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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thailand and Egypt: The Generals Take Over

Recently Thailand underwent a military coup, with the country's top military commander, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, taking power after months of political tension. This is hardly Thailand's first military coup (it has had a dozen in the last 80 or so years) or even its first in recent years (the last one was in 2006), and I'll admit to a certain initial sympathy with Prayuth's decision to take charge. Thailand has been in the grip of a long, intractable political struggle that dates back to the 2006, in which the military overthrew Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Thaksin, a billionaire telecommunications tycoon, had governed as a populist, with initiatives that won him popularity with many of Thailand's poorer people, particularly in the northeast. While working to benefit the poor is a good thing, many of Thaksin's policies amounted to little more than handing out cash, rather than dealing with underlying issues. Also, he had a distinct authoritarian streak, showing little tolerance for dissent. Between his family's media properties and the state media, he controlled most of the major media sources. His war on drugs amounted to an extrajudicial slaughter of small-time drug dealers, letting bigger ones (including, most likely, some police officials who conveniently eliminated potential witnesses in the process) get away. He was friendly with the brutal dictatorship in Burma (Myanmar). There is plenty of reason to believe he was corrupt, using his position to benefit himself and his family interests. So there were many reasons why his loss of power didn't seem like a bad thing, even if it took a coup to accomplish it.

But Thaksin, who has been in exile since the 2006 coup, remains very popular among rural Thais and the urban poor, and in subsequent elections, parties linked to him triumphed every time. He was hated by the Bangkok-based establishment and the middle class, who succeeded in toppling several pro-Thaksin governments through court actions and protests, while major protests in 2010 by the pro-Thaksin Red Shirts against an unelected pro-establishment government ended in violence. But the most recent election in 2011 saw Thaksin's sister, Yingluck, win power as prime minister. Though she was able to remain in power without major difficulty for two years, a failed attempt to pass an amnesty law that might have allowed her brother to return led to massive protests against her and counter-protests by supporters, paralyzing Thailand politically for many months. Neither side showed any willingness to compromise, and even after a ruling by a pro-establishment court removed Yingluck from power, the stalemate between the caretaker government she left behind and the anti-Thaksin forces remained intractable. What's more, unlike the case in some other political struggles, neither side clearly had right on their side.

The problems with the anti-Thaksin forces are almost as numerous as those with Thaksin himself. The clear impression they give is that their main objection to Thaksin and those allied with him is that the latter threaten the established order. In other words, they are mostly conservatives who just want to ensure their continued dominance of Thailand's society. The leader of the protests against Yingluck's government, a former deputy prime minister named Suthep, regularly called for the reins of government to be taken over by an appointed council that would institute electoral reforms before elections would be held again. He was never specific about either how this council should be appointed or what kind of electoral reforms he wanted. What was clear, though, was he and others among the opposition mainly wanted to do whatever it took to ensure that the pro-Thaksin forces wouldn't be able to win yet another election. As I have recently pointed out, elections are hardly the panacea that some tend to see them as. However, this does not mean that undemocratic efforts aimed simply at keeping power in the hands of one faction in the society are worth supporting. Another indication of the anti-Thaksin faction's conservatism is their emphasis on loyalty to the monarchy. While my overall impression of King Bhumibol Adulyadej is favorable, neither he nor the monarchy as an institution should be absolutely inviolate. However, in Thailand, strict lese majesty laws allow people to be prosecuted for the mildest of negative or even just irreverent statements about the king or the royal family. The anti-Thaksin forces claimed that Thaksin was less than fully devoted to the king, and it seems quite possible that he might have wanted to lessen respect for the monarchy to help boost his own political dominance. But that doesn't mean that the monarchy should be completely above criticism, and the excessive devotion to the royal family shown by Thaksin's opponents is not a mark in their favor.

So given that both sides were flawed and resistant to any compromise, in some ways I could sympathize when Prayuth, after months of keeping the military on sidelines, finally got fed up and took over, detaining many of the leaders on both sides. But the more I read about Prayuth, the less favorable my impression of him is. As the article above notes, he has shown himself to be, like many on the anti-Thaksin side, a very conservative supporter of the monarchy, to the point of telling academics who were discussing reforming the lese majesty laws that if they didn't like things the way they were they should leave the country. The article also mentions that he was one of those who advocated use of force in cracking down on pro-Thaksin protests in 2010. He has a short temper and has little tolerance for dissent. So while I didn't really think much of either of the conflicting political factions, Prayuth doesn't seem like much of an improvement, and he may prove to be worse. I only hope he doesn't end up being as bad as some of the military rulers Thailand has had in the past. In any case, I'm now inclined to believe the US was right to strongly condemn Prayuth's takeover – even if the contrast with the reaction to the Egyptian army's takeover in that country shows a certain inconsistency.

Speaking of Egypt, the leader of that military takeover, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, was just elected president, a result that was long ago a foregone conclusion. But this is no more a cause for celebration than Prayuth's takeover. Despite the many flaws in the Muslim Brotherhood-led government that al-Sisi overthrew, he is in many ways worse. Certainly the human rights situation has deteriorated seriously under his rule, with not only the basically non-violent Muslim Brotherhood being subjected to a brutal crackdown but also many secular dissidents being arrested. However, al-Sisi has been dealt a blow in these very elections that he won overwhelmingly. While he was in no danger of losing, since the media has been constantly singing al-Sisi's praises and the campaign workers of his single opponent seemingly faced regular harassment, it appears that the Egyptian public is not nearly as enthusiastic about al-Sisi as his supporters have led everybody to believe. Al-Sisi himself called for a turnout of up to 80%, in comparison with 52% who voted in the election that saw the Msulim Brotherhood's Mohamed Mursi become the first freely elected president in Egyptian history. But turnout on the first day was poor, so the second day of voting was declared a public holiday, the pro-Sisi media castigated non-voters as traitors, and non-voters were threatened with fines. Even that didn't bring turnout up sufficiently, so in desperation the government extended voting for a third day. Even with all that, turnout apparently fell short of 50%, and some suggest that even the low official numbers may be inflated. If al-Sisi is sensible, he will react by doing more to win over those who boycotted the elections, including Brotherhood supporters by governing more like a democratic ruler who tolerates dissent and less like an autocrat who tries to crush his opponents with force. If not, at least he has received a well-deserved blow to his power.

Incidentally, talking of military suppression of dissent, next week will see the 25th anniversary of the massacre of protesters in Tienanmen Square in Beijing, China on June 4 and 5, 1989. While much has changed in China since then, many of the worst things have not. Dissent is still suppressed, human rights are still violated routinely, and the government still refuses to acknowledge that what happened in 1989 was an unjustified and brutal suppression of peaceful protestors, not a righteous act. I hope that people and countries from around the world will pause in their rush to do business with China and remember what happened 25 years ago and reflect that today's Chinese government is in most respects no less authoritarian than the one that slaughtered hundreds of Chinese civilians back then.

Some Links: Chinese Aggression, Climate Change and More

Among the numerous events that have been happening around the world in the past few weeks, there are a couple that I have been paying particular attention to. Since I haven't had time to write extensively about them, I'm going to settle for providing some links plus a few brief comments.

One important story is China's recent aggression in the South China Sea. Here are a few news articles on the subject:
http://news.yahoo.com/vietnam-escalates-dispute-china-over-oil-rig-141520053.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/south-china-sea-tensions-flare-160100602.html
http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-oil-rig-move-leaves-vietnam-others-looking-210853575.html
http://news.yahoo.com/us-senators-china-sea-actions-deeply-troubling-233542282.html
http://news.yahoo.com/vietnam-allows-anti-china-protest-over-oil-rig-045751418--finance.html
http://news.yahoo.com/large-protests-vietnam-over-china-oil-rig-050459736.html
http://news.yahoo.com/philippines-releases-photos-chinese-reclamation-053311309.html
http://news.yahoo.com/high-seas-vietnam-china-play-tense-game-052350219.html
Now as I have noted in the context of the similar dispute between China and Japan over the islands to the northeast of Taiwan, I have little sympathy with the claims of either side. As far as I am concerned, there is no reason these uninhabited rocks and coral reefs should belong to anybody. One of the unfortunate consequences of the modern nation-based international system (derived from Europe) is that every tiny piece of land in the world outside of Antarctica is presumed to belong to, or at least claimed by, some nation or other, even if no one has ever lived there. It would be better if all these nations left these places mostly alone, making some agreements about fishing rights (though since overfishing is a big problem, even that should be kept to a minimum), and any oil and gas that is there should be left under the ground, for reasons that should be obvious, considering the other major story I discuss below. So I don't really support the claims of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei or Taiwan, and I certainly don't sympathize with Vietnamese rioters randomly attacking Chinese workers (and even Taiwanese factories). However, recently, China has been the one aggressively pushing its absurdly broad claims (it claims the entire sea, practically all the way up to the coasts of the surrounding nations, even though in many cases the territory it claims is many hundreds of kilometers from China). China is clearly using its size in an attempt to bully its neighbors. I hope the other countries will eventually have the sense to join together and oppose Chinese imperialism in this area together.

The other story I've been paying particular attention to is climate change, where there have been a number of new and very sobering pieces of news. The US government released a report on the US climate which showed that the climate change is already affecting the US, and if nothing is done it will have an even more devastating effect in the future. Another report noted that access to water will soon become a major problem worldwide. Then in the last few days, there were the reports that the West Antarctic ice sheet has already started an irreversible collapse that will ultimately raise sea levels by at least 1.2 meters and perhaps as much as more than that over the next few centuries, even if we act quickly to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue business as usual, on the other hand, we can surely expect the ice to melt much more quickly. And for an excellent skewering of the way the American media still treats climate change as if it were a debatable issue, be sure to check out this clip from John Oliver.

Another piece of news worth mentioning is the election victory of the Narendra Modi-led BJP in India. Modi's rhetoric in recent years has been fairly moderate and the long-time ruling party, Congress has a lot of problems with corruption and ineffectiveness, so on the surface this result may seem like a good thing. But the BJP is still a Hindu nationalist party, and Modi himself,a leader of Gujirat, failed to take effective action to stop the horrendous massacre of thousands of Muslims in 2002, to put the best possible spin on what happened (there are some who think he deliberately let the massacre happen). He'll have to do an awful lot of good as prime minister to even begin to make up for that black mark in his past.

Of course the story that has been dominating world news lately, even more than those mentioned above, is that of Boko Haram's kidnapping of over 200 Nigerian girls. Thanks to the campaign to raise awareness of the incident, there is now a lot of pressure on the Nigerian government, and Western and neighboring African governments as well, to try to do something to stop Boko Haram and recover the girls. It won't be easy, however, not least because the Nigerian military itself has committed all sorts of serious human rights violations and so is highly distrusted by the people of the region where Boko Haram operates. Still, with sufficient effort by all parties and a more circumspect, civilian-friendly approach by the Nigerian military, there is some hope that Boko Haram can be defeated or at least severely weakened, and most or all of their victims rescued.

Elections Do Not Equal Democracy

It is a common perception that as long as a country has free elections to choose its leaders, then it is a free and democratic state, i.e., a liberal democracy. While this obviously depends in part on one's definition of "democracy", the truth is that a country can have superficially free elections and yet be not remotely democratic in the sense that most people understand it. In its most basic definition, democracy means rule by the people; in other words, the government acts in accordance with the will of the majority of the populace, with the will of the people expressed through elections, sometimes in the form of referendums but more often through the election of representatives. In modern times, we usually add a corollary to the definition of a liberal democracy that the rights of the minority should be respected, so the decisions of the majority cannot be grossly unjust to the minority. Unfortunately, this important component of democracy is not always respected, as can be seen in countries where there are sharp ethnic divisions and the larger ethnic group uses its electoral strength to oppress the minority. But even where this is not a major issue, simply holding elections, even ones that are free of blatant ballot-stuffing, vote buying, intimidation, or other problems, is not sufficient to make a country a truly free and democratic state in which the government acts for the benefit of all.

In the United States, for instance, the Supreme Court has recently opened the gates to unlimited political spending by the wealthy. The conservative majority asserted that restrictions on election spending were restrictions on free speech; in other words, they claim that in politics, money equals speech. This, however, is completely ludicrous. By allowing the wealthiest individuals – and when it comes to those who are able to take advantage of this ruling, we are talking about perhaps a few hundred people out of a population of several hundred million – to spend without restriction on elections (I am aware that for now limits on direct contributions to individual candidates remain in place, but with Citizens United and the recent ruling, there are no longer any limits on either indirect spending and overall contributions, which effectively allows these few people to spend as much as they want), it in effect ensures that while everyone has an equal right to free speech, a few people are, in the words of George Orwell, more equal than others. While the Koch brothers and I may all have opinions on an issue like health care reform or climate change, they can spend millions of dollars to broadcast their opinions, even adding misleading or outright false information to make them more credible, while I cannot. Restricting them from doing so does not infringe on their right to free speech, but allowing them to do so infringes on mine, and that of every other person who doesn't have their wealth. Imagine a modern equivalent to a small, ancient Greek polis with a public square in which any citizen can get up on a podium to express their opinion on a political issue. Then imagine that the wealthiest citizen is able to buy a loudspeaker, effectively drowning out anyone who cannot afford to do the same. If loudspeakers were banned, this would not prevent the wealth person from exercising right to their free speech, but it would allow everyone else an equal right to be heard.

So what does this ruling mean for elections and democracy? For one thing, it leads to situations like the recent flocking of potential Republican candidates for president to kowtow to right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson. While he may only have one vote in the election itself, he has millions of dollars that he can (and based on his past record will) spend to support the candidates of his choice. That being the case, are the candidates who have any hope of getting that money going to listen to the opinions of the average voter over Adelson's? Not likely. In theory, of course, the majority can still vote for candidates who favor the interests of the average person over those of the rich and powerful. But this is assumes, first of all, that there are any such candidates. Given the importance of money to today's election campaigns, this is hardly a given. But more importantly, it is a regrettable truth that people are easily swayed by misleading information. If billionaires like Adelson and the Kochs blanket the airwaves with ads attacking some candidates and supporting others, this can easily change the results of the election. When it comes down to it, elections in a country where there is no restriction on election spending may be free, but in a very real sense they can no longer be said to be truly fair. The wealthy ended up dominating the political system, effectively creating an oligarchy, leaving only a facade of democracy, despite the regular elections. While the US may not yet be at this point, if the power of money remains unchecked, the result will be a "democracy" much like the one ruled by lizards that Douglas Adams once described.

Taiwan's recent situation illustrates another problem with treating elections as the be all and end all of democracy. When the ruling KMT was faced with protests against its attempt to push through the service trade agreement with China, some of its members asserted that since they had won the elections and controlled the government, they had the right to pass the agreement regardless of protests. But simply because a government has been elected by the people does not mean it can do as it pleases, nor is a citizen's only duty in a democracy to vote in elections. Between elections, citizens have not only the right but the duty to monitor their elected officials, and if the latter do something that is egregiously harmful to the peoples' interests, they should rise up in protest and do what they can to stop them. When President Ma Ying-jeou and the current batch of KMT legislators ran in the most recent election, they didn't state as part of their political platforms that they were going to negotiate and pass an agreement with China that would be disadvantageous to many Taiwanese and would even present a threat to Taiwan's continued independence. It follows that even Taiwanese who may have voted for them have every right to take strong measures to prevent the passage of such an agreement, since by the next election it may be too late.

To have a true liberal democracy, it is necessary to have voters who are well educated on political issues, severe restrictions on the power of money to influence elections, and a strong civil society to monitor the government and ensure that it acts in the interests of all. Simply having elections is not enough.