President
Biden's debate performance brought King Lear's harrowing scenes to my mind.
An
aging leader exposed in his infirmity to 51 million viewers, lost in the
campaign storm, wandering in the dark of a declining mind to collect his
thoughts, then showing up defiant after the collapse in several rallies, in
stubborn denial,surrounded by political
courtiers and family enablers unable to tell the President he has no clothes
on.
In
the twilight of their careers, leaders often face the challenge of reconciling the
injuries of age with their governance responsibilities. Shakespeare's King
Lear is the Western Canon's standard, where the aging monarch's delusional decision
to divide his kingdom precipitates his tragic downfall. In Biden's case, his decision
to debate his rival before the conventions showed the same lack of self-awareness
and, I must add, honest feedback.
Act
Two: Knives out
The
next day, Shakespeare's motive switched from King Lear to Julius Caesar, as a chorus of voices within his Democratic
party and influential media outlets that until the day before praised his
mental acuity and dismissed rumors of his cognitive problems turned against him
and questioned the prudence of his reelection as if the degree of Biden's
condition were as surprising to them as it was for the entire country.
A
crowd of Brutuses circled Biden in a shark's frenzy, pressing him to resign and find a
viable replacement three months before the presidential election.
Biden's
outcomes need not be as dire as those of Lear. Still, the consequences for the country in a second Trump presidency might be.
So
much for President Biden, his entourage, and the Democratic party.
Act
Three: Trumpers at the gates
For
one time, Donald Trump left the center stage to a rival. As a seasoned showbusinessman,
he followed the old rule of never interrupting a rival committing suicide. He
just seasoned the unexpected self-cooking adversary with sporadic riffs of lies
and a torrent of made facts to run the clock.
Now, the Democrats are running for the hills, trying to save their seats in Congress, and governorships are at risk from Biden's campaign implosion.
With
the benefit of hindsight, we can see that Biden's fate was sealed when he
accepted the nomination of a left-turning party with an unpopular agenda because
of his electability as a moderate. The lack of action on illegal immigration
and inflation doomed his reelection well before the debate.
Biden's
candidacy was a compromise between the aging, traditional New Deal-blue collar–labor,
pro-Israel wing of the Democratic party and the ascendent college campus-urban,
identity politics pro Hamas Left Wing. Biden brought the electability of the
former and adopted the latter's agenda, adding a VP acceptable for that
faction.
The
result was a series of fatal policy errors that alienated the votes of small-town
America and the Democrat's traditional base. The most damaging was loosening
asylum policies, which overwhelmed border controls with a massive wave of an estimated
15 million illegal immigrants.
Republican border governors in Texas and Florida
-the most affected states- played a brilliant card in busing thousands of
asylum-seekers to Democratic "sanctuary cities." Soon, New Yorkers
and Chicagoans started to echo the protests of red states, and Biden's approval
ratings plummeted to Jimmy Carter's mid-thirties.
Biden's
trillionaire "stimulus" spending triggered inflation at the gas pump—political poison in the US—and further alienated middle—and low-income voters.
If
Donald Trump hadn't been elected as a candidate, Biden's votes would have
dropped even further. Still, the misguided strategy of pursuing multiple legal
actions backfired, making Trump look like a victim of political proscription, a
sure way to mobilize his base and dilute his true crimes of January 6-.
In understanding the complexities
of international conflicts, one must scrutinize the criteria set forth by the
United Nations (UN) to define genocide and how these criteria apply to specific
situations. The ongoing invasion and occupation of Ukraine by Russia and the
recurrent conflicts between Israel and Gaza offer distinct contexts for such
analysis. This essay explores how the actions in Ukraine more closely align
with the UN criteria for genocide compared to Israel's military operations in
Gaza while also addressing potential biases in international judgment.
The UN Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) provides a
comprehensive definition of genocide. It includes acts committed intending to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
These acts encompass killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or
mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about
physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births, and forcibly
transferring children to another group.
In the case of Ukraine, Russia's
invasion, which began in February 2022, has resulted in widespread death and
destruction. The conflict has seen thousands of Ukrainian civilians and
soldiers killed, reports of systematic torture and abuse, and the deliberate
targeting of civilian infrastructure. The humanitarian crisis, characterized by
the displacement of millions of Ukrainians, further exemplifies the severe
conditions inflicted upon the population.
Russian President Vladimir
Putin's declarations provide significant insight into the intent behind these
actions. In a speech on February 21, 2022, Putin dismissed the legitimacy of
Ukraine as an independent nation, referring to it as an artificial creation of
the Soviet Union. He has repeatedly asserted that Ukrainians and Russians are
"one people," a claim that undermines Ukrainian national identity.
These statements, coupled with policies aimed at assimilating occupied
territories into Russia, suggest an intent to destroy Ukrainian national
identity, fulfilling the UN's criteria for genocide.
Conversely, Israel's military
operations in Gaza are often framed within a context of self-defense. These
operations typically respond to provocations such as rocket attacks and
terrorist activities by Hamas and other militant groups. While these military
actions result in significant civilian casualties and infrastructure damage,
Israel maintains that its primary targets are militants, not civilians. The
intent behind these operations is portrayed as ensuring national security
rather than an attempt to eradicate the Palestinian population.
Despite this framing, Israel's
actions in Gaza often draw immediate and severe condemnation from the
international community. This reaction can be attributed to military
operations' visible and immediate humanitarian impact in densely populated
areas. Civilian casualties and destruction are broadcast globally, leading to
heightened scrutiny and criticism.
Comparatively, the protracted
nature of Ukraine's conflict and geopolitical complexities may contribute to a
different international response. While the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine is
severe, the gradual escalation and the political intricacies surrounding Russia
and Ukraine can obscure the perception of genocide.
In examining the two conflicts,
it becomes evident that Russia's actions in Ukraine more closely meet the UN
criteria for genocide. The clear intent to dismantle Ukrainian national
identity, as evidenced by both Putin's declarations and the systematic nature
of the atrocities, aligns with the UN's definition. In contrast, Israel's
military operations, while causing significant harm, do not exhibit the same
explicit intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Instead, they are framed as measures of self-defense against militant threats.
The perceived bias in
international judgment can be understood through these differing contexts. The
immediate visibility of Israel's actions in Gaza and the sensitive political
environment surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict draw swift international
condemnation. Meanwhile, the prolonged and complex nature of Russia's
aggression in Ukraine might lead to a more measured and less immediate
response.
In conclusion, while both
conflicts involve severe humanitarian consequences, the argument that Russia's
invasion of Ukraine more closely aligns with the UN criteria for genocide is
compelling. This conclusion is supported by the explicit intent to undermine
Ukrainian national identity and the systematic actions taken by Russian forces.
In contrast, Israel's military operations, though controversial, do not display
the same genocidal intent according to the UN's definition.
Key points summary:
Analyzing how Ukraine's ongoing
invasion and occupation by Russia meet the UN criteria for genocide compared to
Israel's actions in Gaza involves examining the definition of genocide and the
specific actions and intents behind each conflict.
UN Definition of Genocide
The UN Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines genocide as
acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial, or religious group. These acts include:
Killing members of the group.
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of
the group.
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part.
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within
the group.
Forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group.
Ukraine's Invasion by Russia
Intent and Actions
Russian Actions in Ukraine:
Killing Members of the Group: Russia's
invasion has led to the deaths of thousands of Ukrainian civilians and
soldiers.
Serious Bodily or Mental Harm: Reports of
widespread torture, rape, and other forms of abuse.
Conditions of Life: Destruction of
infrastructure, forced displacement of millions, and creating humanitarian
crises.
Putin's Declarations: Vladimir Putin has made
several statements denying the legitimacy of Ukraine as a separate nation
and its right to exist independently from Russia.
Examples of Putin's
Declarations
Speech on February 21, 2022: Putin referred to
Ukraine as an artificial creation of the Soviet Union, suggesting that it
has no historical right to exist independently.
Public Statements: Putin has repeatedly
referred to Ukraine and Russia as "one people" and has suggested
that Ukrainian identity is a fabrication.
Policies: The Russian government has
implemented policies in occupied territories that aim to Russify the
population, including forcing the use of the Russian language and
integrating the education system with Russia's.
Meeting UN Criteria of
Genocide
Intent: Statements and actions by the Russian
leadership indicate an intent to destroy the Ukrainian national identity
and assimilate the population into Russia.
Actions: The widespread killing, forced
displacement, and systematic destruction of infrastructure align with
actions specified under the UN definition of genocide.
Israel's Actions in Gaza
Context and Actions
Israel's Military Operations
in Gaza:
Response to Provocation: Israel's actions in
Gaza are often framed as a response to provocations such as rocket attacks
and terrorist activities.
Military Targets: The Israeli Defense Forces
(IDF) state their operations target Hamas and other militant groups, not
civilians.
Casualties and Displacement: Civilian
casualties and destruction are consequences of the conflict, but Israel
argues they are not the primary intent.
Arguments for Bias in Judgment
Provocation: The conflict is often seen as
initiated by attacks from Gaza, justifying Israel's military response as
self-defense.
Intent: There is no explicit intent by Israel
to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinian people. The intent is
typically framed as targeting militant groups.
UN Reactions: The UN and international bodies
often react strongly to Israel's actions due to the immediate humanitarian
impact and the visibility of civilian casualties. At the same time, the
protracted nature of the conflict in Ukraine might lead to a different
perception.
Comparing the Two Situations
Ukraine vs. Gaza
Intent: Russia's actions and statements
suggest a clear intent to undermine and destroy Ukrainian national
identity. Israel's actions, while resulting in civilian casualties, are
framed as responses to immediate threats and not as attempts to eradicate
a population.
Actions: The scale and systematic nature of
the atrocities reported in Ukraine more closely align with the UN's
definition of genocide compared to the sporadic nature of Israel's
military operations in Gaza.
International Response: There is a perceived
bias where Israel's actions receive more immediate condemnation due to
their visible impact and political sensitivities surrounding the
Israel-Palestine conflict. In contrast, Russia's actions might be
perceived through the lens of geopolitical complexities and longstanding
regional tensions.
Conclusion
While both conflicts involve
severe humanitarian consequences, the argument that Russia's invasion of
Ukraine more closely meets the UN criteria for genocide is supported by the
intent to destroy Ukrainian national identity and the systematic nature of the
actions taken. Israel's military operations, while controversial and causing
significant civilian harm, do not exhibit the same explicit intent to destroy a
national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as defined by the UN.
Looking at the future with Anne Appelbaum
Anne Applebaum has provided
extensive commentary on the Ukraine war, focusing on the evolution of the
conflict, the resilience and strategic needs of Ukraine, and the grave war
crimes committed by Russia.
Ukraine's Evolution and Strategic
Needs: Applebaum discusses the transformation required in Ukraine's approach,
emphasizing the need for improved management within its military and
governmental systems. She highlights the importance of eliminating corruption,
modernizing the defense industry, and enhancing systems and transparency to
meet Western standards. This transformation is crucial for maintaining and
strengthening international support for Ukraine (Applebaum, 2024a).
War Crimes and Russian Tactics:
Applebaum has been vocal about the brutal tactics employed by Russia in
occupied Ukraine. She details incidents of torture and oppression, noting that
these are not isolated incidents but part of a broader Russian strategy to
crush Ukrainian identity and resistance. These actions are symptomatic of a
broader disregard by Russia for international norms, including the Geneva
Convention and the UN Genocide Convention (Applebaum, 2023).
Prospects and Conclusion of the
War: Applebaum argues that the only viable end to the conflict involves defeating
Putin, suggesting that peace negotiations are unlikely to succeed while he
remains in power. She stresses that Russia must recognize its actions as a
mistake, essential for any genuine resolution to the conflict. This perspective
aligns with her views on the importance of defeating Putin to ensure long-term
stability in Europe (Applebaum, 2024b).
Applebaum's analyses present a
comprehensive view that combines the immediate needs within Ukraine, the
broader geopolitical dynamics, and the profound human rights violations
occurring within the conflict.
References
Amnesty International. (2023). Israel/OPT: Amnesty
International's Position on Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians. Retrieved
from Amnesty.org
BBC News. (2022). Ukraine conflict: Putin declares 'special
military operation'. Retrieved from BBC.com
Human Rights Watch. (2022). Russia: Apparent War Crimes in
Ukraine. Retrieved from HRW.org
United Nations. (1948). Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Retrieved from UN.org
United Nations. (2022). Statement by the Secretary-General
on Ukraine. Retrieved from UN.org
United
Nations. (2022). Statement by the Secretary-General on Ukraine. Retrieved from UN.org
The phrase "those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it," attributed to philosopher
George Santayana, resonates profoundly in our contemporary socio-political and
economic landscape. As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century,
drawing parallels between the antebellum periods preceding the Second World War
(1929-1936) and the current era (2008-2030) is not only insightful but
imperative. These periods, marked by severe economic downturns, social
upheaval, and political shifts, serve as crucial historical mirrors reflecting
human societies' cyclical nature.
The Great Depression of 1929-1936
and the Great Recession of 2008-2030 ushered in significant transformation and
turbulence eras. In both instances, economic collapse precipitated widespread
social discontent, political polarization, and realignment, fundamentally
altering the course of history. Despite the nearly eight-decade gap, the
similarities in societal responses and governmental interventions underscore a
recurring theme: the peril of generational amnesia. As Ronald Reagan famously
said, "Freedom is always a generation away from extinction," a
caution that rings ever truer in a world where authoritarian ideas and regimes
challenge the foundations of liberal democracy.
Today, with approximately 190
countries worldwide and only 26 considered liberal democracies, the threat of
authoritarianism is palpable. Both historical and contemporary periods have
witnessed the rise of authoritarian regimes spurred by economic instability and
social fragmentation. Fareed Zakaria's concept of illiberal democracies, where
democratic institutions exist but are undermined by authoritarian practices,
highlights the fragility of freedom and the ease with which it can be eroded.
The political polarization seen
today mirrors the divisions of the past. The weakness of the Weimar Republic,
unable to unify Germany against rising extremism, and Neville Chamberlain's
policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany, echo the European Union's initial
hesitancy in response to authoritarian Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Both eras
illustrate the dangers of political fragmentation and the inadequacy of
appeasement in the face of aggressive authoritarianism.
To draw meaningful parallels
between 1929-1936 and 2008-2030, we'll consider significant social, political,
and economic developments from each era, referencing scholarly research and
historical analysis.
Social Similarities
1929-1936:
1.Great Depression: The global economic downturn
drastically increased unemployment rates and poverty, leading to widespread
social unrest and the rise of extremist ideologies.
2.Migration:
Massive internal and international migration occurred as people sought
employment and better living conditions.
2008-2030:
1.Great Recession: Triggered by the 2008 financial
crisis, it led to significant job losses, decreased economic stability, and
increased social discontent.
2.Migration:
Economic and climate-induced migrations have increased, as seen with the
European migration crisis and movements within the Americas.
Political Similarities
1929-1936:
1.Rise of Totalitarian Regimes: Economic
instability contributed to the rise of totalitarian leaders like Hitler and
Mussolini, who promised to restore national pride and economic stability.
2.Policy
Shifts: Governments worldwide adopted more interventionist economic policies to
mitigate the impacts of the Depression, exemplified by FDR's New Deal in the
U.S.
2008-2030:
1.Political Polarization: Economic pressures and
social changes have led to increased political polarization, with the rise of
populist movements and leaders in many countries.
2.Policy
Responses: Governments have implemented various fiscal and monetary policies to
address economic crises, such as the stimulus packages following the 2008 crash
and the economic measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Economic Similarities
1929-1936:
1.Economic Collapse: The Wall Street Crash of 1929
precipitated a global economic depression marked by bank failures, deflation,
and plummeting industrial output.
2.Economic
Policies: New economic policies focused on recovery and reform, including
significant public works programs and regulatory changes.
2008-2030:
1.Financial Crisis: The 2008 financial crisis led
to a global economic recession characterized by bank bailouts, foreclosure
crises, and prolonged economic recovery efforts.
2.Economic
Restructuring: Policies have focused on economic stimulus, quantitative easing,
and addressing systemic risks in the financial system.
Both periods are marked by severe
economic downturns leading to significant social upheaval and political
changes. The aftermaths of these crises saw the rise of new political movements
and shifts in economic policies aimed at stabilization and recovery. While the contexts
and outcomes vary, the underlying dynamics of how societies and governments
respond to profound economic disruptions show notable parallels.
Beyond
Bipolar: A New Authoritarian Axis
Additionally, the alliances
formed by authoritarian powers today resemble those of the pre-World War II
era. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, an agreement between fascist and communist
countries, and the Axis alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan in 1939 reflect a
historical precedent for strategic partnerships among authoritarian states. In
the modern context, the collaboration between Russia, China, and Iran,
particularly in their confrontations with the E.U. and the U.S., exemplifies a
similar coalition of authoritarian regimes challenging the global order based on universal rules of Human Rights and Freedom established in the United Nations charter after World War II military defeat of the fascist Axis.
The end of the Cold War, with the
political and economic but not military collapse of the USSR empire 44 years
later, left a lot of unfinished business: a nuclear communist China, Russia,
and North Korea and the emergence of an authoritarian theocracy in Iran close
to producing nuclear weapons and dead set against Israel and the Western World.
A nuclear-armed Axis such as Russia,
China, and (soon if not yet) Iran is a far greater danger than the World War II
one. And the new Authoritarian Axis is escalating from proxy interventions and
wars -such as Russia in Ukraine and Iran with Hamas and Hezbollah- to direct attacks,
such as the rain of Iranian missiles on Israel.
The striking resemblances between these two critical periods
emphasize the dangers of neglecting historical lessons.
Examining the social, political, and economic dimensions of
the 1929-1936 and 2008-2030 antebellums may help underscore the importance of
historical memory in shaping our present and future.
The loss of generational memory impairs our ability to
understand and respond to contemporary challenges and increases the risk of
repeating past mistakes. Through this comparative analysis, we advocate for a
conscientious engagement with history as a tool for informed decision-making
and sustainable progress.
The vigilance required to safeguard freedom and democracy
cannot be overstated; it is a responsibility that each generation must shoulder
to prevent the resurgence of authoritarianism and the erosion of liberty.
Research Studies:
Carter, S. B. (2011). Labor markets during the Great
Depression and the Great Recession. Journal of Economic History, 71(1),
202-208.
Castles, S., de Haas, H., & Miller, M. J. (2014). The
Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World.
Guilford Press.
Eichengreen, B. (2015). Hall of Mirrors: The Great
Depression, The Great Recession, and the Uses-and Misuses-of History. Oxford
University Press.
Mudde, C. (2019). The Far Right Today. Polity Press.
Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2009). This Time Is
Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. Princeton University Press.
Roubini, N., & Mihm, S. (2010). Crisis Economics: A
Crash Course in the Future of Finance. Penguin Books.
