Motley Moose – Archive

A number of attempts have been made to discern and describe a ‘Putin doctrine’ during the years of his influence on Russian and world affairs, including some recently as a consequence of his reaction to the Syria chemical weapons crisis. Most suggest a doctrine of ‘reasserting Russia’s power‘ or ‘building Russia up by tearing the US down,’ an aspiration and strategy which, while arguably correct, seem to miss Putin’s underlying and unmistakeable political philosophy.

Here we propose an argument for a ‘Putin doctrine’ as follows:

No nation, group of nations or international organisation has the right to interfere or intervene without consent in the internal affairs of any sovereign state under any circumstances short of the proven violation of existing conventions governing the use of weapons of mass destruction.

In other words a sovereign state has the right to deal with dissent, insurgency and secession by whatever means it otherwise sees fit. That this might include conventional warfare against civilians, mass arrests and detentions, summary executions, massacres, genocide and authoritarian terrorism is left to the discretion of the state’s leadership. And if the state is an ally, Russia will actively disable the Security Council from taking action against it on behalf of any majority of the larger international community whom might find such activity objectionable. As Russian ‘hard power’ inevitably increases we need to think this through carefully.

Well, now we’ve seen it all. Vladimir Putin has an op-ed in the 11 September edition of the New York Times imploring Americans to undermine their own security by doubting the motives, credibility and policies of the US government:

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders.

A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Vladimir Putin – A Plea for Caution From Russia NYT 11 September 13

There you have it. It’s Obama versus the world and the Pope. With Vladimir Vladimirovich as the humble arbiter of peace and voice of sweet reason. Oh, brother! Pity “those still finding their way to democracy” if they wander into his neighbourhood.

Ironically, the powerful effect of this agitation and propaganda on the weak-minded comes at a time when many in the United States, especially among certain factions of the Left and the Right, are as vulnerable as mice; since domestic spying revelations have undermined the faith of Americans in their own government. You know, that Snowden guy who sought asylum recently in… uh, Russia… Hey, hang on a minute. Vladimir, it seems you are a very naughty boy.

Interesting developments overnight have again changed the course of the Syrian chemical weapons crisis:

President Obama on Monday called a Russian proposal for Syria to turn over control of its chemical weapons to international monitors in order to avoid a military strike a “potentially positive development,” that could represent a “significant breakthrough,” but he said he remains skeptical the Syrian government would follow through on its obligations based on its recent track record.

Anne Gearan, Karen DeYoung and and Will Englund – Obama sees potential ‘breakthrough’ in Russia’s Syria proposal Washington Post 10 Sep 13

Clearly a positive development and a significant shift in the Syrian and Russian position. A vindication for Obama’s tough policy on the use of chemical weapons one would suppose? One might think it ridiculous to use this development to justify a vote against authorising Obama’s free hand to apply the military pressure which brought it about in the first instance.  

About an hour after the vote which defeats the proposed Authorisation for Use of Military Force in response to the chemical weapons attack in Syria we will probably begin to realise that the world as we know it has been irrevocably changed; and probably not for the better.

The inevitable decline of American power precipitated by the disastrous Bush administration will enter its terminal phase as the American public withdraws into an insular shell of isolationism and denial of collective responsibility in spite of having enjoyed for decades the relative security and prosperity that engaged American power has provided.

The performance of the American Left since 21 August has been an utter embarrassment; exposing the vaunted activist Internet as little more than a breeding place for fatuous conspiracy theories, misdirection, unreasonable and stubborn scepticism, selfishness, wilful ignorance and misplaced moral outrage. A complete and utter shambles. Shameful.

Courageous activists and diplomats campaigned for decades to implement the hard-won provisions of an almost unanimous prohibition of chemical weapons only to have it thoughtlessly repudiated with the ridiculous argument that ‘people are just as dead’ by other means. Or compared incessantly, in ignorance of what nerve agents are capable of or intended to do, to the use of white phosphorous at Fallujah. All in support of a knee-jerk response to a proposed military action in the face of a truly inhumane war crime.

Good morning to the herd.

As many of you know, blue jersey dad and I have been on the road doing archaeological field and lab work since the middle of May. We were in Hawai’i for a bit over three weeks working with the Native Hawaiian community and doing some archaeological survey of the Na Wai ‘Eha (the four waters) area. The regions has been the subject of long-term litigation over water rights, and recently a portion of the area has been preserved from development. In early historic times this would have been a rich agricultural region with irrigated taro patches, many of which were reserved for royalty. Here is a view of the coastline nearly:

While we were in Hawai’i. we learned that we had received a grant to do some archaeological work in the Middle East. We had three days at home after the Hawaiian project before we had to leave home again–just long enough to do our laundry, cut the grass, buy cat food, and pick up our Turkish research visas. We were able to combine the Turkish field work with a couple of conferences in Ukraine and Israel and an ongoing project in Armenia. We were gone for just over 6 weeks, and here was our itinerary:

JFK to Dnepropetrovsk (via Frankfort and Vienna); Dnepropetrovsk to Istanbul; Istanbul to Tel Aviv and back; Istanbul to Kayseri (Turkey) and back; Istanbul to Yerevan, Armenia (via Kiev); Yerevan to Dnepropetrovsk (via Moscow); and Dnepropetrovsk to JFK (via Vienna). We made it back in one piece.

One of the most debilitating and divisive aspects of the discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the way constituencies engage the question of how anti-Zionism relates to anti-Semitism.  Very often, the division on this question is dichotomous and creates a binary of extreme positions that cannot engage with one another.  

One of these sides sees anti-Zionism, and indeed all criticism of what they call the settlement of Judea and Samaria, as anti-Semitism masquerading as political critique and individuals with humanitarian intentions being manipulated unwittingly by anti-Semites.  These folks emphasize how Israel, even when they grant its imperfections, is singled out for disproportionate criticism, that it is inaccurately depicted as the root of all discord in the Middle East and the primary source of tension between the Muslim world and the west.  And even when they grant that criticism of Israel doesn’t have to be anti-Semitic, at least in theory, they argue that it almost always is and must be viewed through the lens of this question.  Israel’s critics must be considered guilty of anti-Semitism or of unwitting and naïve collusion with anti-Semites, until categorically proven otherwise.

The other side, as is so often the case in this ideologically over-determined debate, seems its mirror image.  These folks argue that the accusation of anti-Semitism is a canard meant to silence valid criticism of Israeli policies and that the occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza are the primary causes of contemporary anti-Semitism.  Furthermore, they accuse the “Israel Lobby” of manipulating US politics, and thus international politics, to support Israel’s continued repression and exploitation of Palestinians against American interests and values.  This accusation strikes their opponents as all too close to the ugly conspiracy theories emanating from the anti-Semitic forgery known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which depicted international Jewry as the ultimate source of all war and suffering in the world.  

Last night I spent some time skyping with the Egyptian Moose delegation. The current situation post-Mubarak remains in flux, concerns about abuse of power by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) are rising while the country seeks a democratic solution to governance.

Libya similarly is beginning a path that – at least in theory – would see democracy take hold in the country.

While there is understandable concern among all who care about the region – most importantly those who live in it – I remain optimistic that the series of fits-and-starts that should be expected will lead eventually to a positive outcome.

What do you think, Mooses?

Today President Obama gave his thoughts on the incredibly complex and potentially wonderful events occurring in Egypt. World leaders have struggled to find their voices in this instance as they tried to come to grips with the potential unraveling of the most dangerous region of the world.

There was much anticipation as the world waited to here The Position of the world’s most powerful country. Doubters on both flanks had already carved a virtually hopeless maze of tiger traps and pitfalls. What could the President say that would speak to the intricate needs of the situation?

In four minutes and fifty three seconds he told us.

Many of you remember the true story of Exodus, turned into a compelling piece of fiction by Leon Uris, and great film by Otto Preminger. If any single story helped to solidify a positive pioneer image of Israel in the American mind, it was probably this.

The ship sailed with 4,515 passengers (mainly Holocaust survivors – PJ) from the port of miggets Sète, France, a fishing town near Montpellier on July 11, 1947, and arrived at Palestine shores on July 18. The British Royal Navy cruiser Ajax and a convoy of destroyers trailed the ship from very early in its voyage, and finally boarded it some 20 nautical miles (40 km) from shore. The boarding was challenged by the passengers (the ship was in international waters where the Royal Navy had no jurisdiction), and so the British soldiers used force. Three shipmates, including 1st mate William Bernstein, a U.S. sailor from San Francisco, died as a result of bludgeoning and several dozen others were injured before the ship was taken over