater enemy). There is also a large distinction in many African countries between what the leadership wants and what the people want.

I predict that unless there are dramatic concessions by Western countries in regard to carbon emissions and a strong legally binding agreement in Copenhagen, this trend will increase. Populist or nationalist leaders will be more likely to be elected in Africa, and revolutions will become more likely in more authoritarian countries. This will create the possibility of greater African unity and purpose, and lay the groundwork for at least the potential of a political African Union.

The Future of Pakistan

2009-10-31T15:41:00.000-04:00

Recent history in Pakistan seems to bear a similarity to events in Iran during the rule of the Shah. The recent leadership of Pakistan has been similar in several ways to that of the Shah. In both countries the leaders were strongly backed by the United States. Both were involved in repressing or attacking their own people. In Iran, this led the revolution of 1979 which created an Islamic Republic. Could something similar happen in Pakistan?

In 1953, the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq, was replaced by the Shah in a US and British led coup. The US and their CIA provided funding and support to the Shah during his resign, and helped to establish the dreaded SAVAK secret police force. SAVAK tortured and executed thousands during the Shah's rule, and imprisoned many more.

In Pakistan, the democratically elected leader, Nawaz Sharif was deposed in a military coup in 1999 by General Musharraf. While the US was not involved in this coup, the Bush administration strongly supported Musharraf after 9/11 and provided him with significant funding. Musharraf was pressured to resign in 2008 and Pakistan did elect a new leader, Asif Ali Zardari, though he has maintained close ties to the US and has continued similar policies. Under the Obama administration, the US has remained a strong backer of Zardari and is continuing to provide aid to his government.

After 9/11 Musharraf was threatened by the US to side with them against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Under pressure from the US, and worried about closer ties between India and the US, Musharraf agreed and provided the US with the use of three airbases, as well as other support. In the following years, the Pakistan army took an active role in the war, with forces operating at the Afghan border and well as pursuing domestic al-qaeda and Taliban militants.

In recent years, Pakistan has supported and permitted (though sometimes reluctantly) the United States use of unmanned drones to bomb suspected militant sites within Pakistani territory. This bombing has escalated considerably in the past couple years. For nationalistic reasons, and concern over civilian casualties, the Pakistani public has been very critical of these attacks and many consider them attacks on Pakistani sovereignty or even acts of terror. In a recent visit to Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was sharply questioned over these attacks.

Earlier this year, the Pakistani military began a major escalation in their fight against the Taliban with an assault on the Swat Valley region. This resulted in the displacement of over 2 million people, and many casualties among militants, army and civilians. More recently, there is an offensive underway in South Waziristan, which has triggered large bombings and civilian casualties. All schools across the nation have been closed for an indefinite period of time.

A recent poll by Gallup Pakistan was undertaken to gauge public sentiment. The results should not be too surprising given the above. Only 9 percent of Pakistanis support the drone attacks, while 67 percent oppose. More people support dialogue with the Taliban than military action (43 percent to 41). President Zardari has the support of only 11 percent of the population (with his party having only 20 percent support). Perhaps more telling, only 11 percent consider the Taliban the greatest threat to Pakistan, while 59 percent consider the United States the largest threat. Clearly, the US is deeply unpopular in Pakistan, and the vast majority of people do not support their government's alliance with the US.

Another issue is that of US aid. The US congress has passed an aid package for Pakistan, which imposes several conditions, including one which critics suggest results in US oversight of the Pakistani military. Pakistanis have responded with street protests and claim this is a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. It is possible the US will modify the bill to improve the language, but the damage is already done. Pakistanis are distrustful of any aid from the US. Another large complaint is that US contractors are operating with impunity within Pakistan, and that they are carrying weapons illegally.

There are many differences between Iran and Pakistan, of course, and one situation can never parallel another completely. Also, even when there are similar situations, the outcome can sometimes be different. Still, there are lessons to be learned from history. A government supported by a foreign power most citizens do not like or identify with, that represses and kills its own people, is not in a stable situation. There are many examples in history of such situations others than Iran, and many of them have had similar outcomes.

Pakistan's alignment with the US and US interests appears to be the largest factor causing instability within that country. The majority of Pakistanis do not support this role nor any domestic government that follows it. I will predict that unless there is an election in Pakistan of a government that follows the will of its people more closely, the likelihood of a revolution, coup, or breakup will increase over time. Eventually the situation will become untenable, and one of these outcomes will come to pass.

Opium in Afghanistan

2009-10-26T12:44:00.000-04:00

By examining the history of Afghanistan and of opium production generally, we can get a better idea of what the causes might be of rises and falls in its production during the 20th century and up to today. This article will discuss the origins of the opium trade, and will examine which circumstances in Afghanistan have been favourable or unfavourable to its production. This should make it possible to predict what might happen with Afghan opium production in the future.

A Brief History of Opium

The beginning of the opium trade as a modern global economic enterprise can be traced to the British East India Company in the 18th century. During this time the British, as well as several other European states, established trading posts in India. The British East India Company specifically pursed a monopoly on the production and export of Indian opium. By 1773, they had eliminated all other large competitors and established a de facto monopoly. In the following years, they worked to eliminate most independent middlemen, ensuring they had complete control over the entire supply chain.

During this time, British merchants were actively involved in exporting opium into China, where the drug was banned. The amount of exports were increased from 15 tons in 1730 to 75 tons by 1773. The Chinese government issued decrees against the import of the drug and tried to stop smuggling, without much success. This led to increasing tension with the British. By the 1920s, China was importing 900 tons of opium annually.

This situation led to the two Opium Wars in the mid 19th century between China and the British, both of which were won decisively by the British. China was forced into signing several disadvantageous treaties which granted the British broad trade and economic rights and legalized opium import. This included a treaty which ceded the territory of Hong Kong to Britain (and which was only returned to China in 1997.)

By the late 19th and early 20th century, opium was one of the largest commercial enterprises in the world. However, in the early 20th century many countries began to pass laws making opium illegal, partly because of fear of western addiction, which marked a transition of the enterprise from a legal to an illicit one. Despite the massive profits (and built-in demand from addicts) the regulatory changes seem to have had a significant effect. After the turn of the century, opium production dropped radically around the world.

Of course, despite the new laws this was still a very profitable enterprise, and with millions of existing addicts, there was a large pre-existing demand, so opium production did not disappear completely. Many areas in Asia continued to produce opium. During the 50s China engaged in a massive anti-drug effort, which led to the "Golden Triangle" area of Laos, Myanmar and Thailand becoming one of the largest producers in the world during the 60s and 70s. The area continues to be a significant producer of opium to this day.

Opium in Afghanistan

During the early to mid 20th century there was no opium industry in Afghanistan. Some farmers grew poppies on a small scale in order to supply local markets, but this was very limited. However, after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, many warlords came to power and had a desperate need to generate revenue in order to purchase weapons. Opium became the crop of choice.

This was the cold war, of course, so the Americans were very interested in providing support to Afghan insurgents with the hope that they would fight, and weaken, the USSR. These Mujahideen fighters organized opium production and vastly increased it. As they gained control over territory, they even ordered local peasants to plant poppies as part of a "revolutionary tax", as documented in this article.

The focus on the cold war meant that the US did not oppose the Afghan drug trade, and indeed may have assisted it. As opium production (and addiction) continued to grow, Afghanistan soon became the largest producer of opium in the world, surpassing the Golden Triangle.

After the withdrawal of the Red Army, and the subsequent suspension of western support and funding, a civil war erupted as various warlords tried to gain dominance. These struggles required additional funding and weapons, which meant yet more opium production. During this time the Taliban emerged and eventually gained power in the late 90s.

Once the Taliban consolidated their rule and after the fighting generally stopped, some measure of stability was achieved. This led to a declaration in July 2000 by Taliban leader Mohammed Omar that opium production was un-Islamic. The Taliban then followed this up with a massive anti-drug campaign, actively enforced throughout the country.

As this UN study (PDF) reports, they achieved a "near total success of the ban in eliminating poppy cultivation" and reduced production areas by a massive 91 percent. Helmand Province, one of the largest production areas in prior years, had its production reduced to zero.

After the western invasion of 2001, however, this situation very quickly reversed itself. Once again, the need for funds and weapons by insurgents meant that poppy production had to be increased dramatically. In fact, over the past few years production has surpassed all previous levels and Afghanistan currently supplies about 93 percent of the world's opiates, according to another UN report (PDF). This amounts to over 64 billion dollars in exports and represents about half of Afghan GDP.

The opium industry is so widespread in Afghanistan, it is not limited only to the insurgents. Many government officials, including those close to current President Karzai, are involved in, and benefit from, the opium trade. As one former US state department official stated: "Narco-corruption goes to the top of the Afghan government".

The conclusion seems to be that instability and war are the primary factors responsible for increased opium production in Afghanistan. Before the Soviet invasion, and during the brief rule of the Taliban, opium production was either very limited, or deliberated curtailed.

I predicted that the War in Afghanistan will soon be over, and that the Taliban will likely regain power afterwards. This makes it easy to predict, then, that Afghanistan will cease to be a major opium producer relatively soon after the war is over.

Copenhagen

2009-10-19T08:54:00.000-04:00

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is less than 50 days away. The success or failure of this meeting is likely to have a large historical impact. A strong international agreement on emissions reduction is necessary, but not sufficient, to avert the most serious consequences of global warming. A strong accord, with real teeth, can give us a good starting point for further agreements down the road, and can begin to start real global reductions in CO2 emissions (not just a reduction in their growth.) If, however, no strong agreement is reached, or if the talks completely collapse, runaway climate change would seem inevitable.

One of the main difficulties is that climate change is accelerating at a much faster pace than scientists had thought possible even a few years ago, and they have had to update their models. This means that many of the initial target goals considered in the negotiations are out of date, and no longer adequate. A new german study has attempted to definite more accurate targets, based on the latest scientific data. The study says that the US must now completely eliminate emissions (zero carbon) by 2020, other European countries must do so by 2025-2030, and China must achieve this by 2035.

These new numbers are shocking because they sound virtually impossible to achieve. It is difficult to imagine any politicians agreeing to a plan to reduce carbon emissions to zero in only 10 years. Currently the US is only proposing reducing emissions by 4 percent (from 1990 levels) and this has yet to be approved by legislators. It is likely that a bill will be passed, but the target levels contained within the legislation simply aren't good enough.

It is obvious that there won't be a agreement at Copenhagen that involves any of the radical numbers that now appear necessary. That doesn't mean it must be a failure, however. Over 20 years ago, there was a fight against Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) after scientists learned it was one of the major causes of a growing hole in the Ozone layer. In 1985, there was a critical meeting of 22 nations in Vienna.

The Vienna Conference let to a signed document called the Vienna Convention. This agreement did not set the targets that were required to reduce or eliminate ozone depletion, nor did it put in place the necessary legislative controls. However, the signatories did reach agreement that these things were necessary, and needed to be implemented. It also established a framework for future agreements that would allow these things to be put in place. This led two years later to the Montreal Protocol. In 1987, 24 nations signed an agreement that set real targets, controls and monitoring, and obligated the signatories to fulfill their commitments.

The Montreal Protocol (which was have been updated and revised several times since 1987) is today widely viewed as a great success in international cooperation. If all nations continue to adhere to the Protocol, it is expected that the Ozone layer will fully recover by 2050. Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations described it this way:

Perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol.

The Vienna Convention was as as important to addressing ozone depletion as Copenhagen is to addressing global warming. We cannot expect it to result in the establishment of the tough targets that we really need. However, there is hope that it can begin a process that will lead to hard limits, and real enforcement power. We have already waited too long, and cannot afford to wait much longer. Some might argue that it was Kyoto that should have filled the role of the Vienna Convention. It certainly would have been much easier to address the problem if we had started then. We cannot go back in time, but we can learn the dangers of complacency.

As soon as Copenhagen is concluded, we need to move quickly towards a stronger agreement, hopefully a year later. For now, though, the focus must remain on the upcoming conference, and ensuring that our leaders take the absolute strongest position possible. I will make no predictions here, other than the obvious one: If Copenhagen is a failure, our last, best hope of preventing the worst consequences of global warming will be lost.

Nobel Facepalm

2009-10-09T14:15:00.000-04:00

The Nobel Peace Prize has always been controversial, but I suspect the award of the 2009 prize to Barack Obama is likely to be one of the most controversial. The award doesn't seem to make much sense considering President Obama hasn't actually done anything to warrant the prize, as many have already pointed out. I strongly suspect, as well, that this award will do nothing positive for Obama himself, or for his administration.

I will make some predictions here:

This will be historically viewed as one of the worst, and most controversial, award choices for the Peace Prize in Nobel history
President Obama will regret accepting the prize
The Norwegian Nobel Committee will regret its decision, and at least one current or former member will denounce it in the future

UPDATE (Oct 13): Alternative Nobel awarded to Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki. This would have been a much more worthy choice for the official Nobel Peace Prize.

UPDATE2 (Oct 15): Deliberations of the Nobel Committee have been leaked showing considerable objection to the choice of Obama, both from the left and the right. While the Chairman managed to obtain a consensus in the end, the rare leak itself suggests dissention. My third prediction looks closer to coming true.

The Future of Israel

2009-10-06T12:17:00.000-04:00

It appears that a turning point in the history of the state of Israel may have been reached in recent months and years. A number of different factors have come together to suggest that traditional peace plans, such as the "road map for peace" proposal, with separate and independent states for Israel and Palestine is looking less and less likely to occur. The political situation, and the situation on the ground, points more and more to a future binational state.

First, there is the recent election in Israel of Benjamin Netanyahu as leader of a right-wing coalition. The new government is generally supportive of increasing settlements in the west bank and is hesitant about support for a Palestinian state. Despite intense negotiations with the Americans, no agreement has been reached on halting settlements, and even a temporary freeze, limited to certain areas only, has not been agreed to.

The existence of the settlements in the West Bank means that establishing a separate, contiguous Palestinian state would be extremely difficult without the mass withdrawal of settlements. Most Israelis are unlikely to agree with any decision to do this and indeed many are in favour of expanding the settlements even further. The map below shows the situation from 2 years ago.

Support for a "one state" solution among Palestinians has been rising, mostly because of the failure to make any progress on the traditional "two state" solution.

A binational or "one state" solution would mean that there would be a single country between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, with Jewish and Arab citizens. In this context, there is no longer a focus on borders and national rights, but instead the focus is on human and democratic rights for all citizens. Most Israelis oppose this approach because they think it threatens the future of Israel as a Jewish State. However, at the same time, most Israelis also don't support withdrawing settlements and permitting a sovereign Palestinian state.

The shift to a struggle for Palestinian rights within a single state is clearly taking place within popular social movements and among peace activists. This can be widely seen in their growing accusations of Israel being an Apartheid State. Israel disputes this comparison but nevertheless the conversation has begun to change to a discussion of civil rights and voting rights within a single country.

Another factor is demographics. The birth rate of Arab Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is significantly higher than the birth rate of Jewish Israelis. This means the Jewish majority is declining, which could lead to an eventual binational state. This argument is made in the section called "The Arab Demographic Threat" of an article in the conservative Jewish magazine Commentary. Author Michael B. Oren, who is also the current Israeli Ambassador to the United States writes:

Israel, the Jewish State, is predicated on a decisive and stable Jewish majority of at least 70 percent. Any lower than that and Israel will have to decide between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. If it chooses democracy, then Israel as a Jewish state will cease to exist. If it remains officially Jewish, then the state will face an unprecedented level of international isolation, including sanctions, that might prove fatal.

The previous Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said something similar:

If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished

Many activist groups have indeed started to push for sanctions and boycotts in what they call the BDS Movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.) They are taking a similar approach to the anti-apartheid movement against South Africa. The past couple of years has seen significant growth in this movement, and it appears to have a growing impact in terms of achieving several boycott and divestment agreements and concessions.

The 2006 Lebanon War and the recent Gaza War have also increased protests against Israel and resulted in UN accusations of human rights violations and war crimes. While Israel disputes these findings, they have given support to protest movements, including the BSD Movement mentioned above.

All the above factors point to a general trend away from a two-state solution, and the window of opportunity for such an agreement may now be closed. Without a breakthrough in negotiations the current evidence points to the future of Israel as a binational state with equal rights for all citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish alike.

War in Afghanistan (2001-201X)

2009-10-03T15:30:00.000-04:00

In seems clear that recent events in Afghanistan have reached a turning point. While much of the debate is now focused on whether or not the Americans will dramatically increase troop deployment, there has been a broader recognition (even by the Americans) that the war cannot continue forever, and at some point an exit strategy will have to be defined. Many NATO countries have already set an exit date, and while the Americans haven't, they have recognized they will need to set one in the next couple of years, as they did with Iraq. In other words, the war is essentially over, except the casualties will continue for a number of additional years.

The war started eight years ago, and the strategy and approach has not changed much during those eight years. After the beginning of the Iraq war, in fact, there was little focus on Afghanistan for many years. What, then, makes the present different? Several factors are involved and will be listed below.

First, there is the recent (and ongoing) Afghan election. The widespread fraud (which is still being investigated) has cast even more doubt on the legitimacy of the Karzai administration. This administration was already widely viewed as corrupt and incompetent, and it includes many warlords involved in the drug trade. The level (and blatancy) of the fraud, however, seems to have surprised everyone. It is still unknown if a runoff election will be required and if it is, this might have to wait for spring. The result is that the legitimacy of the foreign-backed government is now more strongly questioned by the people of Afghanistan. Perhaps even more importantly, the legitimacy of the government is also questioned by the people of the United States and other NATO countries.

Secondly, the local insurgency has gained much strength over the past couple years and has led to record numbers of casualties among the foreign forces. In addition to gaining more strength, the Taliban now control 80 percent of the country and have significant influence in 17 percent, according to a study by ICOS:

Their influence of the Taliban has also extended to the North, where they previously had been mostly absent. This puts more pressure on foreign troops (such as the Germans) who have not taken large combat roles. This also threatens the northern supply lines, which had previously been fairly secure.

Thirdly, as a result of the election, the growing insurgency, increasing casualties, and the length of the war, public support for the war has declined even further. In most european countries and Canada, there is a strong majority opinion in favour of withdrawing troops. This opinion has now increased further, and in the United States, for the first time, a majority of Americans now oppose the mission.

As a result of the above factors, it seems likely the US will need to articulate some type of exit plan, probably in less than two years. This will then need to be followed with a specific date for the withdrawal of troops, as was done in Iraq. This will need to happen whether or not President Obama decides to send more troops. In fact, the pressure to produce an exit plan would likely increase in that case, and one might be needed in order to convince other members of his party to agree to a troop increase.

The end of the war now seems inevitable. The leaders of most of the western countries involved have admitted as much. The main issue remaining for most leaders is how to position and frame the issue for the public. This is similar to the end of the Vietnam war where most of the focus was on how to "withdraw with dignity". The other issue, of course, is how many more casualties there will be on both sides.

I will make a couple of predictions here:

The war will officially end, as hinted at in the title of this article, within 10 years.
The Taliban will regain power in much of the country, but perhaps not the whole country

Welcome

2009-10-03T15:20:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the Watching History blog. The main goal of this blog will be to comment on current and recent events with an attempt to put them into an historical context. In some cases, there will be an effort to identify events that might be considered historically significant by future generations. Of course, since no one knows the future, this will be somewhat speculative, but sometimes our past can provide some clues and suggestions in order to assist in this effort.

Occasionally this blog might make predictions based on historical analysis. It is unlikely that most (or even many) of these will prove to be completely accurate, but there will be no revisionist history. All predictions will remain in the record whether or not they prove to be true or false. After the fact, though, there may be some commentary on why the prediction was right or wrong, and if wrong, what was missed or misunderstood at the time.

It is certainly an interesting time in history, and the decisions made in the near future may have a profound effect on the future of all humanity. We can only hope the future will judge us well.