The big news story in our part of the world recently is the protests in Hong Kong, and the heavy-handed response of the Hong Kong police. There are several different groups involved with somewhat different methods and objectives, but in essence the protests have arisen out of the refusal of the Chinese central government to allow the people of Hong Kong to freely choose their leaders. Since the British handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997, the head of the Hong Kong government has been chosen by a committee dominated by pro-Beijing business figures. At the time of the handover, China agreed that universal suffrage was an ultimate goal for elections for the chief executive (and for the Hong Kong legislature as well), and the government’s current plans do call for the chief executive to be elected by the whole voting population in 2017. The problem is that all candidates first have to be approved by a committee that will essentially have the same makeup as the one that chooses the chief executive now. What’s more, one of the qualifications specified by the Chinese government is that all candidates must be “patriotic” and that they not have a confrontational attitude toward Beijing – in other words, they must be loyal to the central government and to the ruling Communist Party. Since Beijing generally views all liberal, pro-democracy politicians and activists as unpatriotic and confrontational, it is virtually guaranteed that under this set-up none of them will have a chance of getting approved. More likely Hong Kong voters will be faced with a choice similar to the two candidates that the committee had to choose from in its most recent vote for chief executive; both were pro-Beijing and pro-business, but the one who had originally been seen as the favorite became tainted by scandal, so the other, Hong Kong’s current leader C.Y. Leung, was elected. Many in Hong Kong rightfully think that by restricting nominations for chief executive in this way, Beijing is reneging on its promise to allow them to freely select their own leader. What's more, they fear that this may merely be a first step in reducing Hong Kong's freedom.
While some might wonder why the business interests that dominate the committee are predominately pro-Bejing, given that they are capitalists and the Chinese leadership is supposedly Communist, it is really no surprise. The business tycoons, for the most part, do not care about true democracy any more than their US counterparts like the Koch brothers. As long as they are free to make money without interference, they won’t object to a certain degree of authoritarianism. That is why Chinese president Xi Jinping recently summoned a large number of Hong Kong business tycoons to Beijing to consult with them on how to deal with (or suppress) the current protests. True democracy in Hong Kong would open the door to demands for higher wages, greater labor rights, and more social welfare. This is something that many of the wealthy business interests are desperate to prevent, and they will eagerly collude with Beijing to fight anything that they consider a threat to their interests. While there are a few rich tycoons who have taken the side of the democratic forces, notably Jimmy Lai, the owner of Next Media, one of the last independent media sources in Hong Kong, but he has faced considerable harassment for his stance. For the most part, the business interests are on the side of Beijing, and if all candidates for Hong Kong’s chief executive have to approved by a committee they dominate, it will be as if candidates for US president had to be approved by the US Chamber of Commerce (forget Barack Obama, much less someone like Elizabeth Warren – in 2012 Americans would probably have been left to choose between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan).
When taken together with other developments in Hong Kong over the past few years, such as attacks on independently-minded journalists and media outlets and the attempt by the government to pass a stifling anti-subversion law (averted only by massive protests), it is no wonder that many in Hong Kong feel compelled to take to the streets to fight for their remaining freedom. And while due to Hong Kong’s extremely high profile and economic importance, the Chinese government has so far been hesitant to take the violently repressive measures they have taken in Tibet (or that they took in Beijing itself twenty-five years ago), that danger always remains. In any event, Hong Kong’s experience also serves as a lesson to Taiwanese that they would be wise to maintain their country’s independence (through mass protests, if necessary), rather than reaching any political accommodation with a control-obsessed and untrustworthy China. (For another detailed look at the Hong Kong protests, read this article).
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Scotland's Independence Referendum (and the People's Climate March)
As most people who follow world events already know, last week voters in Scotland rejected independence, choosing to remain part of the United Kingdom. Whether this was the right decision is of course debatable. There were quite a few observers who argued that Scottish independence would ultimately be harmful to both Scotland and the remaining United Kingdom (of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and various dependencies and territories scattered about the world). Independence supporters naturally argued the contrary, and asserted that some of the dire predictions were little more than scare tactics. For instance, while UK officials said in the last few days before the election that an independent Scotland would not be able to continue to use the British pound, others pointed out that many countries around the world use the US dollar as their currency without asking the permission of the US, and likewise the UK couldn’t actually stop Scotland from using the pound (though perhaps they could create other difficulties for the Scots if they wanted, such as blocking them from attaining EU membership).
Regardless of how one views the arguments pro and con, in the end Scottish voters went with the safe choice of the status quo. While this was a major disappointment for independence supporters, it was not by any means a great shock. Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for three centuries, and while many Scots justifiably feel that England has treated its smaller neighbor shabbily for much of that time (as Englishman John Oliver acknowledged), the English (at least in recent centuries) have certainly not been remotely as oppressive as the Chinese are to the Tibetans, or as the Indonesians were to the East Timorese, or the Russians to the Baltic states, just to name a few examples. Since things weren’t really awful for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, it is hardly surprising that a majority of Scots decided to let well enough alone – after all, most people are naturally somewhat conservative and tend to fear change. If anything, it is more surprising that the vote was as close as it was. After all, when UK Prime Minister David Cameron first agreed to allow the referendum to go forward, he did so largely because polls at the time indicated that a large majority of Scots would vote against independence. Though the final results were not as good for the pro-independence side as some of the polls in the last week or so indicated they might be (many of the late polls showed the two sides within a few points, and independence even had a slight edge in a few polls), they were far better than anyone would have expected a few months ago.
But as far as I am concerned, the real point of the referendum is that the Scottish people exercised their right of self-determination, reinforcing the point that this is a basic right for peoples all over the world, especially those that are currently being ruled by governments dominated by another people or nation. For places like Tibet, West Papua or Chechnya, the issue is not whether a majority of the people would vote for independence, but that their foreign rulers (China, Indonesia, and Russia, in these cases) won't even permit a vote in the first place. In fact, they treat even advocacy of the right to self-determination as if it were a crime (unless it is in their interest to do otherwise). How many Tibetans have been arrested for supporting "separatism"? How many times has the Chinese government accused the Dalai Lama of being a "splittist"? Perhaps if China really treated the Tibetans well, instead of driving them to self-immolate in protest against Chinese rule, Tibetans would actually vote to remain under Chinese rule. But by arresting people who merely speak in favor of the idea of independence, the Chinese government just reinforces the fact that it is just a harsh, oppressive imperialist ruler, and the same goes for other countries that suppress independence movements with harsh measures. While not all the arguments made for or against Scottish independence may have been convincing or even firmly grounded in fact, the point was that the debate, however passionate, remained in the realm of verbal arguments, TV ads, editorials, and blog posts, rather than arrests, beatings and muzzling of free speech. That is the lesson that nations like China need to learn from this.
In other news, the People's Climate March in New York and elsewhere brought hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets. Now let's just hope that world leaders (and everyone else) will finally wake up and start taking strong measures to deal with climate change before it is too late.
Regardless of how one views the arguments pro and con, in the end Scottish voters went with the safe choice of the status quo. While this was a major disappointment for independence supporters, it was not by any means a great shock. Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for three centuries, and while many Scots justifiably feel that England has treated its smaller neighbor shabbily for much of that time (as Englishman John Oliver acknowledged), the English (at least in recent centuries) have certainly not been remotely as oppressive as the Chinese are to the Tibetans, or as the Indonesians were to the East Timorese, or the Russians to the Baltic states, just to name a few examples. Since things weren’t really awful for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, it is hardly surprising that a majority of Scots decided to let well enough alone – after all, most people are naturally somewhat conservative and tend to fear change. If anything, it is more surprising that the vote was as close as it was. After all, when UK Prime Minister David Cameron first agreed to allow the referendum to go forward, he did so largely because polls at the time indicated that a large majority of Scots would vote against independence. Though the final results were not as good for the pro-independence side as some of the polls in the last week or so indicated they might be (many of the late polls showed the two sides within a few points, and independence even had a slight edge in a few polls), they were far better than anyone would have expected a few months ago.
But as far as I am concerned, the real point of the referendum is that the Scottish people exercised their right of self-determination, reinforcing the point that this is a basic right for peoples all over the world, especially those that are currently being ruled by governments dominated by another people or nation. For places like Tibet, West Papua or Chechnya, the issue is not whether a majority of the people would vote for independence, but that their foreign rulers (China, Indonesia, and Russia, in these cases) won't even permit a vote in the first place. In fact, they treat even advocacy of the right to self-determination as if it were a crime (unless it is in their interest to do otherwise). How many Tibetans have been arrested for supporting "separatism"? How many times has the Chinese government accused the Dalai Lama of being a "splittist"? Perhaps if China really treated the Tibetans well, instead of driving them to self-immolate in protest against Chinese rule, Tibetans would actually vote to remain under Chinese rule. But by arresting people who merely speak in favor of the idea of independence, the Chinese government just reinforces the fact that it is just a harsh, oppressive imperialist ruler, and the same goes for other countries that suppress independence movements with harsh measures. While not all the arguments made for or against Scottish independence may have been convincing or even firmly grounded in fact, the point was that the debate, however passionate, remained in the realm of verbal arguments, TV ads, editorials, and blog posts, rather than arrests, beatings and muzzling of free speech. That is the lesson that nations like China need to learn from this.
In other news, the People's Climate March in New York and elsewhere brought hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets. Now let's just hope that world leaders (and everyone else) will finally wake up and start taking strong measures to deal with climate change before it is too late.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
The History of Chinese-Tibetan Relations and What It Means for the Present
I was recently asked to give a brief talk at a symposium hosted by a Tibetan organization here in Taiwan. Since they also want me to provide a paper that they can publish, I've written an article on the history of China-Tibet relations and its bearing on self-determination for Tibet. I may revise it later and I believe they want to translate it into Chinese, but I'm posting my draft version here first. A few paragraphs were taken from an older essay of mine on the topic, but most of it is new.
In almost all articles, debates and arguments about the status of Tibet and its relationship to China, the question of history is sure to arise. It could be argued that sometimes too much importance is placed on history in controversies of this kind, a point I will come back to later. But since the Chinese government and its supporters are particularly fond of making references to history in asserting China’s claims over Tibet, it is worth making an attempt to summarize the historical relationship between China and Tibet and examining whether the facts are in accordance with China’s claims.
Many wire service reports on the Tibet issue, after noting the Chinese claim that Tibet is part of China, go on to say that “Tibetans say Tibet was independent for centuries” or something to that effect. But this is not something that only Tibetans say; none but the most blatantly propagandistic Chinese account would deny that Tibet has a long history as an independent nation, even if much of that history is in the distant past. Over a thousand years ago, when the Tang dynasty ruled in China, Tibet had a powerful empire that contested with Tang China for dominance over the Tarim basin and frequently won. After the Tang dynasty went into decline, the Tibetans even succeeded in sacking the Chinese capital of Chang’an. Soon afterwards, however, the Tibetan empire itself collapsed and Tibet entered its equivalent of the European Dark Ages. But it remained independent of any sort of outside rule until the 13th century, when the Mongols under Kublai Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan, conquered both Tibet and China, adding them into their empire. China now likes to claim that this was the point at which Tibet was incorporated into China. But though Kublai Khan proclaimed a new dynasty, the Yuan, his regime never became Sinicized and Tibet and other non-Chinese territories were not treated as part of China or incorporated into the Chinese administrative system, but like China itself, were just another Mongol imperial possession. In other words, Mongol rule over Tibet during this period perhaps could be used as a (very weak) historical basis for Mongolia to claim sovereignty over Tibet, but it is completely irrelevant to any Chinese claims.
After the Chinese Ming dynasty overthrew the Mongol Yuan dynasty, Tibet and other Mongol conquests regained their independence. Chinese propaganda has tried to claim that the Ming had some sort of authority over Tibet, but at best the Ming would “confirm” the titles of Tibetan officials who had already been chosen without any Chinese input. Tibet’s relationship to China during this period was equivalent to Okinawa’s; both were independent states that retained ties with China primarily for their own benefit. The Ming had no political authority over Tibet and no real say over who ruled it. In fact, Tibet’s political ties with the Mongols were much stronger for most of the Ming era than their ties with China were. It was a Mongol ruler named Altan Khan who first conferred the title “Dalai Lama” on a leading Tibetan abbot in 1578. So as of about four centuries ago, not only did Tibet have its own culture, language and religion that was completely distinct from that of China, it was politically independent of China and never been ruled by the Chinese. Indeed, at the time of the Ming dynasty, even the Chinese themselves generally considered places like Tibet, Taiwan, Mongolia, East Turkestan, and Manchuria to be non-Chinese, “barbarian” lands outside the pale of Chinese civilization.
China’s present claim over Tibet, like its claim over other outlying, non-Chinese areas, is in fact based entirely on the conquests of the Manchu Qing dynasty. In the 17th century, China was conquered by the Manchus, a non-Chinese people from Manchuria, the land to the northeast, who set up the Qing dynasty. The Manchus were regarded by the Chinese as foreigners, though over time they eventually were assimilated by their subjects. In the first decades of Manchu rule, they expanded their empire far beyond China, conquering Mongolia, East Turkestan and Tibet. These territories were imperial possessions, just as India was an imperial possession of the British, Central America was an imperial territory of Spain, and so forth. In most cases, the Manchu did not administer these territories the same way they administered China (Tibet in fact retained a high degree of local autonomy), as neither they nor the people of these regions was Chinese. The main thing these regions had in common with China was that they were all part of the same empire.
In 1912, after a long period of decline under pressure both from foreign imperialists and domestic rebels, the Qing dynasty fell and the Republic of China was proclaimed. The ROC laid claim to all the territory of the Manchu empire, despite the fact that much of it was not Chinese. The new government was unable to enforce its claims, so most of the non-Chinese regions became independent (for that matter, the central government did not even effectively control all of China proper, as most of it was ruled by autonomous warlords). However, they maintained their questionable claims of sovereignty over all the empire, so when the ROC government was forced out of China to Taiwan and the People's Republic of China was set up, the PRC in turn claimed all of the same empire (except part of Mongolia, which their Soviet allies forced them to recognize as independent). Unfortunately for places like Tibet, which had been a de facto independent country for several decades by this time, the PRC was able to enforce its claims militarily, conquering all of the non-Chinese areas that had once been part of the Manchu empire except outer Mongolia (ironically enough, before they actually gained power, Mao and other communist leaders had at times supported full independence for all these outlying regions, only to change their minds once they had the power to take them over).
Are the Chinese claims to sovereignty over these places justifiable? One way to answer that is to ask whether other imperial claims are justifiable. Did Britain have the "right" to rule India, Malaysia, east Africa, and all its other imperial possessions? Did the French have the "right" to its colonies in West Africa, Indochina, and so on? Did Russia have the "right" to rule Poland, which it did throughout the 19th century? Most people now would agree that imperialism and colonialism as practiced by the Europeans was wrong, and all of those countries were justified in struggling for independence. So is Chinese rule in historically non-Chinese areas justified? China rules these places, which they "inherited" as part of an empire, in the same exploitative fashion that the Europeans ran their colonies. In some ways Chinese rule is even worse, as the Chinese government have actively tried to suppress local culture (the Europeans did this in some places, but not everywhere) and it is using the vast population of Chinese to swamp the local people by encouraging the Han (as the ethnic Chinese are called) to move to these places in large numbers to make money. Most of the money from economic development in places like Tibet goes into the pockets of Han Chinese, so the local people see that not only have they lost their independence, but their homeland is being turned into a Han-majority region in which they will be an impoverished minority with a culture that is slowly withering away. Some businesses located in these areas even post ads for workers online that specify “Han-only”, blatantly discriminating against the local people by denying them even basic job opportunities. It is no wonder that in the depths of their despair, some Tibetans have turned to the extreme act of self-immolation as a protest against Chinese rule.
Of course, China asserts that Tibetans have benefited from Chinese rule because it has brought economic opportunity (never mind the fact that most of the opportunity seems to go to Han Chinese). However, perhaps because it is difficult for China and its propagandists to directly defend either the Chinese conquest of Tibet or the current suppression of Tibetan culture and aspirations, a common strategy is to try to change the subject. One line that seems to be popular among Chinese propagandists online recently is that before "liberation" by China, the Tibetans suffered under oppressive rule by the monks (of course this implies that Tibet was independent, contradicting their claim that it has been under Chinese rule for centuries, but logical consistency is not their strong suit). One of their key assertions is that most of the Tibetan people had to work as serfs for their monk masters. The problem with this claim is that vast majority of Tibetans have always been nomads, not peasant farmers (though now the Chinese are trying to force them to change their lifestyle against their will). This rather seriously undermines the credibility of China's claims about monkish oppression, which seem in any case to be merely a grafting of standard Marxist historical theory about slave societies and feudal societies onto Tibetan history, regardless of how badly it fits.
But the problem is not just that the Chinese version of the history of Tibet and its relationship with China is distorted or simply false; it is that the Chinese government dogmatically insists that its version is the only true one and anyone who questions it – no matter how much evidence they have for their interpretation – cannot possibly be right and is acting out of bad motives. This rigid insistence on the official version of history is not limited to the Tibetan issue, of course, as the Chinese government’s reaction to the British researchers who came up with a shorter measurement for the length of the Long March or the Chinese professor who published a less rosy interpretation of the Boxer Rebellion in Freezing Point magazine show. This attitude shows that the Chinese government is not really interested in finding the historical truth, which can only be done by open academic debate; instead, it is only interested in using history, or rather its version of history, as a propaganda tool. If the Chinese government were really confident that their interpretation of history was the true one, they would not fear debate on the subject.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, it could be argued that historical claims should matter less than the will of the current residents. For example, just because the countries around the Mediterranean were ruled by Rome for many centuries doesn’t mean Italy can claim a right to rule them now, nor can Mongolia claim the former realm of Genghis Khan. One thing that even a basic knowledge of history tells you is that nothing is forever, so Chinese claims that one territory or another is “inseparable” from China are nonsense. Humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years before there were any countries at all, and throughout the five thousand or so years since civilization arose, nations have risen and fallen and borders have constantly shifted. The island of Sicily, for instance, has been ruled in whole or in part by Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, Vandals, Byzantines, Arabs and Normans, so the idea that a single nation or people could claim it based on history is absurd, and as long as the majority of Sicilians are content with being Italian, the history is irrelevant anyway. So while the historical evidence on the whole favors the cause of Tibetan independence, if the majority of Tibetans now preferred for their country to be part of China (perhaps with a greater degree of autonomy), then Chinese rule would be justified.
But while Chinese propaganda claims that most Tibetans support Chinese rule and that “separatists” are a minority, China does not even allow Tibetans to freely discuss the issue, much less have a vote on it. This casts serious doubt the Chinese assertions. If China were so confident that most Tibetans want Chinese rule, why doesn’t it dare to allow a Tibetan vote on the issue? Incidentally, a Chinese assertion with respect to the de facto independent state of Taiwan needs to be addressed here. Chinese occasionally make the claim that Taiwan’s future should be decided by “Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan strait”. But this is not how self-determination works. When places like East Timor, Kosovo, Quebec, and Puerto Rico have held votes on independence, only people in those places voted; the people in other parts of Indonesia, Serbia, Canada, and the US did not vote. Similarly, when Scotland votes on independence from the UK, people in England and Wales won’t be voting. So a vote on Tibetan autonomy or independence should only involve the people of Tibet, though long-time Han Chinese residents would have the right to vote too.
Perhaps the most basic point, though, is that Tibetans, like people all over the world, should have the right to freely advocate independence, whether or not the historical evidence is on their side and whether or not they are in the majority. Some Chinese seem to think that anyone who suggests that Tibet should be independent does so only out of hostility against China. But the right to self-determination and the right to freedom of opinion, including advocating independence, are universal. As the examples mentioned above show, there are plenty of Western countries with strong regional independence movements. Most Chinese and even most Americans may not be aware of it, but there are pro-independence political parties in both Alaska and Hawaii. They have little support, but they are perfectly legal and free to advocate their positions. In fact, I would say that in the case of Hawaii in particular there are also historical reasons that favor the cause of independence, since it was originally, like Tibet, an independent country with a distinct culture and ethnic makeup that was coerced by a large, imperialist neighbor into joining it, so if a majority of Hawaiians came to desire independence from the US, I would support their right to obtain it.
I challenge all Chinese to look on the cause of Tibetan independence with an open mind. Read some non-Chinese accounts of the history and objectively examine the historical evidence, keeping in mind that the version of history you learned in school may not be entirely true (just as old American history books that justified the European slaughter of the Native Americans were biased, as are Japanese history books that deny the Rape of Nanjing). What’s more, even if you still feel that Tibet should remain part of China, respect the right of other people to think otherwise, and even to openly argue their cause. Showing a respect for different opinions, including those calling for separation from China, will not make China weak. On the contrary, it will show the kind of maturity that every nation must have in order to be considered truly great.
In almost all articles, debates and arguments about the status of Tibet and its relationship to China, the question of history is sure to arise. It could be argued that sometimes too much importance is placed on history in controversies of this kind, a point I will come back to later. But since the Chinese government and its supporters are particularly fond of making references to history in asserting China’s claims over Tibet, it is worth making an attempt to summarize the historical relationship between China and Tibet and examining whether the facts are in accordance with China’s claims.
Many wire service reports on the Tibet issue, after noting the Chinese claim that Tibet is part of China, go on to say that “Tibetans say Tibet was independent for centuries” or something to that effect. But this is not something that only Tibetans say; none but the most blatantly propagandistic Chinese account would deny that Tibet has a long history as an independent nation, even if much of that history is in the distant past. Over a thousand years ago, when the Tang dynasty ruled in China, Tibet had a powerful empire that contested with Tang China for dominance over the Tarim basin and frequently won. After the Tang dynasty went into decline, the Tibetans even succeeded in sacking the Chinese capital of Chang’an. Soon afterwards, however, the Tibetan empire itself collapsed and Tibet entered its equivalent of the European Dark Ages. But it remained independent of any sort of outside rule until the 13th century, when the Mongols under Kublai Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan, conquered both Tibet and China, adding them into their empire. China now likes to claim that this was the point at which Tibet was incorporated into China. But though Kublai Khan proclaimed a new dynasty, the Yuan, his regime never became Sinicized and Tibet and other non-Chinese territories were not treated as part of China or incorporated into the Chinese administrative system, but like China itself, were just another Mongol imperial possession. In other words, Mongol rule over Tibet during this period perhaps could be used as a (very weak) historical basis for Mongolia to claim sovereignty over Tibet, but it is completely irrelevant to any Chinese claims.
After the Chinese Ming dynasty overthrew the Mongol Yuan dynasty, Tibet and other Mongol conquests regained their independence. Chinese propaganda has tried to claim that the Ming had some sort of authority over Tibet, but at best the Ming would “confirm” the titles of Tibetan officials who had already been chosen without any Chinese input. Tibet’s relationship to China during this period was equivalent to Okinawa’s; both were independent states that retained ties with China primarily for their own benefit. The Ming had no political authority over Tibet and no real say over who ruled it. In fact, Tibet’s political ties with the Mongols were much stronger for most of the Ming era than their ties with China were. It was a Mongol ruler named Altan Khan who first conferred the title “Dalai Lama” on a leading Tibetan abbot in 1578. So as of about four centuries ago, not only did Tibet have its own culture, language and religion that was completely distinct from that of China, it was politically independent of China and never been ruled by the Chinese. Indeed, at the time of the Ming dynasty, even the Chinese themselves generally considered places like Tibet, Taiwan, Mongolia, East Turkestan, and Manchuria to be non-Chinese, “barbarian” lands outside the pale of Chinese civilization.
China’s present claim over Tibet, like its claim over other outlying, non-Chinese areas, is in fact based entirely on the conquests of the Manchu Qing dynasty. In the 17th century, China was conquered by the Manchus, a non-Chinese people from Manchuria, the land to the northeast, who set up the Qing dynasty. The Manchus were regarded by the Chinese as foreigners, though over time they eventually were assimilated by their subjects. In the first decades of Manchu rule, they expanded their empire far beyond China, conquering Mongolia, East Turkestan and Tibet. These territories were imperial possessions, just as India was an imperial possession of the British, Central America was an imperial territory of Spain, and so forth. In most cases, the Manchu did not administer these territories the same way they administered China (Tibet in fact retained a high degree of local autonomy), as neither they nor the people of these regions was Chinese. The main thing these regions had in common with China was that they were all part of the same empire.
In 1912, after a long period of decline under pressure both from foreign imperialists and domestic rebels, the Qing dynasty fell and the Republic of China was proclaimed. The ROC laid claim to all the territory of the Manchu empire, despite the fact that much of it was not Chinese. The new government was unable to enforce its claims, so most of the non-Chinese regions became independent (for that matter, the central government did not even effectively control all of China proper, as most of it was ruled by autonomous warlords). However, they maintained their questionable claims of sovereignty over all the empire, so when the ROC government was forced out of China to Taiwan and the People's Republic of China was set up, the PRC in turn claimed all of the same empire (except part of Mongolia, which their Soviet allies forced them to recognize as independent). Unfortunately for places like Tibet, which had been a de facto independent country for several decades by this time, the PRC was able to enforce its claims militarily, conquering all of the non-Chinese areas that had once been part of the Manchu empire except outer Mongolia (ironically enough, before they actually gained power, Mao and other communist leaders had at times supported full independence for all these outlying regions, only to change their minds once they had the power to take them over).
Are the Chinese claims to sovereignty over these places justifiable? One way to answer that is to ask whether other imperial claims are justifiable. Did Britain have the "right" to rule India, Malaysia, east Africa, and all its other imperial possessions? Did the French have the "right" to its colonies in West Africa, Indochina, and so on? Did Russia have the "right" to rule Poland, which it did throughout the 19th century? Most people now would agree that imperialism and colonialism as practiced by the Europeans was wrong, and all of those countries were justified in struggling for independence. So is Chinese rule in historically non-Chinese areas justified? China rules these places, which they "inherited" as part of an empire, in the same exploitative fashion that the Europeans ran their colonies. In some ways Chinese rule is even worse, as the Chinese government have actively tried to suppress local culture (the Europeans did this in some places, but not everywhere) and it is using the vast population of Chinese to swamp the local people by encouraging the Han (as the ethnic Chinese are called) to move to these places in large numbers to make money. Most of the money from economic development in places like Tibet goes into the pockets of Han Chinese, so the local people see that not only have they lost their independence, but their homeland is being turned into a Han-majority region in which they will be an impoverished minority with a culture that is slowly withering away. Some businesses located in these areas even post ads for workers online that specify “Han-only”, blatantly discriminating against the local people by denying them even basic job opportunities. It is no wonder that in the depths of their despair, some Tibetans have turned to the extreme act of self-immolation as a protest against Chinese rule.
Of course, China asserts that Tibetans have benefited from Chinese rule because it has brought economic opportunity (never mind the fact that most of the opportunity seems to go to Han Chinese). However, perhaps because it is difficult for China and its propagandists to directly defend either the Chinese conquest of Tibet or the current suppression of Tibetan culture and aspirations, a common strategy is to try to change the subject. One line that seems to be popular among Chinese propagandists online recently is that before "liberation" by China, the Tibetans suffered under oppressive rule by the monks (of course this implies that Tibet was independent, contradicting their claim that it has been under Chinese rule for centuries, but logical consistency is not their strong suit). One of their key assertions is that most of the Tibetan people had to work as serfs for their monk masters. The problem with this claim is that vast majority of Tibetans have always been nomads, not peasant farmers (though now the Chinese are trying to force them to change their lifestyle against their will). This rather seriously undermines the credibility of China's claims about monkish oppression, which seem in any case to be merely a grafting of standard Marxist historical theory about slave societies and feudal societies onto Tibetan history, regardless of how badly it fits.
But the problem is not just that the Chinese version of the history of Tibet and its relationship with China is distorted or simply false; it is that the Chinese government dogmatically insists that its version is the only true one and anyone who questions it – no matter how much evidence they have for their interpretation – cannot possibly be right and is acting out of bad motives. This rigid insistence on the official version of history is not limited to the Tibetan issue, of course, as the Chinese government’s reaction to the British researchers who came up with a shorter measurement for the length of the Long March or the Chinese professor who published a less rosy interpretation of the Boxer Rebellion in Freezing Point magazine show. This attitude shows that the Chinese government is not really interested in finding the historical truth, which can only be done by open academic debate; instead, it is only interested in using history, or rather its version of history, as a propaganda tool. If the Chinese government were really confident that their interpretation of history was the true one, they would not fear debate on the subject.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, it could be argued that historical claims should matter less than the will of the current residents. For example, just because the countries around the Mediterranean were ruled by Rome for many centuries doesn’t mean Italy can claim a right to rule them now, nor can Mongolia claim the former realm of Genghis Khan. One thing that even a basic knowledge of history tells you is that nothing is forever, so Chinese claims that one territory or another is “inseparable” from China are nonsense. Humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years before there were any countries at all, and throughout the five thousand or so years since civilization arose, nations have risen and fallen and borders have constantly shifted. The island of Sicily, for instance, has been ruled in whole or in part by Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, Vandals, Byzantines, Arabs and Normans, so the idea that a single nation or people could claim it based on history is absurd, and as long as the majority of Sicilians are content with being Italian, the history is irrelevant anyway. So while the historical evidence on the whole favors the cause of Tibetan independence, if the majority of Tibetans now preferred for their country to be part of China (perhaps with a greater degree of autonomy), then Chinese rule would be justified.
But while Chinese propaganda claims that most Tibetans support Chinese rule and that “separatists” are a minority, China does not even allow Tibetans to freely discuss the issue, much less have a vote on it. This casts serious doubt the Chinese assertions. If China were so confident that most Tibetans want Chinese rule, why doesn’t it dare to allow a Tibetan vote on the issue? Incidentally, a Chinese assertion with respect to the de facto independent state of Taiwan needs to be addressed here. Chinese occasionally make the claim that Taiwan’s future should be decided by “Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan strait”. But this is not how self-determination works. When places like East Timor, Kosovo, Quebec, and Puerto Rico have held votes on independence, only people in those places voted; the people in other parts of Indonesia, Serbia, Canada, and the US did not vote. Similarly, when Scotland votes on independence from the UK, people in England and Wales won’t be voting. So a vote on Tibetan autonomy or independence should only involve the people of Tibet, though long-time Han Chinese residents would have the right to vote too.
Perhaps the most basic point, though, is that Tibetans, like people all over the world, should have the right to freely advocate independence, whether or not the historical evidence is on their side and whether or not they are in the majority. Some Chinese seem to think that anyone who suggests that Tibet should be independent does so only out of hostility against China. But the right to self-determination and the right to freedom of opinion, including advocating independence, are universal. As the examples mentioned above show, there are plenty of Western countries with strong regional independence movements. Most Chinese and even most Americans may not be aware of it, but there are pro-independence political parties in both Alaska and Hawaii. They have little support, but they are perfectly legal and free to advocate their positions. In fact, I would say that in the case of Hawaii in particular there are also historical reasons that favor the cause of independence, since it was originally, like Tibet, an independent country with a distinct culture and ethnic makeup that was coerced by a large, imperialist neighbor into joining it, so if a majority of Hawaiians came to desire independence from the US, I would support their right to obtain it.
I challenge all Chinese to look on the cause of Tibetan independence with an open mind. Read some non-Chinese accounts of the history and objectively examine the historical evidence, keeping in mind that the version of history you learned in school may not be entirely true (just as old American history books that justified the European slaughter of the Native Americans were biased, as are Japanese history books that deny the Rape of Nanjing). What’s more, even if you still feel that Tibet should remain part of China, respect the right of other people to think otherwise, and even to openly argue their cause. Showing a respect for different opinions, including those calling for separation from China, will not make China weak. On the contrary, it will show the kind of maturity that every nation must have in order to be considered truly great.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
ISIS, the Yazidis, the Kurds and US Intervention in Iraq
The situation in Iraq, which had already been pretty bad to start with, deteriorated further in the last week or two. First we learned that the extremists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or just Islamic State as they now style themselves, had succeeded in pushing back the well-trained but poorly equipped Kurdish militia, while next door in Syria their attempts to solidify control over parts of the country led to one of the bloodiest weeks in that bloody war. There had already been stories of how IS had forced out many Christians from the parts of Iraq they controlled (a Christian population that, like the similarly threatened one in Syria, is one of the oldest in the world, dating back to the first centuries of the religion), but now we learned of an even more terrible threat they posed to the Yazidis (also spelled Yezidis), members of an obscure but also ancient religion, one that amounted to attempted genocide. While various suggestions were made about how to stop IS in the long run, the imminent threat to the Yazidis, thousands of whom were trapped on a mountain by IS and faced starvation or slaughter, made immediate action of some sort necessary to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. So, despite a professed reluctance to renew American military involvement in Iraq, US President Barack Obama authorized air strikes against IS and humanitarian aid to the Yazidis (for more on the Yazadis and their situation, see here).
As might be expected, not everyone approves of Obama's decision. Many on the left are opposed to US military action of any sort for any reason, or at least they don't provide any examples of situations in which they think it would be acceptable. While I agree that military action should always be a last resort, I think that prevention of imminent genocide (or the slaughter of large numbers of civilians, if we prefer to avoid the loaded term "genocide") is one situation where it is appropriate. At least one organization has questioned the constitutionality of Obama's action, arguing that Congressional approval is necessary. They may have a case, though I suspect one reason Obama named protecting US personnel in the Kurdish capital as a reason for the airstrikes is to provide constitutional cover, as he can claim he is acting to stop an immediate threat to US interests. Frankly, I think this is by far the weaker reason for air strikes, as the few hundred US personnel in Ebril could easily be withdrawn if the only goal was protecting them. Stopping IS from massacring the Yazidis or anyone else is a much better reason, but unfortunately there is not as far as I know a specific legal basis for the President to order military action even to stop genocide if neither Americans nor US interests are threatened. I would certainly be in favor of making such a legal provision, even if it took a constitutional amendment to create it. I would even go so far as to say that if he or she can save thousands of lives by violating the constitution, he should at least consider doing so, though of course he should consider the long-range consequences of his actions as well as the short-range results. While rule of law is very important, ultimately it is even more important to do what is right (for the same reason I would in most cases be against punishing someone who stole bread to feed their family, and I would certainly support violating a clearly unjust law, such as one requiring people to report "subversive" speech). I recognize that there is a slippery slope here, and if we start allowing people (whether presidents or others) to violate the law whenever their conscience tells them to do so we open up a big can of worms, so it should only even be considered in very exceptional cases where it is obvious to almost everyone, not just the person taking the action, that there is a clear moral justification. In this case, I suppose we can be grateful for the constitutional fig leaf, even if it isn't much of one. Anyway, while allowing a president to unilaterally initiate military action of dubious legality sets a bad precedent, that precedent has already been set numerous times in the past, often for much worse reasons.
Of course even reaching the conclusion that taking military action is the right thing to do is not as straightforward as it may seem, even if we ignore the issue of legality and setting a bad precedent. The main reason is that it is impossible to be certain of the long-range consequences, particularly of prolonged military involvement. Would Iraq be better off now if Saddam Hussein was still in power? Would Libya have been better off today if France, the UK and the US had allowed Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi to crush the rebellion against his rule, even at the cost of thousands of lives? Would Syria be better off now if the US and other countries had from the beginning actively supported the uprising against Assad, or, on the contrary, would it be better off if the outside world had simply closed its eyes and let Assad crush all opposition, however brutally? There is really no way to be sure. Personally I think no one should ever just ignore a large scale slaughter or suppression of opponents by a government, but that doesn't necessarily mean that military action by other countries is the best step to take to stop it, as it can often make things worse. In this situation, it is at least good that Obama made the point of saying that there is no "American military solution" to the conflict in Iraq, and what is really needed is an Iraqi political solution. If he and those under him keep that clearly in mind, and limit direct US involvement to preventing humanitarian catastrophes such as IS slaughtering the Yazadis or overrunning Kurdish territory (where many Yazadis, Christians, and others fleeing IS have already taken refuge), perhaps the US can at least ensure that is not making the situation worse. The decision to get involved in this case was no doubt made easier by the fact that it's hard to imagine what could be worse than IS, which seems to be competing with Nigeria's Boko Haram for the title of the world's most brutally evil group - even aside from their summary executions and crucifixions (and in one case, having one of their kids pose with a decapitated head), they reportedly even seized several hundred Yazadi women as slaves, much like Boko Haram's kidnapping of hundreds of girls in Nigeria.
Despite talking about long-range solutions, though, the US has in a sense created the current threat to the Kurds, Yazadis and others in the Kurdish-occupied parts of Iraq by its failure to arm the Kurds. This is foolish, to put it mildly. Kurdistan has for many years been the one real success story in Iraq. While it is far from perfect, in comparison with the rest of the country it is a bastion of peace and at least halfway decent government. The Kurdish peshmerga is the best trained, most disciplined fighting force in Iraq, and yet they are poorly equipped and fighting a group that ironically has lots of high quality US made equipment, captured from the Iraqi army. The American reason for failing to arm the Kurds - a fear of encouraging the dissolution of Iraq - is particularly idiotic. As I have argued elsewhere, it is ridiculous to insist that all national borders are set in stone for all eternity or that no country should ever dissolve, as borders have changed and countries appeared and disappeared throughout history, even in the recent past. Iraq itself is a relatively recent creation cobbled together by the British, one that really made little sense in the first place as it threw together diverse groups of people who don't get along well. While this doesn't mean that changes to national boundaries should be made casually or for questionable reasons (certainly not under pressure from large neighbors who stand to benefit, as in the Ukraine situation), acting as if they should be avoided at all costs makes no sense. Indeed, the story of the Kurds' difficulty in obtaining arms provides more evidence that they might well be better off without the central government, as even when the US, while insisting that all military aid go through the central government in Baghdad, did designate some arms for the Kurds, Prime Minister Maliki refused to transfer them. As I argued in a previous article, Maliki is largely responsible for the current situation in Iraq due to his divisive policies, and this is just another example of how untrustworthy he is (he is also proving himself very power-hungry, as he has refused to give up his attempt to secure a new term in the current wrangling over the position of prime minister, despite being urged to do so by numerous parties, including the Shiite religious leadership and reportedly even Iran). The best thing the US can do know, other than acting to prevent IS from killing too many more people, is to arm the Kurds, even if the ultimate result is an independent Kurdistan, while at the same time putting pressure on Iraqi politicians to form an inclusive government that protects the interests of the Sunnis as well as the Shiites and can encourage moderate Sunnis to join in the effort to defeat the extremist IS.
As might be expected, not everyone approves of Obama's decision. Many on the left are opposed to US military action of any sort for any reason, or at least they don't provide any examples of situations in which they think it would be acceptable. While I agree that military action should always be a last resort, I think that prevention of imminent genocide (or the slaughter of large numbers of civilians, if we prefer to avoid the loaded term "genocide") is one situation where it is appropriate. At least one organization has questioned the constitutionality of Obama's action, arguing that Congressional approval is necessary. They may have a case, though I suspect one reason Obama named protecting US personnel in the Kurdish capital as a reason for the airstrikes is to provide constitutional cover, as he can claim he is acting to stop an immediate threat to US interests. Frankly, I think this is by far the weaker reason for air strikes, as the few hundred US personnel in Ebril could easily be withdrawn if the only goal was protecting them. Stopping IS from massacring the Yazidis or anyone else is a much better reason, but unfortunately there is not as far as I know a specific legal basis for the President to order military action even to stop genocide if neither Americans nor US interests are threatened. I would certainly be in favor of making such a legal provision, even if it took a constitutional amendment to create it. I would even go so far as to say that if he or she can save thousands of lives by violating the constitution, he should at least consider doing so, though of course he should consider the long-range consequences of his actions as well as the short-range results. While rule of law is very important, ultimately it is even more important to do what is right (for the same reason I would in most cases be against punishing someone who stole bread to feed their family, and I would certainly support violating a clearly unjust law, such as one requiring people to report "subversive" speech). I recognize that there is a slippery slope here, and if we start allowing people (whether presidents or others) to violate the law whenever their conscience tells them to do so we open up a big can of worms, so it should only even be considered in very exceptional cases where it is obvious to almost everyone, not just the person taking the action, that there is a clear moral justification. In this case, I suppose we can be grateful for the constitutional fig leaf, even if it isn't much of one. Anyway, while allowing a president to unilaterally initiate military action of dubious legality sets a bad precedent, that precedent has already been set numerous times in the past, often for much worse reasons.
Of course even reaching the conclusion that taking military action is the right thing to do is not as straightforward as it may seem, even if we ignore the issue of legality and setting a bad precedent. The main reason is that it is impossible to be certain of the long-range consequences, particularly of prolonged military involvement. Would Iraq be better off now if Saddam Hussein was still in power? Would Libya have been better off today if France, the UK and the US had allowed Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi to crush the rebellion against his rule, even at the cost of thousands of lives? Would Syria be better off now if the US and other countries had from the beginning actively supported the uprising against Assad, or, on the contrary, would it be better off if the outside world had simply closed its eyes and let Assad crush all opposition, however brutally? There is really no way to be sure. Personally I think no one should ever just ignore a large scale slaughter or suppression of opponents by a government, but that doesn't necessarily mean that military action by other countries is the best step to take to stop it, as it can often make things worse. In this situation, it is at least good that Obama made the point of saying that there is no "American military solution" to the conflict in Iraq, and what is really needed is an Iraqi political solution. If he and those under him keep that clearly in mind, and limit direct US involvement to preventing humanitarian catastrophes such as IS slaughtering the Yazadis or overrunning Kurdish territory (where many Yazadis, Christians, and others fleeing IS have already taken refuge), perhaps the US can at least ensure that is not making the situation worse. The decision to get involved in this case was no doubt made easier by the fact that it's hard to imagine what could be worse than IS, which seems to be competing with Nigeria's Boko Haram for the title of the world's most brutally evil group - even aside from their summary executions and crucifixions (and in one case, having one of their kids pose with a decapitated head), they reportedly even seized several hundred Yazadi women as slaves, much like Boko Haram's kidnapping of hundreds of girls in Nigeria.
Despite talking about long-range solutions, though, the US has in a sense created the current threat to the Kurds, Yazadis and others in the Kurdish-occupied parts of Iraq by its failure to arm the Kurds. This is foolish, to put it mildly. Kurdistan has for many years been the one real success story in Iraq. While it is far from perfect, in comparison with the rest of the country it is a bastion of peace and at least halfway decent government. The Kurdish peshmerga is the best trained, most disciplined fighting force in Iraq, and yet they are poorly equipped and fighting a group that ironically has lots of high quality US made equipment, captured from the Iraqi army. The American reason for failing to arm the Kurds - a fear of encouraging the dissolution of Iraq - is particularly idiotic. As I have argued elsewhere, it is ridiculous to insist that all national borders are set in stone for all eternity or that no country should ever dissolve, as borders have changed and countries appeared and disappeared throughout history, even in the recent past. Iraq itself is a relatively recent creation cobbled together by the British, one that really made little sense in the first place as it threw together diverse groups of people who don't get along well. While this doesn't mean that changes to national boundaries should be made casually or for questionable reasons (certainly not under pressure from large neighbors who stand to benefit, as in the Ukraine situation), acting as if they should be avoided at all costs makes no sense. Indeed, the story of the Kurds' difficulty in obtaining arms provides more evidence that they might well be better off without the central government, as even when the US, while insisting that all military aid go through the central government in Baghdad, did designate some arms for the Kurds, Prime Minister Maliki refused to transfer them. As I argued in a previous article, Maliki is largely responsible for the current situation in Iraq due to his divisive policies, and this is just another example of how untrustworthy he is (he is also proving himself very power-hungry, as he has refused to give up his attempt to secure a new term in the current wrangling over the position of prime minister, despite being urged to do so by numerous parties, including the Shiite religious leadership and reportedly even Iran). The best thing the US can do know, other than acting to prevent IS from killing too many more people, is to arm the Kurds, even if the ultimate result is an independent Kurdistan, while at the same time putting pressure on Iraqi politicians to form an inclusive government that protects the interests of the Sunnis as well as the Shiites and can encourage moderate Sunnis to join in the effort to defeat the extremist IS.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
The Latest US Immigration "Crisis"
I was considering writing a post on the latest issue that the American right has been trying to club US President Barack Obama over the head with, namely the influx of unaccompanied minors arriving as refugees at the US border with Mexico, but for the most part I think Jon Stewart (for a transcript see here) and Stephen Colbert have covered it pretty well. For a more positive story about church groups working to help immigrant families, there's this article. Otherwise, all I'd like to add is to reiterate that the assertion that this influx is primarily due to Obama's immigration policies is clearly false, as not only has the US not seen a spike in similar arrivals from other Latin American countries, but Mexico and Costa Rica have also seen a large increase in refugee applications from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador (and it's not like Obama's supposed "amnesty" for immigrants would be attracting people to Costa Rica). Also, while this influx of children, with or without accompanying parents, may indeed strain resources at the border, it's not like the US as a whole is in any danger of being overwhelmed by an "invasion" of a few thousand children; it is, after all, a rich nation of 300 million people, so it can absorb these kids easily. Finally, it occurs to me that one could make a pretty dramatic film showing the journey of a child refugee escaping from a deadly environment in their home country and trying to reach the US despite all the obstacles in the way (including a not completely welcoming reception at the US border). Who knows, if it was done well it might actually improve ordinary Americans' attitudes toward undocumented immigrants, though it no doubt would have no effect on the die hard immigrant haters.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
World Events and Hobby Lobby
There's been a lot going on in the world that I'd like to comment on. There's the recent eruption of violence between Israel and Hamas. There's the continuing struggle in Iraq, which I have commented on only a few weeks ago, but which has seen a number of further developments, including the prospect of a Kurdish declaration of independence, which has received a mixed reaction (though I see no reason why nations shouldn't break up if that's what's best for their people). There's the continuing tension in the South China Sea due to China's recent power plays in the area, and there's also the protests in Hong Kong against the Chinese government's reluctance to allow real democracy. There have been disputed elections in Afghanistan. There is the little-mentioned but still continuing ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar (Burma), which the always admirable Dalai Lama recently spoke out against.
But rather than talk about a complex, difficult issue or one I've discussed at length before, I'll instead stick to a brief rant on why the US Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case is stupid and harmful on so many levels that it matches their money-equals-speech decisions for harmful stupidity (on the other hand, having skimmed through most of it, I can say that Ginsburg's dissent is very good). First of all, the idea that corporations can have religious beliefs is ludicrous. Anyone with even a minimal knowledge of law knows that there are two types of "legal persons", "natural persons" (i.e., human beings) and "juridical persons" (corporations, governments, and so on). The latter are also known as "artificial persons" or "fictitious persons", and for good reason:they don't eat, sleep, breath, relieve themselves, or have sex – and of course they don't go to church, temple, or mosque. Their owners may have religious beliefs, but the reason they form a corporation in the first place is to create a separation between the actions of the owners and the actions of the corporation, such that the former is not fully responsible for the latter (the so-called "corporate veil"). Furthermore, one person's exercise of their religious rights cannot be allowed to seriously infringe on the rights of others, as allowing corporations to not provide important health benefits to their employees would. This decision creates a horrible precedent that will open the door to all sorts of ludicrous claims for religious exemptions, despite the majority's nonsensical assertion that they only intended it to be a narrow decision (once you've stated that corporations can have religion, all kinds of nutty claims become possible). The majority also argued that, despite the blatantly obvious fact that the forms of contraception Hobby Lobby was complaining about did not actually cause abortions as they claimed, the courts had no right to pass judgment on the correctness of anyone's religious beliefs. This is dubious at best; when people refuse to take their children to the doctor because they claim religious objections to modern medicine, we don't let them get away with it, and if someone claims that their religion says black is white, up is down and people of strong faith can fly if they jump off tall buildings, I think a court would be perfectly in their rights to call that nonsense. Then there's the fact that if Hobby Lobby did have beliefs, it is obviously a hypocrite. Not only is Hobby Lobby still willing to pay for Viagra and vasectomies, it also invests in companies that make drugs used in actual abortions, and much of its stock is made in China, a country that not only actively encourages abortions but frequently coerces and even forces women to have them. This decision, like the one allowing unlimited spending by individuals on elections, only benefits a small number of people (in this case the owners of "closely-held" corporations) but harms far more. And finally, if there is one thing we do not need, it is more unwanted children in an already vastly overpopulated world, so any effort to make contraception harder to obtain is much more immoral than whatever these fools imagine it might be used for.
But rather than talk about a complex, difficult issue or one I've discussed at length before, I'll instead stick to a brief rant on why the US Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case is stupid and harmful on so many levels that it matches their money-equals-speech decisions for harmful stupidity (on the other hand, having skimmed through most of it, I can say that Ginsburg's dissent is very good). First of all, the idea that corporations can have religious beliefs is ludicrous. Anyone with even a minimal knowledge of law knows that there are two types of "legal persons", "natural persons" (i.e., human beings) and "juridical persons" (corporations, governments, and so on). The latter are also known as "artificial persons" or "fictitious persons", and for good reason:they don't eat, sleep, breath, relieve themselves, or have sex – and of course they don't go to church, temple, or mosque. Their owners may have religious beliefs, but the reason they form a corporation in the first place is to create a separation between the actions of the owners and the actions of the corporation, such that the former is not fully responsible for the latter (the so-called "corporate veil"). Furthermore, one person's exercise of their religious rights cannot be allowed to seriously infringe on the rights of others, as allowing corporations to not provide important health benefits to their employees would. This decision creates a horrible precedent that will open the door to all sorts of ludicrous claims for religious exemptions, despite the majority's nonsensical assertion that they only intended it to be a narrow decision (once you've stated that corporations can have religion, all kinds of nutty claims become possible). The majority also argued that, despite the blatantly obvious fact that the forms of contraception Hobby Lobby was complaining about did not actually cause abortions as they claimed, the courts had no right to pass judgment on the correctness of anyone's religious beliefs. This is dubious at best; when people refuse to take their children to the doctor because they claim religious objections to modern medicine, we don't let them get away with it, and if someone claims that their religion says black is white, up is down and people of strong faith can fly if they jump off tall buildings, I think a court would be perfectly in their rights to call that nonsense. Then there's the fact that if Hobby Lobby did have beliefs, it is obviously a hypocrite. Not only is Hobby Lobby still willing to pay for Viagra and vasectomies, it also invests in companies that make drugs used in actual abortions, and much of its stock is made in China, a country that not only actively encourages abortions but frequently coerces and even forces women to have them. This decision, like the one allowing unlimited spending by individuals on elections, only benefits a small number of people (in this case the owners of "closely-held" corporations) but harms far more. And finally, if there is one thing we do not need, it is more unwanted children in an already vastly overpopulated world, so any effort to make contraception harder to obtain is much more immoral than whatever these fools imagine it might be used for.
Monday, June 30, 2014
What I've Been Reading: January 2014 to April 2014
Here are some comments on some of the books I read over the first four months of this year.
The Dark Is Rising by Susan Cooper
This children’s fantasy novel is considered a classic, if not quite on the level of books like The Hobbit, The Chronicles of Narnia or the Earthsea series, and my impression is that it deserves its reputation. The story takes place across time, as Will Stanton, the boy protagonist, travels through time to face agents of the Dark with the help of the Old Ones (Will himself is said to be the last of the Old Ones). Cooper draws mainly on Celtic and other forms of mythology connected with Britain. While to some extent it seems as if Will himself is rather passive, simply going with the flow much of the time and occasionally needing to be rescued by others on the side of the Light, this in some ways makes the novel feel more realistic, as it would take considerable time for a boy in his situation to adjust and learn to use his newly discovered abilities. While I wasn’t so taken with the book that I will go far out of my way to track down the rest of the related series, I will be keeping an eye out for them and will read them if I come across them.
The Pride of Chanur, Chanur’s Venture, The Kif Strike Back, Chanur’s Homecoming and Chanur’s Legacy by C. J. Cherryh
While reading a “space opera” style science fiction novel (Compass Reach) late last year, I was reminded a little of C.J. Cherryh’s novels (though only a little, as there are a lot of differences between her novels and Tiedemann’s). On impulse, I pulled Pride of Chanur, the first novel of her Chanur series, off my shelf, originally intending just to refresh my memory of it, since it had been quite a few years since I’d read it. I ended up re-reading it, and decided to go through the entire series, though I broke it up a little by reading other things between books. The first Chanur novel can be read as a standalone novel, but the next three are one continuing story, with both Chanur’s Venture and The Kif Strike Back ending on in cliffhanger-type situations (oddly enough, the omnibus paperback edition Chanur Saga that I have only has the first three novels, which meant that when I first read it I had to ask someone to help me acquire a copy of the fourth book, Chanur’s Homecoming, from the US in order to find out what happened. The fifth novel, Chanur’s Legacy, was another standalone, featuring mostly different characters, and I had not read that one yet, so I decided to do so after re-reading the other four books.
Cherryh has an a somewhat odd, clipped prose style that takes a little getting used to, and her characters often talk in a shorthand that leaves the reader a bit unsure about what’s going on. Nevertheless, her plots are fast-paced and engrossing, making her books real page-turners. What I found particularly impressive about the Chanur books was that they feature an impressively detailed alien society, or rather group of societies, as there are several alien races involved. Humans are involved, but only tangentially (only one human is a significant character, and rather than be more specific about his role, I’d suggest that readers just read the first novel from the beginning, without looking at the plot summary on the back), and none of the story is told through human eyes. Admittedly, the hani, the alien race whose point of view is central to the novels, are not all that dissimilar to humans, but even their society is distinct from ours in many important ways (they resemble an intelligent, tool-wielding race of big cats, lions in particular). But several of the other races are truly alien. Some are so alien that the hani characters – and therefore the reader – never understand much about them. But with some of the others, particularly the kif, Cherryh has given them a very different mindset that we gradually come to understand through the course of the series. At first they seem to simply be stereotypically villianous – cruel, power-hungry, and generally unpleasant – but eventually we see that while they are all those things, they have a certain kind of innocence too. For instance, they are seemingly incapable of holding a grudge; once they have joined your side, any former enmity is simply forgotten, but of course other races find it hard to do the same, which creates a lot of problems. With the hani themselves, Cherryh explores gender discrimination – but in this case, it is the males who face it. While the strongest males are the pampered lords of their clans, the others are outcasts, and males in general are considered unreliable, violent, and incapable of any work requiring skill or intelligence, which means that all hani spacefarers are female. When Pyanfur Chanur, the captain who features in the first four novels, attempts to challenge this prejudice against males, she runs into strong resistance from other hani, adding to the challenges she faces from threatening kif, scheming stsho and her not entirely trustworthy allies, the mahendo'sat.
Chanur’s Legacy, which I read for the first time after re-reading the other four books in the series (also after reading the two books discussed below), further explores the nature of the kif, the stsho and the mahendo'sat and the struggle to change hani attitudes towards males (a male spacer is one of the books main protagonists). It involves some plot twists that might come as a surprise to readers expecting the conflict to follow generally the same lines as that in the other books, and while it only features one character who was prominent in the previous novels (and a couple of others who had previously appeared), it is a worthy follow-up. As for the series as a whole, with a fascinating set of alien races, some well-developed characters, fast-paced plots and even a few thought-provoking elements, these novels are a solid example of good space opera. Cherryh is unlikely to win any literary prizes, but her books are good fun, which is enough for any reader looking for some solid entertainment.
Cracking India by Bapsi Sidhwa
This is a very interesting historical novel (originally published under the title Ice Candy Man) about the Partition, when British India became independent and at the same time was split into India and Pakistan, told from the viewpoint of Lenny, a young Parsi girl living in Lahore in the Punjab (where the boundary between the two nations was drawn and the worst violence took place), it shows the gradual deterioration of initially amicable relationships among people of different backgrounds as independence and partition approach. It sometimes makes for grim reading, though since the main character herself does not personally experience the worst violence – though some close to her do – it is not as dark as a novel like A Thousand Splendid Suns. She does have to deal with sexual harassment, as do many of the other female characters, but unfortunately this seems to be all too common in much of South Asia, to the point where the women seem to simply regard it as normal, and a man prone to molest the women of the household is otherwise one of the more positive characters. Other characters are more disturbing as religious fanaticism takes hold, and yet even those who commit terrible atrocities in the chaos of Partition are not portrayed as thoroughly evil. The prose is clear and highly readable, and the story, if sometimes bleak, keeps the reader’s attention. One thing I wondered about is to what extent the novel reflects the personal experiences of Sidhwa, who, like Lenny, was a young Parsi girl who had been crippled by polio and was living in Lahore at the time of Partition. Be that as it may, it is a good novel and highly recommended to anyone with an interest in that part of the world.
Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie
This classic adventure tale, a novelization of a play by Barrie, is pretty enjoyable, though more than some novels from the same era it seems a bit dated in places – the portrayal of “Indians” (Native Americans), for instance, is far from politically correct. There is a bit more real violence than I might have expected, though admittedly a lot of it takes place offstage, as fights between the Lost Boys and Hook’s pirates involve actual fatalities. From what I recall, the Disney version was somewhat more cartoonish (not surprisingly, I suppose). In any case, it's a decent and fairly quick read though not quite essential.
The Dark Is Rising by Susan Cooper
This children’s fantasy novel is considered a classic, if not quite on the level of books like The Hobbit, The Chronicles of Narnia or the Earthsea series, and my impression is that it deserves its reputation. The story takes place across time, as Will Stanton, the boy protagonist, travels through time to face agents of the Dark with the help of the Old Ones (Will himself is said to be the last of the Old Ones). Cooper draws mainly on Celtic and other forms of mythology connected with Britain. While to some extent it seems as if Will himself is rather passive, simply going with the flow much of the time and occasionally needing to be rescued by others on the side of the Light, this in some ways makes the novel feel more realistic, as it would take considerable time for a boy in his situation to adjust and learn to use his newly discovered abilities. While I wasn’t so taken with the book that I will go far out of my way to track down the rest of the related series, I will be keeping an eye out for them and will read them if I come across them.
The Pride of Chanur, Chanur’s Venture, The Kif Strike Back, Chanur’s Homecoming and Chanur’s Legacy by C. J. Cherryh
While reading a “space opera” style science fiction novel (Compass Reach) late last year, I was reminded a little of C.J. Cherryh’s novels (though only a little, as there are a lot of differences between her novels and Tiedemann’s). On impulse, I pulled Pride of Chanur, the first novel of her Chanur series, off my shelf, originally intending just to refresh my memory of it, since it had been quite a few years since I’d read it. I ended up re-reading it, and decided to go through the entire series, though I broke it up a little by reading other things between books. The first Chanur novel can be read as a standalone novel, but the next three are one continuing story, with both Chanur’s Venture and The Kif Strike Back ending on in cliffhanger-type situations (oddly enough, the omnibus paperback edition Chanur Saga that I have only has the first three novels, which meant that when I first read it I had to ask someone to help me acquire a copy of the fourth book, Chanur’s Homecoming, from the US in order to find out what happened. The fifth novel, Chanur’s Legacy, was another standalone, featuring mostly different characters, and I had not read that one yet, so I decided to do so after re-reading the other four books.
Cherryh has an a somewhat odd, clipped prose style that takes a little getting used to, and her characters often talk in a shorthand that leaves the reader a bit unsure about what’s going on. Nevertheless, her plots are fast-paced and engrossing, making her books real page-turners. What I found particularly impressive about the Chanur books was that they feature an impressively detailed alien society, or rather group of societies, as there are several alien races involved. Humans are involved, but only tangentially (only one human is a significant character, and rather than be more specific about his role, I’d suggest that readers just read the first novel from the beginning, without looking at the plot summary on the back), and none of the story is told through human eyes. Admittedly, the hani, the alien race whose point of view is central to the novels, are not all that dissimilar to humans, but even their society is distinct from ours in many important ways (they resemble an intelligent, tool-wielding race of big cats, lions in particular). But several of the other races are truly alien. Some are so alien that the hani characters – and therefore the reader – never understand much about them. But with some of the others, particularly the kif, Cherryh has given them a very different mindset that we gradually come to understand through the course of the series. At first they seem to simply be stereotypically villianous – cruel, power-hungry, and generally unpleasant – but eventually we see that while they are all those things, they have a certain kind of innocence too. For instance, they are seemingly incapable of holding a grudge; once they have joined your side, any former enmity is simply forgotten, but of course other races find it hard to do the same, which creates a lot of problems. With the hani themselves, Cherryh explores gender discrimination – but in this case, it is the males who face it. While the strongest males are the pampered lords of their clans, the others are outcasts, and males in general are considered unreliable, violent, and incapable of any work requiring skill or intelligence, which means that all hani spacefarers are female. When Pyanfur Chanur, the captain who features in the first four novels, attempts to challenge this prejudice against males, she runs into strong resistance from other hani, adding to the challenges she faces from threatening kif, scheming stsho and her not entirely trustworthy allies, the mahendo'sat.
Chanur’s Legacy, which I read for the first time after re-reading the other four books in the series (also after reading the two books discussed below), further explores the nature of the kif, the stsho and the mahendo'sat and the struggle to change hani attitudes towards males (a male spacer is one of the books main protagonists). It involves some plot twists that might come as a surprise to readers expecting the conflict to follow generally the same lines as that in the other books, and while it only features one character who was prominent in the previous novels (and a couple of others who had previously appeared), it is a worthy follow-up. As for the series as a whole, with a fascinating set of alien races, some well-developed characters, fast-paced plots and even a few thought-provoking elements, these novels are a solid example of good space opera. Cherryh is unlikely to win any literary prizes, but her books are good fun, which is enough for any reader looking for some solid entertainment.
Cracking India by Bapsi Sidhwa
This is a very interesting historical novel (originally published under the title Ice Candy Man) about the Partition, when British India became independent and at the same time was split into India and Pakistan, told from the viewpoint of Lenny, a young Parsi girl living in Lahore in the Punjab (where the boundary between the two nations was drawn and the worst violence took place), it shows the gradual deterioration of initially amicable relationships among people of different backgrounds as independence and partition approach. It sometimes makes for grim reading, though since the main character herself does not personally experience the worst violence – though some close to her do – it is not as dark as a novel like A Thousand Splendid Suns. She does have to deal with sexual harassment, as do many of the other female characters, but unfortunately this seems to be all too common in much of South Asia, to the point where the women seem to simply regard it as normal, and a man prone to molest the women of the household is otherwise one of the more positive characters. Other characters are more disturbing as religious fanaticism takes hold, and yet even those who commit terrible atrocities in the chaos of Partition are not portrayed as thoroughly evil. The prose is clear and highly readable, and the story, if sometimes bleak, keeps the reader’s attention. One thing I wondered about is to what extent the novel reflects the personal experiences of Sidhwa, who, like Lenny, was a young Parsi girl who had been crippled by polio and was living in Lahore at the time of Partition. Be that as it may, it is a good novel and highly recommended to anyone with an interest in that part of the world.
Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie
This classic adventure tale, a novelization of a play by Barrie, is pretty enjoyable, though more than some novels from the same era it seems a bit dated in places – the portrayal of “Indians” (Native Americans), for instance, is far from politically correct. There is a bit more real violence than I might have expected, though admittedly a lot of it takes place offstage, as fights between the Lost Boys and Hook’s pirates involve actual fatalities. From what I recall, the Disney version was somewhat more cartoonish (not surprisingly, I suppose). In any case, it's a decent and fairly quick read though not quite essential.
Friday, June 20, 2014
War Returns to Iraq
The big story internationally in the past week has been the sudden sweep through large parts of Iraq by the radical Islamist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or alternately Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham). ISIS (or ISIL) has taken over a considerable amount of territory, including Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, and Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown. The Iraqi army in the area simply collapsed, and ISIS has executed hundreds of captured Iraqi soldiers (from what I recall, the group has performed even more brutal killings in Syrian territory it controls). This is clearly a nasty bunch, so much so that even al-Qaeda, a former ally, has disowned them (in fact, al-Qaeda allied Islamist groups in Syria have in places teamed up with secular rebel groups to fight ISIS, though unfortunately such in-fighting among rebels has helped Syria's leader Assad). Though rivalry no doubt has played a role in al-Qaeda's disapproval, from what I remember al-Qaeda specifically condemned some of ISIS's most brutal acts in Syria, much as they condemned Boko Haram's kidnapping of the girls in Nigeria. This isn't to say that al-Qaeda is a bunch of nice guys. Rather, it shows how horrible ISIS is, since even al-Qaeda thinks they go too far.
Unsurprisingly, many, including apparently the Iraqi government, are urging the US to consider airstrikes against ISIS. What's more, many American right-wingers are blaming US President Barack Obama for the Iraqi military collapse. As Jon Stewart quite reasonably (and of course amusingly) pointed out, many of these critics have in the past been so completely wrong about Iraq that we have no reason to listen to them anyway. Even if we ignore the fact that these American neocons are ultimately responsible for the chaos in Iraq because they led the US into invading it using false justifications such as WMDs and al-Qaeda connections, we should question their current assertion that if some US forces had been left in Iraq – and of course they blame Obama for not ensuring that some stayed, even though it was Bush who first signed the agreement setting the withdrawal date and it was the Iraqis who refused to agree to negotiate an agreement letting some American soldiers remain – this wouldn't have happened. While the US troop surge probably played a role in dampening down the insurgency in Iraq, the main factor was the co-opting of Sunni leaders who were persuaded to join in the fight against the radical groups. What has caused many Sunnis to now welcome, or at least not resist, ISIS is the behavior of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in recent years. His rule has been very divisive, clearly favoring the interests of his fellow Shiites over the Sunnis, as noted in this article. Human rights violations have also been severe, and again Sunnis have suffered disproportionately. The mere presence of a few US troops would hardly have been enough to counter the resentment that the Maliki government has generated with their heavy-handed behavior. If Obama should be blamed for anything, it should be for failing to strongly criticize Maliki's behavior, even at the risk of driving him even closer to Iran than he already is, or for failing to put pressure on him to step aside when Iyad Allawi out-polled him in the 2010 elections.
Leaving the question of blame aside, what should be done now? A number of organizations I receive emails from have been active in petitioning against US airstrikes, but I have been reluctant to sign on, not because I support airstrikes, but because I'm hesitant to completely rule them out. ISIS is clearly awful; based on what I've heard, they are probably worse than the Taliban. Some have talked about a diplomatic solution, but if by that they mean one involving ISIS, I think they are dreaming. However, there is certainly room for diplomacy involving both the Iraq government and local Sunni leaders. In fact, I think the US should insist that any substantial support that it gives to the Maliki government be contingent on Maliki taking immediate, concrete steps to improve the lot of the Sunnis and reduce sectarian tensions. Unfortunately, the fact that his allies are even now trying to pin responsibility for the Iraqi army's collapse on the Kurds, and Maliki's own wild hints about conspiracies and foreign meddling, indicate that he hasn't learned anything from this disaster. Until he does, or he is replaced by a more sensible ruler, it's hard to hold out much hope that Iraq's situation will improve any time soon.
Unsurprisingly, many, including apparently the Iraqi government, are urging the US to consider airstrikes against ISIS. What's more, many American right-wingers are blaming US President Barack Obama for the Iraqi military collapse. As Jon Stewart quite reasonably (and of course amusingly) pointed out, many of these critics have in the past been so completely wrong about Iraq that we have no reason to listen to them anyway. Even if we ignore the fact that these American neocons are ultimately responsible for the chaos in Iraq because they led the US into invading it using false justifications such as WMDs and al-Qaeda connections, we should question their current assertion that if some US forces had been left in Iraq – and of course they blame Obama for not ensuring that some stayed, even though it was Bush who first signed the agreement setting the withdrawal date and it was the Iraqis who refused to agree to negotiate an agreement letting some American soldiers remain – this wouldn't have happened. While the US troop surge probably played a role in dampening down the insurgency in Iraq, the main factor was the co-opting of Sunni leaders who were persuaded to join in the fight against the radical groups. What has caused many Sunnis to now welcome, or at least not resist, ISIS is the behavior of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in recent years. His rule has been very divisive, clearly favoring the interests of his fellow Shiites over the Sunnis, as noted in this article. Human rights violations have also been severe, and again Sunnis have suffered disproportionately. The mere presence of a few US troops would hardly have been enough to counter the resentment that the Maliki government has generated with their heavy-handed behavior. If Obama should be blamed for anything, it should be for failing to strongly criticize Maliki's behavior, even at the risk of driving him even closer to Iran than he already is, or for failing to put pressure on him to step aside when Iyad Allawi out-polled him in the 2010 elections.
Leaving the question of blame aside, what should be done now? A number of organizations I receive emails from have been active in petitioning against US airstrikes, but I have been reluctant to sign on, not because I support airstrikes, but because I'm hesitant to completely rule them out. ISIS is clearly awful; based on what I've heard, they are probably worse than the Taliban. Some have talked about a diplomatic solution, but if by that they mean one involving ISIS, I think they are dreaming. However, there is certainly room for diplomacy involving both the Iraq government and local Sunni leaders. In fact, I think the US should insist that any substantial support that it gives to the Maliki government be contingent on Maliki taking immediate, concrete steps to improve the lot of the Sunnis and reduce sectarian tensions. Unfortunately, the fact that his allies are even now trying to pin responsibility for the Iraqi army's collapse on the Kurds, and Maliki's own wild hints about conspiracies and foreign meddling, indicate that he hasn't learned anything from this disaster. Until he does, or he is replaced by a more sensible ruler, it's hard to hold out much hope that Iraq's situation will improve any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
