Author Archive for Jonathan Power

Power’s world: The long insult to Russia

If Richard Nixon, the erstwhile red baiter, wasn’t safely in his grave, most probably he would be writing op-eds in the New York Times saying that, “we are in danger of losing Russia.” For all the bodies of the liberal left in America dispatched by him on the way to the pinnacle of power, as president he became the originator of détente with the Soviet Union and at the same a respecter of its history and Russia’s massive contribution to arts, culture and religion. In his own words, Nixon was a Russophile. Once communism was defeated, he used to argue, Russia could assume its rightful place as a powerful European nation.

Today it seems that no one, either in the US or Europe, has the courage to stand up and say that we are in danger of falling back on our well-honed, oversimplistic cold war reflexes. The invasion of Georgia didn’t just happen because of some Kremlin malevolence. It happened because of the west’s ill thought-out position on the independence on Kosovo, the self-defeating military support President Bush provided for an unstable Georgian leader and, not least, because the west failed to bring Russia into the fold after the death of the Soviet Leninist system.

This is not to exonerate Prime Minister Vladimir Putin for his macho posturing and his disregard of the importance of building a nation not of men but of laws. Neither is it to exonerate Boris Yeltsin for his erratic presidency, which allowed the deterioration of much of his country, not least the economy, and the rise of the robber barons.

Continue reading ‘Power’s world: The long insult to Russia’

Power’s world: How not to deal with Russia

That bar, the Red Star, on the far side of eastern Europe is closed. So why is the Black Star on this side still open, and even extending its drinking hours?

Once the Warsaw pact closed shop there was no good or honest reason for keeping Nato going. The threat it was created to deter disappeared when the Soviet Union collapsed. Let the EU take the strain, by trade, investment, diplomacy and political intimacy, the hallmarks of a successful union that has mastered the art of expansion and influence by clever use of the carrot, while America has led its quest for influence by application of the Bush doctrine of “preventive war.”

As Mark Leonard wrote in Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century, his clever little book of three years ago, “the contrast between the two doctrines is stark. The Bush doctrine attempts to justify action to remove a ‘threat’ before it has a chance of being employed against the US. It is consequently focused very closely on physical assets and capabilities, necessarily swift in execution and therefore short term in conception, and unavoidably entirely military in kind. The European doctrine of pre-emption, in contrast, is predicated on long-term involvement, with the military just one strand of activity, along with pre-emptive economic and legal intervention, and is aimed at building the political and institutional basis of stability, rather than simply removing the immediate source of threat.” This is why Nato is no longer needed in Europe.

Continue reading ‘Power’s world: How not to deal with Russia’

Power’s world: against self-determination

Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Chechnya, the Bakassi peninsula. There are disputes over all of these territories but only one, the last—over a sizeable oil-rich wedge of land between Nigeria and Cameroon—has been taken to the International Court of Justice (World Court) for adjudication. Why not the others? There is no good reason. In the latest situation, we see hubris on the Russian side and an inflated sense of self-importance on the Georgian.

Six years ago, Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo, confronted with growing tensions with Cameroon over the Bakassi peninsula, which had long been ruled by Nigeria, decided to resist the advice of his minister of defence—who was pushing for a military solution—and to turn the dispute over to the World Court. Newspapers ridiculed Obasanjo and public opinion was nationalistic, but the president held his course even when, in 2006, the court ruled in Cameron’s favour. Bakassi is now being turned over to Cameroon.

Unlike South Ossetia, there was something important to fight over in Bakassi—large quantities of oil—but Nigeria nonetheless swallowed its pride. This does sometimes happen, though not as often as it should.

Continue reading ‘Power’s world: against self-determination’

Power’s world: measuring American development

The cream of America’s black population has never done so well as in the last ten years—two secretaries of state, a national security adviser, chief of the armed forces, heads of major companies from American Express to Time Warner, congressmen and women, rectors of major universities, bishops, newspaper editorial writers. The list goes on and on, and perhaps later this year it will be capped by the election of a black president. What a difference from the 1960s, when only sport, the arts and preaching were open to ambitious blacks. Even in the 1970s, as I long ago documented in Encounter magazine, middle-class professional blacks were beginning to roar ahead in sizable numbers, closing the gap with their white peers. Thank you Martin Luther King.

But like America’s infrastructure, neglect has meant that the cracks beneath are once again coming to the surface. Not, as in the past, in the form of civil rights agitation or riots, but in the shearing of family ties, educational failure and the appalling state of health and morbidity among American blacks. The “benign neglect” of Patrick Moynihan, social affairs adviser to President Nixon, has moved to malign neglect. Not that recent presidents have ignored the issue, but their various plans pale before the ambitions of Lyndon Johnson’s far-sighted “war on poverty,” which was sabotaged by the Vietnam war. Another such war is now needed.

The basic statistics have been thrown into relief by a new report, “The Measure of America,” published by the American Human Development Report, which is modelled on the UN annual report of the same name. The UN report was the brainchild of the late Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq, and based on the work of the Indian Nobel economics laureate Amartya Sen.

Continue reading ‘Power’s world: measuring American development’

Muslim deviance and the slough of ignorance

Once again the CIA and MI6 are publishing dire warnings of the vitality of al Qaeda. Once again the Islamic world as a whole is being tarnished by association. US presidential contender John McCain is saying that America needs a leadership to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. And the words still ring in our ears from Samuel Huntington’s treatise, The Clash of Civilizations, the book that in many ways triggered this paranoia that infects the politicians, the press and the public discourse. The underlying problem for the west is not Islamic fundamentalism, he wrote: it is Islam.

Few, if any, in the western leadership seem to make the point that al Qaeda is a deviant phenomenon within the Islamic world, just as Hitler was a deviant phenomenon within the Christian world (commentators seems to overlook Hitler’s early speeches calling on Catholic principles). But Islam has a much better record over the ages (despite its founder being far more warlike than the founder of Christianity) of dealing with its deviants who take violence to excess. Islamic culture has never been tolerant to Nazism, fascism or communism. Christianity has spawned all three. Buddhism failed to resist Japanese militarism and Confucianism provided hospitable to Maoism. Yes, there was Saddam Hussein, but he was an atheistic brute without an ideology.

Continue reading ‘Muslim deviance and the slough of ignorance’

Immigration is not good for you

Governments have their head in the sand about immigration—and this is as true for the US as it is for western Europe, the middle east or South Africa.

The riots and horrible street murders in South Africa vividly portray what happens when a country pits a foreign sub-proletariat against a resident proletariat, especially at a time when the economic pie doesn’t seem to be expanding fast enough.

The main trouble is that modern capitalist-inclined governments rather like it: immigration keeps down wages. (I’m not talking about the immigration of professionals—and how governments like to mislead the public by often conflating the two!) It provides an underclass who live on the margins of established society. They may not pay income taxes (although they pay VAT and every other kind of consumer tax), but this is made up for by their willingness to do dirty jobs, night shifts and off the books jobs like cleaners and nannies. Immigration, in short, is a deflationary economic tool and governments love that.

Hence the constant campaign by governments to resist anti-immigration movements. “It is good for economic growth” is a constant refrain, and in the more multicultural societies government ministers even go so far as to say immigration has brought a welcome dose of the outside world to our shores—everything from restaurants, to unknown fruits and vegetables, to music.

This is fine for the middle and upper classes who only meet immigrants in the restaurants or as the docile live-in maid, but is less than fine for the indigenous working class who rub shoulders with them every day, in the workplace, on their street, in the schools and increasingly in the jails where immigrants or their children are now over represented.

When governments preach about integration their message is not primarily aimed at the middle classes, who, if they see a problem like declining schools, quickly whisk their own children off to private education. The message is aimed at their own proletariat who, they say, mustn’t complain, must understand it is good for their country and who mustn’t fall into racist ways and allow themselves to be misled by demonic leaders.

Governments go out of their way to massage figures on the effects of immigration. The latest felon in this regard is the UK government which has allowed immigration to soar in recent years. A few months ago a committee of the House of Lords firmly rapped the government on the knuckles for hiding the fact that evidence showed that immigrants were lowering the wages of native British (including that of past immigrant generations, particularly their often workshy adult children).

This report is in line with much current research in America. Moreover, US government reports have showed that immigrants add very little to overall GNP and, indeed, if one looks at GNP per head instead of the gross total it has perhaps contributed to a decline.

Yet American public opinion has been brainwashed over decades about how immigrants have made the economy grow faster than western Europe’s. This is just not true if one looks at the measure that counts GNP (or income) per head.

There is no reason to think that South African leaders have looked at the matter any differently. Inflation has been a constant worry and the immigrants help with that. South Africa wants to boost its GNP figures so that it looks good to foreign investors. Immigration does that.

But the indigenous working class—much, much poorer than their developed country counterparts—are at the end of their tether. The government may have piped in water and electricity to their slums but if they can only work for subsistence wages in order to compete with the immigrants they feel cheated. They didn’t struggle for the liberation from apartheid—a peculiarly South African experience—to have to share their meagre bounty with people who arrive from countries where the anti-colonial struggle was relatively easy.

What is the answer? Keeping immigrants out is not easy. But there are ways for the government to favour their own citizens. First, they can commit resources to retraining programmes for their own unemployed or poorly employed citizens. This has to be done anyway if the working class is not to tie the hands of their politicians on free trade in a time of accelerating globalisation. Moreover, increasing the productivity of one’s own workers is the best route to lowering inflation and increasing GNP. Second, they can help the major countries of emigration develop their economies at home. When countries that once were big emigration countries developed—as varied as Turkey, Puerto Rico and Ireland—the immigrants voluntarily returned.

The time is overdue for a fair and honest debate on the value of immigration. It is not what it is cracked up to be.

Punish the torturers

If the US prosecution system wasn’t so generally competent. I would advocate referring the US to the international criminal court so that senior figures in the Bush administration could be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity, in particular the use of torture.

But it is competent, although it has been hamstrung by the clever legal footwork of the Bush administration plus the use of the presidential veto—as with the recent veto of legislation that would have required the CIA and all intelligence services to abide by the restrictions contained in the US army field manual on holding and interrogating prisoners.

Continue reading ‘Punish the torturers’

John McCain the pot-stirrer

First it was Mitt Romney, who in an article for Foreign Affairs said that the threat posed by radical Islam was “just as real” as that from the Nazis and the Soviet Union. And now we have presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain saying the US needs a leadership “to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.”

To realise what poisonous nonsense this, look back to the Palestinian liberation movement, whose terrorism at the Munich Olympics and constant plane hijackings kept the world jittery throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Or the IRA, which managed, together with its Protestant opposite numbers, to hold a whole province of the United Kingdom hostage to violence, besides murdering the Queen’s uncle and nearly succeeding in killing Margaret Thatcher. These were very disturbing events, but to my recollection no one, neither politician nor commentator, described the threat from these terrorist groups as “the transcendent challenge of our time,” or likened these minority movements to the threat of the biggest military powers of the 1940s and 1950s. The threat posed by these groups was clearly on a different scale to that of Nazi conquest or, later, worldwide atheistic communism whose creed was permanent revolution.

Continue reading ‘John McCain the pot-stirrer’

That 3am call

So what if the phone rings in the new American president’s bedroom at 3am? It can only be because the radar has picked up a flock of geese. The chances of Russia attacking the US with its missiles is as close to zero as one can get without falling off the graph paper. Ditto China, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea and any of the other nuclear powers. As for the putative Iranian bomb, at best within ten years it could reach Europe in some primitive rocket but by then the White House will have changed ownership again.

Hillary Clinton’s jibe, suggesting that Barack Obama wouldn’t have the experience to deal with a night-time emergency, is so wide of the mark and so anachronistic that it should be relegated to the basement of the Imperial War Museum. If anyone tries to make a nuclear explosion in an American city it will be some terrorist group using a so-called “dirty bomb,” explosive materials wrapped in nuclear waste. For full effect it will be exploded in daylight whilst people are on the streets. It will kill at most far less than those who perished at the World Trade Centre on 9/11.

Before the Clinton-Obama campaign gets stuck in the dirt, let’s get some facts clear. Who will be in the bedroom at 3am in the Clinton scenario? Assuming the marital relationship is still working, we can assume it will be husband Bill. Knowing what we do about Bill’s character, can we assume he will remain silent at this crucial moment? And can we assume that, in the five minutes presidents are supposed to have when warning of a missile attack has been given, there will be unanimity in that tension-filled bedroom? Will that be the best atmosphere to make a level-headed decision? It is just the kind of crisis that could be the catalyst for bringing to the surface all the hidden resentments one Clinton has for the other. Wouldn’t it be better to have the cool and calm Obama as president? He is more likely to say to those on the other end of the phone: Wait a moment. I believe we have been here before. No one is to do anything, launch anything, until we have the full facts.

A good friend of Zbigniew Brzezinski once told me a half-funny, half-frightening story about the former national security adviser. The phone did ring in the middle of the night when he was asleep in bed with his wife beside him. He was told that the Pentagon warning system had reported that a single rocket had been launched from the Soviet Union and was on its way to Washington. Brzezinski told them to check it out and call him back in a minute. When the second call came, he was told that it wasn’t a single rocket, it was at least 20. Brzezinski, aware he had to wake the president well before the five minutes was up, again told them to recheck the information. A minute later, the Pentagon called and told him it was a false alarm, triggered by geese or atmospheric interference. On hearing this tale, Brzezinski’s friend asked him if he woke his wife up while this was going on. Brzezinski replied, with an ironic smile, “If we were all going to die in the next few minutes, it was better to let her sleep through it.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, when he was president of the Soviet Union, had a very sensible way of looking at his responsibilities. In an interview conducted by Jonathan Schell of the Nation, he said: “I recall that when I was trained in the use of the nuclear button, I would be told of an attack from one direction, and then, while I am thinking over what to do about that, new information comes in—that another nuclear offensive is coming from another direction. And I am supposed to make decisions!” Gorbachev laughed. “Nevertheless, I never actually pushed the button. Even during training, even though the briefcase was always there with my codes, I never touched the button.”

When Schell pressed him, “Would you have given the order to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear attack?,” he replied, “Well, let me tell you right off that this did not concern me, not because I lacked the will or the power, but because I was quite sure that the people in the White House were not idiots.”

Mrs Clinton could do worse to think about what Gorbachev said. It couldn’t be clearer.

Obama, race, and white emancipation

Just how “emancipated” are we white westerners? What is the acid test? Electing a black man as president of the US, or smiling weakly at the black doctor who we have just been told is going to perform a complex surgical manoeuvre on our heart?

I suspect many of us may be ready for the first, but not so sure about the second. It doesn’t seem that long ago that, on an aeroplane to India, I walked up to the cockpit to see if it really was brown men flying that great big 747. These days I fly all over Africa with all-black crews and only worry when I’m in Nigeria, not because the pilots are black but because the airline industry imposed no safety standards until recently.

Nevertheless, the fact that Barack Obama is now the frontrunner to be the next American president is a remarkable historical event, not just for him, not just for America, but for us, the white man, who for so long dominated the world and dismissed black, yellow and brown people as “coons,” “niggers” or “boys.” Only 30 or so years ago I was taken out to lunch by the op-ed editor of the New York Times, who, aware of my close association with Martin Luther King’s movement from the time when I had worked in the slums of Chicago as a volunteer, asked me if I thought that when you really got to know “them,” they were really the same as “us.”

Continue reading ‘Obama, race, and white emancipation’



Gift Subscription

Bad Behavior has blocked 811 access attempts in the last 7 days.