The other day President Barack Obama made a major speech at Cape Canaveral regarding his space plan. His choice of venue was important, as Cape Canaveral is where the Apollo missions were launched in the 1960s and 1970s and the space shuttles are launched today. It is home to tens of thousands of people with jobs connected to the space program, many of whom are understandably concerned that Obama's plan will cost them their jobs. Obama's plan has also received public criticism from three Apollo astronauts, moon walkers Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan and Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell, though he has also received public support from Armstrong's Apollo 11 colleague and fellow moon walker Buzz Aldrin. His speech was intended to further explain and defend his plan, elaborate on his vision for space, and reassure space industry workers about their future.
As I stated in my earlier piece on this topic, I have some reservations about Obama's space plan. The biggest issue was the cancellation of the Constellation program, which was to develop a new heavy booster and space capsule for a return to the Moon. I can sympathize with the view of Armstrong and his colleagues that the cancellation of Constellation without anything specific to replace it seems like an abandonment of the US crewed space program. But the other side of that argument is that Constellation was underfunded and way behind schedule, so without a very large funding increase there was little chance of it getting Americans back to the Moon anytime soon. Of course what I'd most like to have seen would have been just such a large increase in funding. However, even though as I have argued previously, funding for space exploration is about the best investment the government can be making, especially as even if it were doubled it would be a small fraction of the budget, in the current economic and political climate a funding increase large enough to rescue Constellation was highly unlikely. As it is, Obama's budget does call for an overall increase in NASA's budget, so it isn't like he is starving the space program as a whole. Among other things, he is extending the lifetime of the International Space Station, unquestionable a good step if we want to get sufficient use out of it, especially considering how much it cost and how long it took to build it.
I didn't hear or read Obama's entire speech, but the parts that were quoted certainly sounded good. He said that he is strongly behind space exploration, and that he expects to see humans not only visit an asteroid but also go to Mars in his lifetime. Since I also want to live to see these things happen, and he is older than I am, if he is right that would certainly be reassuring. Of course, while I still generally think Obama is doing a reasonably decent job in most areas, at least compared with most recent presidents, there is often a noticeable gap between his rhetoric and his actions (not surprising, as such a gap is almost always present in politics). But if he sincerely believes that his space plan (which does have many good points, not least that it involves serious rethinking of the US approach to space) will really lead to exploration of Mars in his lifetime -- and I have no particular reason to doubt that he at least hopes that is the case -- then that is all to the good.
But despite the good points of his plan and his positive speech, the obvious flaw that remains is a lack of clear major medium-term (as in the next decade or so) goals for NASA in terms of human spaceflight, at least as far as I am aware. Even before Obama mentioned it in his speech, I had heard about the idea of sending humans to land on a near-Earth asteroid, but as far as I know the proposed time-line for such a mission is very vague, and what launch vehicle would be used is uncertain. Obama did mention that he was including funding for a new heavy launch vehicle (though it isn't clear why this would be better than the one being developed under the Constellation plan), and that the Orion crew capsule from Constellation would be retained, though modified to serve, at least initially, as an escape vehicle for the International Space Station, with the potential to be adapted for other missions. The idea that private ventures in space should be encouraged is good (at least up to a point; I wouldn't want to see space be turned into a place for unrestrained capitalist exploitation either), as is the idea that NASA should be working on solid long term "building blocks" for space exploration, rather than just short-term results. But specific medium-term goals are necessary as well, and clear plans for achieving them. Hopefully Obama's plan can be modified to include these things as well.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Recent World Events, Part 2
Here I am continuing my comments on some of the major events that have been happening in the world. For my observations on Kyrgyzstan, Karzai of Afghanistan, and the plane crash that killed the Polish leaders, see my previous entry.
A major news item from the United States was that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he was retiring. For those of us who prefer to see an open, progressive USA, this is sad news, as Stevens was probably the best remaining justice, and certainly one whose influence went beyond simply being another "liberal" vote (even though he was a Republican, back in the days when Republican didn't always mean far right-wing ultra-conservative). For a good overview of his role on the court, see this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/10/AR2010041003077.html
Though it is a shame to lose Stevens (especially as Scalia [!] will now be senior justice...), his decision is not all that surprising, given that he is 90 years old. In some ways, it's just as well that he is resigning now, when Obama is president and the Democrats still have a sizable majority in the Senate. In fact, it is not unlikely that Stevens took that into consideration, as despite his Republican origins, he no doubt does not want to be replaced by the type of judge who would get in if the Republicans were in power. The last judge to retire, David Souter, certainly timed his resignation that way, as he had previously made clear he wanted to leave the court but waited until Obama was in office before doing so. Looked at this way, while it's too bad to see Stevens go, it is certainly better that he leaves while there is a chance of getting a replacement that is at least almost as good. This is a topic that we're likely to see again when Obama nominates a replacement.
From a lifetime appointment to a powerful position in the world's best known democracy (not that I'm necessarily criticizing the non-elected nature of the Supreme Court; there are many advantages to having at least one part of the government that doesn't have to worry about re-election) I now want to move on to elections in countries not so well known for their democratic nature. Sudan is having its first (supposedly) multiparty elections recently, but as might be expected in a country where the president has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, there have been a few problems. The major opposition parties, citing the ruling party's obstructions to their campaigning and other problems, withdrew from the elections, except in the independence-minded south, where the main opposition party dominates. This means that Sudanese president Bashir isn't facing any major opponents, not that any opponents would have stood much chance anyway, given not only that the campaigning was not free and fair, but the elections themselves are likely to be fraud-ridden. But perhaps if the turnout is low or the few remaining opposition candidates (whether for president or parliament) get a significant number of votes, Bashir will be damaged by his obvious lack of a mandate (not that he'll have much of one regardless, given the problems with the elections). The remaining election-related question in Sudan is whether the referendum on independence for the south will go ahead next year as planned, and whether Bashir and his party will accept the results.
Of all the international news reports I saw in the week prior to the election, one that stuck out was from Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency. Their English-language news reports are superficially indistinguishable from those of other news agencies, and even on content they are not always notably different -- if the article is about something that has no bearing on China's political interests or reputation. Sudan, however, is a country that China has major investments in, and its government receives substantial Chinese support (much like other pariah governments in Myanmar [Burma], North Korea, and Zimbabwe). So the article was basically about how Sudan's government spokesman stated that the country was looking forward to "free and fair" elections. The only reference to any controversy or dispute about the fairness of the elections was also in a quote from the Sudanese spokesman, who said that some parties might be having problems, but that the problems were their own, and there were no problems with the elections. The report did not even explain the background to this remark. So someone who read only Xinhua might not even be aware that the opposition parties had pulled out of the election (since "problems" could mean anything), much less that there was any serious doubt over whether the elections were free and fair (unless the Sudanese government's frequent assertions of fairness raised their suspicions). But then we should expect something like that from China, which after all has never had national elections itself (under the PRC; the one time national elections were held under the Republic of China in the early 20th century the results were not ultimately honored).
Sri Lanka, a country which has a longer history of democracy, also held elections recently. Unfortunately, it provides a good example of why democracy itself is not always a good thing. As those with a minimal knowledge of the country know, it is divided between a Sinhalese Buddhist majority and a Tamil Hindu minority. As many Tamils felt discriminated against, a Tamil rebel group known as the Tamil Tigers rose up in the Tamil-populated north and fought a decades-long civil war with the government, for a long time controlling a de facto independent state in the north. A number of years ago, there was a cease fire and the government began negotiating with the rebels. The negotiations were far from a conclusion, however, when the tsunami struck, killing tens of thousands, including large numbers in the Tamil regions. Unlike in Aceh in Indonesia, the only area worse hit, the tsunami made the political situation worse rather than better. Just before I visited Sri Lanka in 2005, a year after the tsunami (I saw destroyed houses and people living in tents from the train, even though I only went to the less hard-hit southwest), there was a presidential election. The candidate of the ruling party, which had been negotiating with the Tamil Tigers, was being opposed by the much more hawkish and Sinhalese-chauvinist prime minister Rajapaksa. I remember at the time hoping that Rajapaksa would lose and being less than thrilled to hear he had won, though he had still not taken office when I was there. As I had feared, he ended up tearing up the cease fire and restarting the war, which the Sri Lankan government eventually won, though not without considerable effort. The Tamil Tiger leadership was virtually wiped out, and all their territory returned to government control.
The Tamil Tigers were not exactly noble freedom fighters; they pioneered the use of suicide bombers (though they did mainly target military and political figures), and they killed and otherwise oppressed any in their territory who didn't toe the Tiger line. They also made a number of foolish strategic moves, like enforcing a boycott of the 2005 election by the Tamils in the north, which ensured that the less-friendly Rajapaksa won. But the Sri Lankan government, while never failing to call the Tigers terrorists, was also guilty of egregious human rights violations. Early on in the war, there was incident where eight Tamils working for local NGOs in the east were found shot to death. Though both sides blamed the other, the town in question was under government control at the time, so they have to be considered the more likely suspect. The government would often round up young Tamil men from refugee camps in the war zone, and in many instances their families would never see from them again. The Sri Lankan military also continued to indiscriminately shell the war zone, killing many civilians, even after it said it would not (it denied doing so, but many witnesses, including doctors working in the area, confirmed that the government forces were clearly responsible). Several eyewitness accounts from within the military itself say that Tamil Tiger leaders were shot after surrendering. Even after the war ended, large numbers of Tamil civilians were essentially imprisoned in refugee camps for months.
Though the Tamil Tigers received much international criticism for their human rights violations, which they deserved, the government was also criticized by many, despite the tendency of other governments and international organizations to go relatively easy on their fellow governments in these types of conflicts. Even the UN, which almost never seems to criticize its member states, criticized the Sri Lankan government for a number of human rights violations (of course it probably helps that Sri Lanka is small -- they never criticize China, for instance, even though it is just as bad). Sri Lanka, of course, strongly rejected all the criticism. Absurdly enough, the government has a human rights commissioner whose job doesn't seem to be watching out for human rights violations, as one might expect, but vigorously defending the government's human rights record.
After the government defeated the Tigers, Rajapaksa called an early presidential election to capitalize on his popularity with the Sinhalese majority in the aftermath of the war. Somewhat ironically, his chief opponent, Fonseka, had been the head of the army and also was credited with the victory. Indeed their falling out was partly due to a dispute over who should get credit. But Fonseka at least took positions slightly more favorable to the Tamils and other minorities, and even hinted that some of the accusations of human rights violations might be true. After an election filled with violence (a majority blamed on Rajapaksa's supporters) and wild accusations, particularly by government-controlled media attacking Fonseka's reputation, Rajapaksa won an easy victory, in large part because he took positions less favorable to the minorities and because he continued to strongly defend the military against any accusations of human rights violations. Not long after the election, he had Fonseka arrested.
In the recent parliamentary elections, not only did the Sri Lankan electorate fail to punish Rajapaksa's party for their violations of human rights, violent campaigning methods, or corruption, but they gave them an overwhelming win. Whether this should be blamed on an uneducated electorate, the ruling party's dominance of the media, or the natural prejudices and flaws of humanity is hard to say. Probably all three, but unfortunately prejudice and ethnocentrism were certainly a factor. To at least some extent, Sri Lanka has to be seen as an example of the dangers of democracy, in that a majority can use its greater electoral power to ride roughshod over the rights of minority, and more generally in the fact that people will often vote for a candidate or party that any semi-objective outsider can see has major problems. Another recent example of this is the relative success (winning over 15% of the vote) of the openly anti-Jewish and anti-Roma far right party in the Hungarian elections.
A somewhat similar situation applies in a country which I pay particular attention to, as I have spent more time there than any other country other than the US and Taiwan, namely Thailand. As any who have been paying attention to world events recently should know, Thailand has been paralyzed by protests by a group called the Red Shirts, for the identifying color they wear. Thousands of protesters belonging to this group have taken over areas in Bangkok that I have spent a great deal of time in. Their main base in recent weeks has been in the central shopping area near Central World Plaza and Siam Square, an area where I frequently shop for music. On most recent trips I have stayed in one of the cheap hotels on a soi (alley) very close to this area. A couple of weeks ago, the Red Shirts also occupied the Democracy Monument area, very close to the backpacker center at Khao San Road, an area where I stayed on all my early trips and one which I still frequent. Fighting broke out when the military tried to clear the protesters from the area, and a number of people were killed. According to some reports, there was fighting on Khao San Road itself, though I imagine most of it was on the much bigger Rachadamnoen Road that Democracy Monument is on. Though the Red Shirts retreated from Democracy Monument after the clash (even though the military had failed to force them out), they remain in the central shopping district. As it has been throughout their protests, the Red Shirts' stated goal is to force the current government out of power.
This is not the first time in recent years that Bangkok has been paralyzed by protests. A few years ago, another group called the Yellow Shirts seized the international airport in order to force the government that was in power at that time to resign. The current government, however, is from the opposite side of Thailand's political divide, just as the Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts are on opposite sides (there is now another pro-government group called the Pink Shirts, who I would think overlap in membership with the currently inactive Yellow Shirts). Basically, the Yellow (and Pink) Shirts and those they support represent the country's elite: the wealthy and the middle class of Bangkok, the military leadership (to some degree, at least), and the royalists (all, or at least most, Thais revere the current king, but the Yellow/Pink Shirt faction emphasizes this much more strongly). The Red Shirts represent mainly the rural poor and the working classes. They also more strongly emphasize democracy, whereas some of their opponents have even called to an end to full democracy in Thailand, instead advocating an election process that openly favors the elites.
On a number of points, I have to sympathize with the Red Shirts. The elitist attitude of many on the other side, for example, is a definite negative, and there is no question that the workers and rural people of Thailand need someone who will truly look out for their interests. Also, while I respect King Bhumipol himself, I find the excessive monarchism of the Yellow and Pink Shirts excessive. However, the Red Shirts have one major problem which prevents me from sympathizing with them too much. This problem is the fact that they are in large part acting as proxies for the man who in many ways is ultimately responsible for Thailand's political crisis over the last several years, former Prime Minister Thaksin.
Thaksin was in a political sense one of Thailand's most successful prime ministers, as he was able to stay in office longer than in any other prime minister in recent times and to enact many measures while retaining high popularity. But he had many problems, first and foremost being that he was clearly an autocrat at heart, with very little tolerance for dissent or criticism. He took many different measures to silence critical voices, some more blatant than others. For the most part he wasn't able to use force against critics, because there are still many restraints on a prime minister's power in Thailand, but I suspect he would have if he had been in a position to do so. Certainly he had little respect for human rights. Aside from his disdain for freedom of expression, he instituted a "war on drugs" that essentially gave the police license to kill any small-time drug dealers they could get their hands, something that was made worse by the fact that some police themselves were probably involved in the drug trade, giving them incentive to simply kill any small-time operators who might give them away. Then there was his poor handling of the Muslim region in the south, which led to the current festering insurrection, and the subsequent human rights abuses committed by his government in the region. Thaksin was also quite friendly to the thoroughly reprehensible military dictatorship in neighboring Burma (Myanmar). Even the measures which gave him his popularity among the poor were often less than praiseworthy. Some probably did bring real benefits to those who needed it, but many were little more than large-scale vote buying, a practice already common among politicians in Thailand but perfected by Thaksin and his allies.
Thaksin was forced out of power by a military coup, as the military elite had become dissatisfied with his leadership. This occurred when he was outside of the country, and since then he has remained in exile. He hasn't accepted his fate, however, but has continued to stir up his supporters inside the country. At the same time, he has been convicted of corruption in abstentia for a number of actions taken while he was in power which benefited his family and the large corporation they owned. His political party was disbanded, but his supporters formed a new party which was able to win an election (helped by the post-coup government's mismanagement). I was in Thailand at the time of the election, and though I know I shouldn't judge by appearances, to me the head of the pro-Thaksin party had a sleazy, slightly reptilian appearance (though that's an insult to reptiles, which I'm generally fond of). So I wasn't entirely surprised to learn that he played a significant role in a violent, oppressive crackdown on left-wing students in the 1970s. It was this prime minister and, after he was forced to resign by the courts, his successor (who happened to be related to Thaksin by marriage) that the Yellow Shirt protests targeted. Eventually their party was disbanded by the courts and the current government came into power. Now it's the turn of the pro-Thaksin faction to use massive street protests to overturn the government.
As I said, there are many negatives to both parties to this dispute. While my view of the current prime minister is not too unfavorable, it is true that he came to power in a manner that could be seen as less than democratic, and it is also true that many of his supporters are elitist and are not interested in the problems of the poor. But the Red Shirts remain tied to Thaksin, who funds them and speaks to their gatherings by satellite phone. As long as the Red Shirts are involved with Thaksin and act like they are out to restore him (while some of their leaders have occasionally made statements asserting independence from Thaksin, signs with his picture are everywhere, and as I said he remains deeply involved in supporting them), I can't say that I wish them success. Furthermore, it is questionable whether most of the politicians on the pro-Thaksin side are really interested in helping Thailand's poor (the same goes for Thaksin himself, who seems to me to care mainly about Thaksin). Some of their protest methods, like the unsanitary and extremely wasteful dumping of their own blood on key sites, are also a turn off. So how do I hope this is resolved? A new election might be the ideal solution, if it weren't for the substantial chance that a pro-Thaksin government might get in again. If a moderate group that could bridge the gap between the two sides appeared, that would be best, but the chance of that are slim. So for now we'll just have to wait and see.
This concludes my overview of recent world events. No doubt there are some aspects to all of them that I have missed, but I don't think additional information would be likely to change my views in most cases, except maybe to give me an even more negative impression of the various parties involved. But while much of what is going on in the world is somewhat depressing, it is still interesting to observe, and I will continue to pay attention to what's going on as much as possible.
Update: Another even more recent world news item has been the earthquake in...well, the media reported it as occurring in "western China". As soon as I saw that headline, I suspected that it was not in fact in China proper, but in one of the non-Chinese territories occupied by China. A look at the report should that I was right, as the earthquake actually took place in Tibet. Not Tibet as China defines it, but a part of Tibet that has been incorporated into another province. Of course, since China does, unfortunately for the people there, control the area, it is somewhat understandable that the media tends to refer to it as China. Nevertheless, it would be preferable if they said Tibet (an analogy might be drawn with events taking place in 19th century Krakow or Warsaw -- though the area was then ruled by Russia, it was still Poland). To her credit, US House Speaker Pelosi's condolence message referred to "the people of China and Tibet".
A major news item from the United States was that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he was retiring. For those of us who prefer to see an open, progressive USA, this is sad news, as Stevens was probably the best remaining justice, and certainly one whose influence went beyond simply being another "liberal" vote (even though he was a Republican, back in the days when Republican didn't always mean far right-wing ultra-conservative). For a good overview of his role on the court, see this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/10/AR2010041003077.html
Though it is a shame to lose Stevens (especially as Scalia [!] will now be senior justice...), his decision is not all that surprising, given that he is 90 years old. In some ways, it's just as well that he is resigning now, when Obama is president and the Democrats still have a sizable majority in the Senate. In fact, it is not unlikely that Stevens took that into consideration, as despite his Republican origins, he no doubt does not want to be replaced by the type of judge who would get in if the Republicans were in power. The last judge to retire, David Souter, certainly timed his resignation that way, as he had previously made clear he wanted to leave the court but waited until Obama was in office before doing so. Looked at this way, while it's too bad to see Stevens go, it is certainly better that he leaves while there is a chance of getting a replacement that is at least almost as good. This is a topic that we're likely to see again when Obama nominates a replacement.
From a lifetime appointment to a powerful position in the world's best known democracy (not that I'm necessarily criticizing the non-elected nature of the Supreme Court; there are many advantages to having at least one part of the government that doesn't have to worry about re-election) I now want to move on to elections in countries not so well known for their democratic nature. Sudan is having its first (supposedly) multiparty elections recently, but as might be expected in a country where the president has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, there have been a few problems. The major opposition parties, citing the ruling party's obstructions to their campaigning and other problems, withdrew from the elections, except in the independence-minded south, where the main opposition party dominates. This means that Sudanese president Bashir isn't facing any major opponents, not that any opponents would have stood much chance anyway, given not only that the campaigning was not free and fair, but the elections themselves are likely to be fraud-ridden. But perhaps if the turnout is low or the few remaining opposition candidates (whether for president or parliament) get a significant number of votes, Bashir will be damaged by his obvious lack of a mandate (not that he'll have much of one regardless, given the problems with the elections). The remaining election-related question in Sudan is whether the referendum on independence for the south will go ahead next year as planned, and whether Bashir and his party will accept the results.
Of all the international news reports I saw in the week prior to the election, one that stuck out was from Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency. Their English-language news reports are superficially indistinguishable from those of other news agencies, and even on content they are not always notably different -- if the article is about something that has no bearing on China's political interests or reputation. Sudan, however, is a country that China has major investments in, and its government receives substantial Chinese support (much like other pariah governments in Myanmar [Burma], North Korea, and Zimbabwe). So the article was basically about how Sudan's government spokesman stated that the country was looking forward to "free and fair" elections. The only reference to any controversy or dispute about the fairness of the elections was also in a quote from the Sudanese spokesman, who said that some parties might be having problems, but that the problems were their own, and there were no problems with the elections. The report did not even explain the background to this remark. So someone who read only Xinhua might not even be aware that the opposition parties had pulled out of the election (since "problems" could mean anything), much less that there was any serious doubt over whether the elections were free and fair (unless the Sudanese government's frequent assertions of fairness raised their suspicions). But then we should expect something like that from China, which after all has never had national elections itself (under the PRC; the one time national elections were held under the Republic of China in the early 20th century the results were not ultimately honored).
Sri Lanka, a country which has a longer history of democracy, also held elections recently. Unfortunately, it provides a good example of why democracy itself is not always a good thing. As those with a minimal knowledge of the country know, it is divided between a Sinhalese Buddhist majority and a Tamil Hindu minority. As many Tamils felt discriminated against, a Tamil rebel group known as the Tamil Tigers rose up in the Tamil-populated north and fought a decades-long civil war with the government, for a long time controlling a de facto independent state in the north. A number of years ago, there was a cease fire and the government began negotiating with the rebels. The negotiations were far from a conclusion, however, when the tsunami struck, killing tens of thousands, including large numbers in the Tamil regions. Unlike in Aceh in Indonesia, the only area worse hit, the tsunami made the political situation worse rather than better. Just before I visited Sri Lanka in 2005, a year after the tsunami (I saw destroyed houses and people living in tents from the train, even though I only went to the less hard-hit southwest), there was a presidential election. The candidate of the ruling party, which had been negotiating with the Tamil Tigers, was being opposed by the much more hawkish and Sinhalese-chauvinist prime minister Rajapaksa. I remember at the time hoping that Rajapaksa would lose and being less than thrilled to hear he had won, though he had still not taken office when I was there. As I had feared, he ended up tearing up the cease fire and restarting the war, which the Sri Lankan government eventually won, though not without considerable effort. The Tamil Tiger leadership was virtually wiped out, and all their territory returned to government control.
The Tamil Tigers were not exactly noble freedom fighters; they pioneered the use of suicide bombers (though they did mainly target military and political figures), and they killed and otherwise oppressed any in their territory who didn't toe the Tiger line. They also made a number of foolish strategic moves, like enforcing a boycott of the 2005 election by the Tamils in the north, which ensured that the less-friendly Rajapaksa won. But the Sri Lankan government, while never failing to call the Tigers terrorists, was also guilty of egregious human rights violations. Early on in the war, there was incident where eight Tamils working for local NGOs in the east were found shot to death. Though both sides blamed the other, the town in question was under government control at the time, so they have to be considered the more likely suspect. The government would often round up young Tamil men from refugee camps in the war zone, and in many instances their families would never see from them again. The Sri Lankan military also continued to indiscriminately shell the war zone, killing many civilians, even after it said it would not (it denied doing so, but many witnesses, including doctors working in the area, confirmed that the government forces were clearly responsible). Several eyewitness accounts from within the military itself say that Tamil Tiger leaders were shot after surrendering. Even after the war ended, large numbers of Tamil civilians were essentially imprisoned in refugee camps for months.
Though the Tamil Tigers received much international criticism for their human rights violations, which they deserved, the government was also criticized by many, despite the tendency of other governments and international organizations to go relatively easy on their fellow governments in these types of conflicts. Even the UN, which almost never seems to criticize its member states, criticized the Sri Lankan government for a number of human rights violations (of course it probably helps that Sri Lanka is small -- they never criticize China, for instance, even though it is just as bad). Sri Lanka, of course, strongly rejected all the criticism. Absurdly enough, the government has a human rights commissioner whose job doesn't seem to be watching out for human rights violations, as one might expect, but vigorously defending the government's human rights record.
After the government defeated the Tigers, Rajapaksa called an early presidential election to capitalize on his popularity with the Sinhalese majority in the aftermath of the war. Somewhat ironically, his chief opponent, Fonseka, had been the head of the army and also was credited with the victory. Indeed their falling out was partly due to a dispute over who should get credit. But Fonseka at least took positions slightly more favorable to the Tamils and other minorities, and even hinted that some of the accusations of human rights violations might be true. After an election filled with violence (a majority blamed on Rajapaksa's supporters) and wild accusations, particularly by government-controlled media attacking Fonseka's reputation, Rajapaksa won an easy victory, in large part because he took positions less favorable to the minorities and because he continued to strongly defend the military against any accusations of human rights violations. Not long after the election, he had Fonseka arrested.
In the recent parliamentary elections, not only did the Sri Lankan electorate fail to punish Rajapaksa's party for their violations of human rights, violent campaigning methods, or corruption, but they gave them an overwhelming win. Whether this should be blamed on an uneducated electorate, the ruling party's dominance of the media, or the natural prejudices and flaws of humanity is hard to say. Probably all three, but unfortunately prejudice and ethnocentrism were certainly a factor. To at least some extent, Sri Lanka has to be seen as an example of the dangers of democracy, in that a majority can use its greater electoral power to ride roughshod over the rights of minority, and more generally in the fact that people will often vote for a candidate or party that any semi-objective outsider can see has major problems. Another recent example of this is the relative success (winning over 15% of the vote) of the openly anti-Jewish and anti-Roma far right party in the Hungarian elections.
A somewhat similar situation applies in a country which I pay particular attention to, as I have spent more time there than any other country other than the US and Taiwan, namely Thailand. As any who have been paying attention to world events recently should know, Thailand has been paralyzed by protests by a group called the Red Shirts, for the identifying color they wear. Thousands of protesters belonging to this group have taken over areas in Bangkok that I have spent a great deal of time in. Their main base in recent weeks has been in the central shopping area near Central World Plaza and Siam Square, an area where I frequently shop for music. On most recent trips I have stayed in one of the cheap hotels on a soi (alley) very close to this area. A couple of weeks ago, the Red Shirts also occupied the Democracy Monument area, very close to the backpacker center at Khao San Road, an area where I stayed on all my early trips and one which I still frequent. Fighting broke out when the military tried to clear the protesters from the area, and a number of people were killed. According to some reports, there was fighting on Khao San Road itself, though I imagine most of it was on the much bigger Rachadamnoen Road that Democracy Monument is on. Though the Red Shirts retreated from Democracy Monument after the clash (even though the military had failed to force them out), they remain in the central shopping district. As it has been throughout their protests, the Red Shirts' stated goal is to force the current government out of power.
This is not the first time in recent years that Bangkok has been paralyzed by protests. A few years ago, another group called the Yellow Shirts seized the international airport in order to force the government that was in power at that time to resign. The current government, however, is from the opposite side of Thailand's political divide, just as the Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts are on opposite sides (there is now another pro-government group called the Pink Shirts, who I would think overlap in membership with the currently inactive Yellow Shirts). Basically, the Yellow (and Pink) Shirts and those they support represent the country's elite: the wealthy and the middle class of Bangkok, the military leadership (to some degree, at least), and the royalists (all, or at least most, Thais revere the current king, but the Yellow/Pink Shirt faction emphasizes this much more strongly). The Red Shirts represent mainly the rural poor and the working classes. They also more strongly emphasize democracy, whereas some of their opponents have even called to an end to full democracy in Thailand, instead advocating an election process that openly favors the elites.
On a number of points, I have to sympathize with the Red Shirts. The elitist attitude of many on the other side, for example, is a definite negative, and there is no question that the workers and rural people of Thailand need someone who will truly look out for their interests. Also, while I respect King Bhumipol himself, I find the excessive monarchism of the Yellow and Pink Shirts excessive. However, the Red Shirts have one major problem which prevents me from sympathizing with them too much. This problem is the fact that they are in large part acting as proxies for the man who in many ways is ultimately responsible for Thailand's political crisis over the last several years, former Prime Minister Thaksin.
Thaksin was in a political sense one of Thailand's most successful prime ministers, as he was able to stay in office longer than in any other prime minister in recent times and to enact many measures while retaining high popularity. But he had many problems, first and foremost being that he was clearly an autocrat at heart, with very little tolerance for dissent or criticism. He took many different measures to silence critical voices, some more blatant than others. For the most part he wasn't able to use force against critics, because there are still many restraints on a prime minister's power in Thailand, but I suspect he would have if he had been in a position to do so. Certainly he had little respect for human rights. Aside from his disdain for freedom of expression, he instituted a "war on drugs" that essentially gave the police license to kill any small-time drug dealers they could get their hands, something that was made worse by the fact that some police themselves were probably involved in the drug trade, giving them incentive to simply kill any small-time operators who might give them away. Then there was his poor handling of the Muslim region in the south, which led to the current festering insurrection, and the subsequent human rights abuses committed by his government in the region. Thaksin was also quite friendly to the thoroughly reprehensible military dictatorship in neighboring Burma (Myanmar). Even the measures which gave him his popularity among the poor were often less than praiseworthy. Some probably did bring real benefits to those who needed it, but many were little more than large-scale vote buying, a practice already common among politicians in Thailand but perfected by Thaksin and his allies.
Thaksin was forced out of power by a military coup, as the military elite had become dissatisfied with his leadership. This occurred when he was outside of the country, and since then he has remained in exile. He hasn't accepted his fate, however, but has continued to stir up his supporters inside the country. At the same time, he has been convicted of corruption in abstentia for a number of actions taken while he was in power which benefited his family and the large corporation they owned. His political party was disbanded, but his supporters formed a new party which was able to win an election (helped by the post-coup government's mismanagement). I was in Thailand at the time of the election, and though I know I shouldn't judge by appearances, to me the head of the pro-Thaksin party had a sleazy, slightly reptilian appearance (though that's an insult to reptiles, which I'm generally fond of). So I wasn't entirely surprised to learn that he played a significant role in a violent, oppressive crackdown on left-wing students in the 1970s. It was this prime minister and, after he was forced to resign by the courts, his successor (who happened to be related to Thaksin by marriage) that the Yellow Shirt protests targeted. Eventually their party was disbanded by the courts and the current government came into power. Now it's the turn of the pro-Thaksin faction to use massive street protests to overturn the government.
As I said, there are many negatives to both parties to this dispute. While my view of the current prime minister is not too unfavorable, it is true that he came to power in a manner that could be seen as less than democratic, and it is also true that many of his supporters are elitist and are not interested in the problems of the poor. But the Red Shirts remain tied to Thaksin, who funds them and speaks to their gatherings by satellite phone. As long as the Red Shirts are involved with Thaksin and act like they are out to restore him (while some of their leaders have occasionally made statements asserting independence from Thaksin, signs with his picture are everywhere, and as I said he remains deeply involved in supporting them), I can't say that I wish them success. Furthermore, it is questionable whether most of the politicians on the pro-Thaksin side are really interested in helping Thailand's poor (the same goes for Thaksin himself, who seems to me to care mainly about Thaksin). Some of their protest methods, like the unsanitary and extremely wasteful dumping of their own blood on key sites, are also a turn off. So how do I hope this is resolved? A new election might be the ideal solution, if it weren't for the substantial chance that a pro-Thaksin government might get in again. If a moderate group that could bridge the gap between the two sides appeared, that would be best, but the chance of that are slim. So for now we'll just have to wait and see.
This concludes my overview of recent world events. No doubt there are some aspects to all of them that I have missed, but I don't think additional information would be likely to change my views in most cases, except maybe to give me an even more negative impression of the various parties involved. But while much of what is going on in the world is somewhat depressing, it is still interesting to observe, and I will continue to pay attention to what's going on as much as possible.
Update: Another even more recent world news item has been the earthquake in...well, the media reported it as occurring in "western China". As soon as I saw that headline, I suspected that it was not in fact in China proper, but in one of the non-Chinese territories occupied by China. A look at the report should that I was right, as the earthquake actually took place in Tibet. Not Tibet as China defines it, but a part of Tibet that has been incorporated into another province. Of course, since China does, unfortunately for the people there, control the area, it is somewhat understandable that the media tends to refer to it as China. Nevertheless, it would be preferable if they said Tibet (an analogy might be drawn with events taking place in 19th century Krakow or Warsaw -- though the area was then ruled by Russia, it was still Poland). To her credit, US House Speaker Pelosi's condolence message referred to "the people of China and Tibet".
Monday, April 12, 2010
Recent World Events, Part 1
I'd like to take a little time to comment on some recent world events, as a lot has been happening lately. So much in fact that I probably won't be able to give any one event the attention it may deserve. Instead I'll just offer a few thoughts on each that come to mind.
One major event that may already be fading from the minds of many in Taiwan and the US, assuming they were ever aware of it at all, is the recent revolution in Kyrgyzstan. Perhaps I am being a bit cynical (me, cynical? no way!), as at least on many online news sites the unrest and the overthrow of the country's president Kurmanbek Bakiyev made major headlines, and even now it still gets a fair amount of attention (in part because the situation is still not settled). However, I have a suspicion that even if the news was featured on the TV newscasts that most people get their news from, it probably just registered as more violence in some country they'd never heard of. Even now, I doubt that more than a small percentage of people in either the US or Taiwan could find Kyrgyzstan on a map, and many probably couldn't even come close. Admittedly even I (hey, not only I am I not cynical, I'm modest as well!) occasionally have trouble keeping Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan straight (though I did spell them all correctly without looking them up!). But that doesn't mean these places are unimportant or that we shouldn't pay attention to them.
In the case of Kyrgyzstan, the obvious significance to the US is the fact that it is leasing an airbase there that it uses to support its troops in Afghanistan. This base briefly made the news last year, as Bakiyev, encouraged by Russia, threatened to throw the Americans out of it and only relented when they agreed to drastically increase the rent they paid. But being overly pragmatic in this regard, i.e., focusing solely on the base as its only major practical interest in Kyrgyzstan, may conversely turn out hurt the US, as comments by the opposition at the time of Bakiyev's overthrow show that they took note of the Americans' failure to put any real pressure on Bakiyev to be more democratic, instead solely concerning themselves with making sure the base remained available to them. This is yet another example of how it pays to show genuine support for democracy and human rights (particularly the latter, though why democracy is actually much less important than civil rights is a topic for another day).
It was already fairly evident that Bakiyev needed some pushing in the human rights department, as various incidents such as the murder of a leading opposition journalist showed that he was rather lacking in that regard. Ironically, he himself came to power on a wave of popular support, but like many similar leaders in developing countries, he seems to have degenerated into an autocrat. The reason this kind of corruption is more obvious in the developing world is explained by Lord Acton's famous statement that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It isn't that leaders in the developed world are necessarily better people or that those in the developing world are worse, but that in most developed countries there checks against leaders' power, while in the developing world their power is often virtually absolute. Bakiyev wasn't even necessarily the worst in his region. Turkmenistan's recently deceased president created a cult of personality so absurd that the days of the week were renamed after him and members of his family. Some years ago the leader of Uzbekistan bloodily suppressed protests against him, killing an unknown number of civilians (soon afterward he went on a state visit to China, which congratulated him for its handling of the affair). Even Kazakhstan's Nazarbayev, who is a little less blatantly autocratic, has shown no sign of letting any real opposition challenge him or of paying more than lip service to human rights, democracy or anti-corruption efforts (he also shows no sign of planning to relinquish the position he has held since his country became independent 19 years ago).
Of course the situation in Kyrgyzstan isn't resolved yet, as Bakiyev hasn't resigned but has only fled to a part of the country where he retains more support. While he doesn't seem to have enough support to launch a civil war to reclaim power, the fact that he is free and still holding onto his claim to the presidency will make things difficult for the new government. As for the latter, based on a few quotes from an interview she gave a reporter, the new interim president Roza Otunbayeva seems fairly sensible. Of course a few quotes isn't much to go on, and given enough time in power she may end up like Bakiyev.
Speaking of problematic presidents in Central Asia, Karzai, the president of Kyrgyzstan's neighbor Afghanistan, has also made the news for some rather idiotic remarks recently. After being forced into a runoff because the independent, foreign-dominated election commission threw out huge numbers of obviously fraudulent votes for him and his international backers (including the main one, the US) pressured him to accept this (though in the end the runoff didn't take place as his challenger withdrew), he recently tried to replace the foreign members of the commission. When the legislature blocked him, he evidently became a bit unhinged, as earlier this month he claimed that foreigners had committed fraud in the election (a rather amazing claim, when it obviously was his supporters that did so), and that if the lawmakers didn't go along with his attempts to stuff the election commission with his supporters he would consider joining the Taliban. Considering that he would not be where he is without the support of the US and other countries, and his government is still highly dependent on the US both financially and militarily, these comments were odd to say the least. Also oddly, US senior officials have recently played down the dispute. One can only hope that this is because Karzai privately apologized and said it wouldn't happen again, but I haven't heard anything to this effect. The bright side is the Afghan legislature's defiance of Karzai's efforts, which perhaps is not altogether surprising considering the famously independent nature of the Afghans.
Another major news story, of course, was the death of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, along with many other major political figures and Poland's top military officers in a plane crash. There is little to be said about the incident itself, other than it was tragic (though not necessarily more or less tragic than an accident killing a hundred less powerful people) and that it may have significant effects on Poland's political scene. But what was ironic, as indeed many reports pointed out, was that they were traveling to Russia to commemorate the massacre at Katyn of 20,000 (!) Polish military officers and intellectuals by the Soviets in 1940.
As reports on the plane crash reminded us, the Katyn massacre was a major sore point in Russian-Polish relations for many years. It wasn't until Gorbachev's day, a half century after the event, that the Soviet Union even admitted that it had been responsible, and it seems that many Russians even now don't believe it happened. Of course there are always people who because of their own particular prejudices refuse to believe in historical events that are well documented, such as those that deny the Holocaust ever happened. It's even worse when, like was the case with the Soviet Union, the government actively pushes a false view of a historical event for propaganda reasons. Unfortunately this sort of thing is all too common, whether it is Turkish denial of the Armenian genocide, Japanese playing down of the Nanjing massacre or the use of "comfort women" in WWII, or Chinese denial of the Tiananmen massacre or their mistreatment of Tibetans. Some credit must be given to Putin (who is otherwise an undemocratic autocrat and nationalist) for attending a ceremony at Katyn with the Polish prime minister before this plane crash. There is no excuse for a nation failing to admit to the crimes it committed in the past; it is only after such a full admission of fault that a healing process has hope of beginning. With some effort on Russia's part, this plane crash will be the last tragedy associated with the Katyn massacre to trouble Polish-Russian relations. [Update: For a look at the incident from the hopeful angle, see this piece by Polish-born former US Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100415/wl_time/08599198193000]
There are still a number of recent world events that I want to comment on, but as this entry is already fairly lengthy, I will split my observations into two parts, and discuss the other events in the second part. Stay tuned.
One major event that may already be fading from the minds of many in Taiwan and the US, assuming they were ever aware of it at all, is the recent revolution in Kyrgyzstan. Perhaps I am being a bit cynical (me, cynical? no way!), as at least on many online news sites the unrest and the overthrow of the country's president Kurmanbek Bakiyev made major headlines, and even now it still gets a fair amount of attention (in part because the situation is still not settled). However, I have a suspicion that even if the news was featured on the TV newscasts that most people get their news from, it probably just registered as more violence in some country they'd never heard of. Even now, I doubt that more than a small percentage of people in either the US or Taiwan could find Kyrgyzstan on a map, and many probably couldn't even come close. Admittedly even I (hey, not only I am I not cynical, I'm modest as well!) occasionally have trouble keeping Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan straight (though I did spell them all correctly without looking them up!). But that doesn't mean these places are unimportant or that we shouldn't pay attention to them.
In the case of Kyrgyzstan, the obvious significance to the US is the fact that it is leasing an airbase there that it uses to support its troops in Afghanistan. This base briefly made the news last year, as Bakiyev, encouraged by Russia, threatened to throw the Americans out of it and only relented when they agreed to drastically increase the rent they paid. But being overly pragmatic in this regard, i.e., focusing solely on the base as its only major practical interest in Kyrgyzstan, may conversely turn out hurt the US, as comments by the opposition at the time of Bakiyev's overthrow show that they took note of the Americans' failure to put any real pressure on Bakiyev to be more democratic, instead solely concerning themselves with making sure the base remained available to them. This is yet another example of how it pays to show genuine support for democracy and human rights (particularly the latter, though why democracy is actually much less important than civil rights is a topic for another day).
It was already fairly evident that Bakiyev needed some pushing in the human rights department, as various incidents such as the murder of a leading opposition journalist showed that he was rather lacking in that regard. Ironically, he himself came to power on a wave of popular support, but like many similar leaders in developing countries, he seems to have degenerated into an autocrat. The reason this kind of corruption is more obvious in the developing world is explained by Lord Acton's famous statement that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It isn't that leaders in the developed world are necessarily better people or that those in the developing world are worse, but that in most developed countries there checks against leaders' power, while in the developing world their power is often virtually absolute. Bakiyev wasn't even necessarily the worst in his region. Turkmenistan's recently deceased president created a cult of personality so absurd that the days of the week were renamed after him and members of his family. Some years ago the leader of Uzbekistan bloodily suppressed protests against him, killing an unknown number of civilians (soon afterward he went on a state visit to China, which congratulated him for its handling of the affair). Even Kazakhstan's Nazarbayev, who is a little less blatantly autocratic, has shown no sign of letting any real opposition challenge him or of paying more than lip service to human rights, democracy or anti-corruption efforts (he also shows no sign of planning to relinquish the position he has held since his country became independent 19 years ago).
Of course the situation in Kyrgyzstan isn't resolved yet, as Bakiyev hasn't resigned but has only fled to a part of the country where he retains more support. While he doesn't seem to have enough support to launch a civil war to reclaim power, the fact that he is free and still holding onto his claim to the presidency will make things difficult for the new government. As for the latter, based on a few quotes from an interview she gave a reporter, the new interim president Roza Otunbayeva seems fairly sensible. Of course a few quotes isn't much to go on, and given enough time in power she may end up like Bakiyev.
Speaking of problematic presidents in Central Asia, Karzai, the president of Kyrgyzstan's neighbor Afghanistan, has also made the news for some rather idiotic remarks recently. After being forced into a runoff because the independent, foreign-dominated election commission threw out huge numbers of obviously fraudulent votes for him and his international backers (including the main one, the US) pressured him to accept this (though in the end the runoff didn't take place as his challenger withdrew), he recently tried to replace the foreign members of the commission. When the legislature blocked him, he evidently became a bit unhinged, as earlier this month he claimed that foreigners had committed fraud in the election (a rather amazing claim, when it obviously was his supporters that did so), and that if the lawmakers didn't go along with his attempts to stuff the election commission with his supporters he would consider joining the Taliban. Considering that he would not be where he is without the support of the US and other countries, and his government is still highly dependent on the US both financially and militarily, these comments were odd to say the least. Also oddly, US senior officials have recently played down the dispute. One can only hope that this is because Karzai privately apologized and said it wouldn't happen again, but I haven't heard anything to this effect. The bright side is the Afghan legislature's defiance of Karzai's efforts, which perhaps is not altogether surprising considering the famously independent nature of the Afghans.
Another major news story, of course, was the death of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, along with many other major political figures and Poland's top military officers in a plane crash. There is little to be said about the incident itself, other than it was tragic (though not necessarily more or less tragic than an accident killing a hundred less powerful people) and that it may have significant effects on Poland's political scene. But what was ironic, as indeed many reports pointed out, was that they were traveling to Russia to commemorate the massacre at Katyn of 20,000 (!) Polish military officers and intellectuals by the Soviets in 1940.
As reports on the plane crash reminded us, the Katyn massacre was a major sore point in Russian-Polish relations for many years. It wasn't until Gorbachev's day, a half century after the event, that the Soviet Union even admitted that it had been responsible, and it seems that many Russians even now don't believe it happened. Of course there are always people who because of their own particular prejudices refuse to believe in historical events that are well documented, such as those that deny the Holocaust ever happened. It's even worse when, like was the case with the Soviet Union, the government actively pushes a false view of a historical event for propaganda reasons. Unfortunately this sort of thing is all too common, whether it is Turkish denial of the Armenian genocide, Japanese playing down of the Nanjing massacre or the use of "comfort women" in WWII, or Chinese denial of the Tiananmen massacre or their mistreatment of Tibetans. Some credit must be given to Putin (who is otherwise an undemocratic autocrat and nationalist) for attending a ceremony at Katyn with the Polish prime minister before this plane crash. There is no excuse for a nation failing to admit to the crimes it committed in the past; it is only after such a full admission of fault that a healing process has hope of beginning. With some effort on Russia's part, this plane crash will be the last tragedy associated with the Katyn massacre to trouble Polish-Russian relations. [Update: For a look at the incident from the hopeful angle, see this piece by Polish-born former US Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100415/wl_time/08599198193000]
There are still a number of recent world events that I want to comment on, but as this entry is already fairly lengthy, I will split my observations into two parts, and discuss the other events in the second part. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
