Links: A. Putin steps up rhetoric against the West.
B. Russia, Iran and Iraq set up military joint coordination cell.
Everyday the media presents the international community with another example of motivated, well-planned Russian activity vis-à-vis Syria and Iraq. Three weeks ago, the Russians announced their intention to become directly militarily involved in Syria, and since that time every day brings additional evidence of the arrival in Syria of Russian troops, personnel accommodation, artillery, mobile surface-to-air units, tanks, and air resources. Week-by-week, northeastern Syria, so recently threatened by both ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, becomes more militarized; soon we can expect to see Russian jets flying sorties against ISIS positions. Putin has already demanded that the Allied Air Coalition, led by the United States, must coordinate its activities with Russia, although he made no mention of advising the Pentagon regarding Russian military deployments in Syria. Interestingly, the Russians are becoming more active in Iraq, having the confidence to openly announce the creation of a joint military coordination cell. Given that the Russians have recently started construction on two large military bases on the border with Ukraine, and that negotiations are underway for the creation of a Russian Air Base in Belarus, the events we are witnessing are obviously part of a much broader, long-term strategy which is aimed at eclipsing the United States as the world superpower, and they couldn't have asked for a more compliant U.S. president.
Putin has managed to push Ukraine completely off of the headlines, which is one goal achieved, and his willingness to accept the mantle of "defender of the west" against ISIS will do wonders in reforming his image in Europe. The Russian diplomatic maneuvers, including the establishment of the Baghdad military coordination cell, alongside the relaxation of tension in Ukraine and the building of military bases, obviously point to the existence of a much more intensive Russian agenda. Putin has signed on with Iran, who will play a pivotal role in the new world that Putin envisions. Russia has fought hard in the United Nations on Iran's behalf. Any one of a dozen efforts to punish Iran for violating international treaty regarding their nuclear research, could have put the Iranians back another decade from their end goal. But Russia stepped in as they always do when creating a client state (see Hafez al-Assad and Syria), and blocked any real effort to bring the Iranians into compliance. Russia realized that it was only time until Barack Obama, in search of a "Legacy" event, would step up and lead the emasculated Europeans right into a Treaty with Iran which requires nothing of Tehran, and gives them what they most need: not continued nuclear research, but access to the international arms market sans sanctions. Now that Russia has declared her intentions in Syria (to defeat ISIS), Turkey and the United States had better be prepared for the damage coming vis-à-vis the proposed "ISIS-free zone". Turkey will give Russia a free-hand in Syria for the moment, in order to not compromise the all-important natural gas pipeline plan, even though watching Assad use up another one of his nine lives must be driving Erdogan bananas. And the United States? As long as Obama is in office, Putin, Iran and Russia have an open playing field. You see, Obama will not take any action that might endanger his legacy nuclear treaty with Iran. He knows that many Iranians, especially in the religious extremist community, are opposed to any treaty with "The Great Satan". He will not approve any diplomatic or military action that might offend the Iranians.
There can be no doubt that Russia intends to make martyrs out of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq. Expect Iranian activity in Iraq to increase dramatically in the next few months, with the possibility of Iranian troops either swelling the ranks of the militias incognito, or with the intrusion into Iraq of the Iranian Army at the invitation of the Iraqi govt. Very soon the political stalemate in Baghdad will work itself out, with one of three outcomes: first, the Abadi govt. holds firm, but the failure of the Iranian Security Forces in Ramadi and the real threat to the capital posed by ISIS compels Abadi to welcome Iranian military involvement; second, Abadi falls and is replaced by a compliant, pro-Iranian govt., which immediately begins to cross the Iran/Iraq border; or third, the Iranians just do as the wish and cross the border on their own schedule, as the United States won't complain much. The next month will probably provide an ample supply of fireworks, and demonstrate just how prostrate the United States has become internationally.
Showing posts with label The United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The United States. Show all posts
Monday, September 28, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Where The Hell Is Yemen And Why Should I Care?
Links: A. Yemen on Wikipedia
B. CIA drone kills suspected CIA operatives
Yemen is the Muslim nation that occupies the strategic southwest corner of the Arabian
peninsula. Depending on your tastes, the landscape can be described in various ways. The coasts of Yemen include both barren, rocky cliffs and beautiful sand beaches. The interior of Yemen is mountainous in places, as the Al-Sarat Range bisects northern Yemen. The entire country is defined by a mountainous interior which falls to the sea on one side and to the Rub' Al Khali (the empty quarter) and Saudi Arabia on the other. Not surprisingly, Yemen reminds me of the Dodecanese Islands of Greece. Unless it was raining, Yemen always seemed to be sun-drenched, with little vegetation except for wait-to-shoulder high native shrubs. Principal agricultural commodities include fruit (mangoes), sorghum, grain, cotton, and qat. To use a favorite term from my childhood, the Yemenis grow a "buttload" of qat, and it gets exported everywhere. Travel to Somalia, Kenya, Mauritius, and they will tell you that Yemeni qat is the best. Heck, as far as I know, it may only grow in Yemen. I can't recall ever seeing a woman chewing qat, but I'm sure it happens. Its much like chewing tobacco. You take a few leaves, squeeze together and put them in your mouth, either between your bottom lip and gums or in the pouch of your cheek. When you collect enough spit, you do
what comes natural. Let me tell you, I've seen my share of stoners and potheads, but these qat chewers are just as dedicated. They chew while working, from sun-up until sun-down, and they partake when relaxing. I've been chewing tobacco (dipping) off and on for thirty-plus years, so I had to give it a shot. To tell the truth, I never noticed much except for a bit of a headache that lasted all afternoon. I've heard that its supposed to be a bit like marijuana, but I've never smoked pot, so I can't compare.
Taking a look at Yemen on a map, you can see why I call it "the elbow country": since the end of the civil war between north and south, Yemen resembles an elbow and a bit of a forearm. At one time, Yemen was a much-valued gem in the crown of the Ottoman Empire. The area has always been active in trading, and old history books make mention of the port city of Mocha as being an important location for bartering just about everything under the sun. This is what I love about places like Yemen; it's almost as if time has stood still. An ancient map of this area identifies Yemen as "Arabia Felix", which translated from Latin means "Happy Arabia". That same map, which may be centuries and centuries old, will identify cities that still exist today. No wonder Yemen is a playground for Geographers and Archaeologists. With the arrival of the Europeans, the usual scenario unfolded. Portugal wanted it, as did the British. It was part of the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman for many years, until the arrival of the Ottoman Turks, who created a national border of sorts. The Turks were removed following the end of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1922), leaving Yemen in the cold, gluttonous hands of the English, who realized that the value in Yemen was strategic, not economic.
Between 1918 and 1967, the territory was in a constant disarray. The British garrisoned a few of the larger towns, but were unable to subdue the tribal forces who were under various different leaders and, of course, were also trying to slit each other's throats. Two treaties were signed with the British (in 1934 and 1940), which effectively decided the issue, although conflict continued. The Yemeni people were able to enjoy a few decades of peace that coincided with the second world war. But in 1967, the southern half of Yemen (Aden), split from the north. This led to a civil war which seemed to go on forever. In May 1990, both sides agreed to unification, and a treaty was signed. Things were looking up . . . and then Al-Qaeda arrived.
Shockingly, Al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen was not part of a plot to kill Americans. Al-Qaeda, which is based on Sunni teachings, became active in Yemen in opposition to the actions of the Houthis, (the Shia Muslims of Yemen). Yemen is one of those Muslim nations with a large population of both Sunni and Shia. As has been the model, for many years the Sunni were accused of keeping the Shia (Houthi) from succeeding in business or participating in government. With a bit of help from Iran, the Houthi armed themselves and started making demands at the end of an AK-47. The Sunni-led government was in a real pickle. Al-Qaeda was active in the southern coastal areas around Aden, but Yemeni President (and Sunni) Hadi could not ally himself and his government to Al-Qaeda because the United States was also in town, and up to that point, had been supporting Hadi in his efforts to stay in power. Believe it or not, the U.S. military largely avoided involvement in the Houthi/Hadi conflict. The U.S. presence in Yemen was for one purpose; to capture and kill members of Al-Qaeda. Your see, Al-Qaeda wasn't in Yemen just to represent Sunni interests militarily, Al-Qaeda was in Yemen to provide training to its operatives.
When George W. Bush and the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2003, we exposed Al-Qaeda's most glaring weakness. Since we forced the issue into Bin Laden's own backyard, he had no choice but to respond. The U.S. military engaged fighters from the Taliban, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and from other loosely-named but directly AQ-affiliated groups. The bad guys had to funnel all their resources into the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there wasn't much time to plan and conduct another 9-11. But Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri (probably more Al-Zawahiri) realized that the struggle needed something resembling a conventional army. Recruitment drives went into action, especially targeting ex-military in the UK, France and the United States. Recruitment also increased dramatically in Africa. If Al-Qaeda was going to build an army, they needed soldiers. The recruits who showed intelligence were directed towards Al-Qaeda, who continued to be the cerebral part of the machine, while the rest were sent to Yemen, to learn how to be soldiers. The Houthi development complicated what was turning into a war between Al-Qaeda recruits and armed U.S. drones.
This past weekend, the Hadi government fell. The capital of Sana'a is calm, and the Houthi appear to be following through with their pledge to keep the peace. The Houthi are the majority in north Yemen, which bodes well for a bit of down-time to try and group (for all sides). Fortunately, the U.S. military has been extremely discreet when it comes to Yemen. A real effort is being made to locate, target, and kill Al-Qaeda operatives. I don't believe any chances are taken which involve civilians, which at this stage is the correct move. Why is Yemen important? Because Al-Qaeda has decided to use it as a training location for its operatives. As the war in Syria continues, and the connections between Al-Qaeda and ISIS become more apparent, intelligence analysts will start to notice that some ISIS fighters were trained in Yemen, and the overall picture will become much more clear.
B. CIA drone kills suspected CIA operatives
Yemen is the Muslim nation that occupies the strategic southwest corner of the Arabian
 |
| Man chewing qat in Yemen Source: |
Taking a look at Yemen on a map, you can see why I call it "the elbow country": since the end of the civil war between north and south, Yemen resembles an elbow and a bit of a forearm. At one time, Yemen was a much-valued gem in the crown of the Ottoman Empire. The area has always been active in trading, and old history books make mention of the port city of Mocha as being an important location for bartering just about everything under the sun. This is what I love about places like Yemen; it's almost as if time has stood still. An ancient map of this area identifies Yemen as "Arabia Felix", which translated from Latin means "Happy Arabia". That same map, which may be centuries and centuries old, will identify cities that still exist today. No wonder Yemen is a playground for Geographers and Archaeologists. With the arrival of the Europeans, the usual scenario unfolded. Portugal wanted it, as did the British. It was part of the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman for many years, until the arrival of the Ottoman Turks, who created a national border of sorts. The Turks were removed following the end of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1922), leaving Yemen in the cold, gluttonous hands of the English, who realized that the value in Yemen was strategic, not economic.
Between 1918 and 1967, the territory was in a constant disarray. The British garrisoned a few of the larger towns, but were unable to subdue the tribal forces who were under various different leaders and, of course, were also trying to slit each other's throats. Two treaties were signed with the British (in 1934 and 1940), which effectively decided the issue, although conflict continued. The Yemeni people were able to enjoy a few decades of peace that coincided with the second world war. But in 1967, the southern half of Yemen (Aden), split from the north. This led to a civil war which seemed to go on forever. In May 1990, both sides agreed to unification, and a treaty was signed. Things were looking up . . . and then Al-Qaeda arrived.
Shockingly, Al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen was not part of a plot to kill Americans. Al-Qaeda, which is based on Sunni teachings, became active in Yemen in opposition to the actions of the Houthis, (the Shia Muslims of Yemen). Yemen is one of those Muslim nations with a large population of both Sunni and Shia. As has been the model, for many years the Sunni were accused of keeping the Shia (Houthi) from succeeding in business or participating in government. With a bit of help from Iran, the Houthi armed themselves and started making demands at the end of an AK-47. The Sunni-led government was in a real pickle. Al-Qaeda was active in the southern coastal areas around Aden, but Yemeni President (and Sunni) Hadi could not ally himself and his government to Al-Qaeda because the United States was also in town, and up to that point, had been supporting Hadi in his efforts to stay in power. Believe it or not, the U.S. military largely avoided involvement in the Houthi/Hadi conflict. The U.S. presence in Yemen was for one purpose; to capture and kill members of Al-Qaeda. Your see, Al-Qaeda wasn't in Yemen just to represent Sunni interests militarily, Al-Qaeda was in Yemen to provide training to its operatives.
When George W. Bush and the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2003, we exposed Al-Qaeda's most glaring weakness. Since we forced the issue into Bin Laden's own backyard, he had no choice but to respond. The U.S. military engaged fighters from the Taliban, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and from other loosely-named but directly AQ-affiliated groups. The bad guys had to funnel all their resources into the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there wasn't much time to plan and conduct another 9-11. But Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri (probably more Al-Zawahiri) realized that the struggle needed something resembling a conventional army. Recruitment drives went into action, especially targeting ex-military in the UK, France and the United States. Recruitment also increased dramatically in Africa. If Al-Qaeda was going to build an army, they needed soldiers. The recruits who showed intelligence were directed towards Al-Qaeda, who continued to be the cerebral part of the machine, while the rest were sent to Yemen, to learn how to be soldiers. The Houthi development complicated what was turning into a war between Al-Qaeda recruits and armed U.S. drones.
This past weekend, the Hadi government fell. The capital of Sana'a is calm, and the Houthi appear to be following through with their pledge to keep the peace. The Houthi are the majority in north Yemen, which bodes well for a bit of down-time to try and group (for all sides). Fortunately, the U.S. military has been extremely discreet when it comes to Yemen. A real effort is being made to locate, target, and kill Al-Qaeda operatives. I don't believe any chances are taken which involve civilians, which at this stage is the correct move. Why is Yemen important? Because Al-Qaeda has decided to use it as a training location for its operatives. As the war in Syria continues, and the connections between Al-Qaeda and ISIS become more apparent, intelligence analysts will start to notice that some ISIS fighters were trained in Yemen, and the overall picture will become much more clear.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Still Stuck In Africa...Let's Talk About Liberia And Ebola (Part II)
Links: Wikipedia Liberia
The U.S. Has An Obligation To Liberia
Mea Culpa To Dallas From The Liberian President
(Part II)
The second and third links I have chosen deal with the outbreak of Ebola in Liberia (and Guinea). To get right to the point, when a serious outbreak of a hemorrhagic virus strikes a poor country where most of the population ingests less than one thousand calories a day the body count can become shockingly high in a matter of days. The truth is, this outbreak has not yet "exploded", for lack of a better term. Perhaps this is because Ebola actually isn't that easy to catch, or because the Liberian and Guinean governments (and international organizations) have responded to the outbreak so
effectively. The answer is most likely a combination of both factors. On Oct. 15, The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 4,546 people have died from the Ebola virus with an additional 8,997 confirmed cases. My source estimates are a bit different: roughly 18,000 cases (although not officially confirmed), mostly in Guinea and Liberia, but also a few in Mali, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, and Senegal. I'm told that efforts to isolate the illness in Guinea and Liberia have been outstanding. The International Red Cross, the WHO, the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC), and Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) have been working closely together and with the local Ministries of Health to provide isolation equipment, protective clothing, detection equipment, and a variety of other essential medical tools. Even though the number of new cases appear to have plateaued, and wealthy nations are sending specialists and even troops to the region, many experts are concerned that we are only at the beginning of this outbreak.
Five hundred troops of the U.S. 101st Airborne are headed to West Africa. The French are
already there, and believe me, when the Elysee Palace in Paris got wind of the U.S. deployment, orders were sent to increase the French presence in what was once part of French West Africa (excluding Liberia and Sierra Leone). I am very familiar with this part of the world, and although independence was granted to Mali, Chad, Niger, Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, and Burkina Faso, a Frenchman is never very far away. France was much more successful than the Brits in keeping relations pleasant with its former colonies. It probably had something to do with the fact that the French allowed locally-selected political representation for its colonies in the French House of Deputies, and that France spent a fortune (and continues to do so) standing up and supporting the CFA franc as a currency for its former colonies, and get this, folks...the French treasury guarantees the CFA franc! Can you imagine the Brits using their precious Sterling to guarantee the Kenyan Shilling
or the Nigerian Dollar? Back at the ranch...I expect to see the French Foreign Legion deployed to Mali and Cote d'Ivoire in its entirety sometime soon, and the British will have to make their military presence known in Sierra Leone. The U.S. gets Liberia, as it should. Too many times in the last century and a half, U.S. administrations have refused to get involved in Liberian problems. What a shame and what a terrible legacy. This is one of the few occasions in which I will use the word "shame" and the United States in the same sentence. Liberia was once a child of the U.S., much like Hawaii (which was a separate Kingdom) and Puerto Rico. I believe that at one time or another we should have intervened and helped to put things in order. It wouldn't have taken much because Liberia is a country that is rich in natural resources. However, as is frequently the case in many underdeveloped countries, the Liberian people have rarely seen the benefits from any of its national wealth.
Its certainly not too late to make a difference. Considering that President Reagan's justification for military intervention and temporary occupation of Grenada was accepted, then without a doubt the United States had the bona fides to involve itself in Liberia's various coups and civil wars. The flag is almost identical to ours, the towns are named Harper, Fishtown and Greenville, and the original settlers, former American slaves, drew up their original Constitution as a mirror of our own. Why then did we chose to ignore Liberia for so many years? Because it is in Africa, over there "somewhere", and didn't figure into our strategic national interests. Fast-forward to 2014, and Liberia doesn't need a strong-arm presence to re-establish order. Liberia has an honest, determined, brilliant, popular President who has been dealt the shittiest of hands by fate. As for the French, U.S., and U.K. troops, their presence is intended to help keep order during evacuations, if such need arises. So far they have not been needed, although the French contingent in Mali may have its hands full fighting a reborn "Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb" flare-up in the north. My contact in Bamako, Mali is more concerned with the Al-Qaeda threat than she is Ebola. The French military (and government) normally never hesitate to act where terrorists are concerned, as they demonstrated in Mali in 2012-2013, so I hope this mess doesn't turn into a two-front issue (Ebola in the south, Al-Qaeda Magreb in the north). As I sit here at my computer, most of the involved parties are eyeing the border areas between Mali and Guinea/Liberia, and Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea/Liberia. A number of gold mines exist in the border areas, with a number of mine workers coming from the infected countries. Everyone is sitting on edge, waiting for the first confirmed case in Mali and/or Cote d'Ivoire. As for the spread of Ebola, I will remain probably the last optimistic person in the U.S. I expect that the number of cases in Liberia and Guinea will start to decline, so we can put this subject on the back burner, and return to our daily criticism of this administration and how it handles foreign affairs.
The U.S. Has An Obligation To Liberia
Mea Culpa To Dallas From The Liberian President
(Part II)
The second and third links I have chosen deal with the outbreak of Ebola in Liberia (and Guinea). To get right to the point, when a serious outbreak of a hemorrhagic virus strikes a poor country where most of the population ingests less than one thousand calories a day the body count can become shockingly high in a matter of days. The truth is, this outbreak has not yet "exploded", for lack of a better term. Perhaps this is because Ebola actually isn't that easy to catch, or because the Liberian and Guinean governments (and international organizations) have responded to the outbreak so
Its certainly not too late to make a difference. Considering that President Reagan's justification for military intervention and temporary occupation of Grenada was accepted, then without a doubt the United States had the bona fides to involve itself in Liberia's various coups and civil wars. The flag is almost identical to ours, the towns are named Harper, Fishtown and Greenville, and the original settlers, former American slaves, drew up their original Constitution as a mirror of our own. Why then did we chose to ignore Liberia for so many years? Because it is in Africa, over there "somewhere", and didn't figure into our strategic national interests. Fast-forward to 2014, and Liberia doesn't need a strong-arm presence to re-establish order. Liberia has an honest, determined, brilliant, popular President who has been dealt the shittiest of hands by fate. As for the French, U.S., and U.K. troops, their presence is intended to help keep order during evacuations, if such need arises. So far they have not been needed, although the French contingent in Mali may have its hands full fighting a reborn "Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb" flare-up in the north. My contact in Bamako, Mali is more concerned with the Al-Qaeda threat than she is Ebola. The French military (and government) normally never hesitate to act where terrorists are concerned, as they demonstrated in Mali in 2012-2013, so I hope this mess doesn't turn into a two-front issue (Ebola in the south, Al-Qaeda Magreb in the north). As I sit here at my computer, most of the involved parties are eyeing the border areas between Mali and Guinea/Liberia, and Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea/Liberia. A number of gold mines exist in the border areas, with a number of mine workers coming from the infected countries. Everyone is sitting on edge, waiting for the first confirmed case in Mali and/or Cote d'Ivoire. As for the spread of Ebola, I will remain probably the last optimistic person in the U.S. I expect that the number of cases in Liberia and Guinea will start to decline, so we can put this subject on the back burner, and return to our daily criticism of this administration and how it handles foreign affairs.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Still Stuck In Africa...Let's Talk About Liberia And Ebola (Part I)
Links: Wikipedia Liberia
The U.S. Has An Obligation To Liberia
Mea Culpa To Dallas From Liberian President
(Part I)
It's possible that in over two months of writing posts for this blog (I have yet to miss a day), this post may be the most important.
It should be important, especially to Americans. I'm grateful that Wikipedia is always there to provide a snapshot of Liberian history; most grade school pupils in the United States have never heard of Liberia. Beginning in 1820, freed slaves from the United States began returning to Africa (Liberia) with the support of various Abolitionist movements, especially the American Colonization Society. In 1847, with a continual flow of freed slaves from mostly the United States, the Republic of Liberia was created (any slaves who were fortunate enough to be freed en route to the Americas also became Liberians). The capital city was named Monrovia, in honor of U.S. President James Monroe, a strong advocate of the colonization of Liberia. By 1867, roughly 13,000 citizens of the Republic of Liberia were former slaves. Obviously this territory, located in west central Africa on the Gold Coast, was already inhabited in 1820. Numerous indigenous tribes dotted the Liberian landscape before the arrival of the first settlers from the United States. The former slaves and their descendants never accounted for more than five percent of the entire population of Liberia, but they immediately assumed the mantle of superiority. The indigenous population were treated as savages and for almost a century were not considered actual citizens of Liberia.
In truth, the American Colonization Society (ACS), which was supported by both President Abraham Lincoln and Orator/Senator Henry Clay, believed that repatriation of former slaves to Africa was preferable to emancipation (freedom) within the United States. Some in the organization were concerned about the difficulties former slaves would encounter after emancipation, while others felt it was in the best interest of both whites and blacks that they be returned to Africa. However, it's important to keep in mind that by 1860 a large portion, if not the majority, of slaves had been born in the United States, or the Caribbean, rather than in Africa.
Either way, on July 26, 1847, the settlers in Liberia issued a Declaration of Independence and promulgated a Constitution. Not surprisingly, the Liberian Constitution bore a close resemblance to the Constitution of the United States. The new nation suffered tremendous growing pains, as a small population of western-minded and Christian former slaves attempted to establish their authority over the indigenous inland tribes. The government of Liberia (elected solely by male settlers) outlawed commerce between foreign nations and inland tribes. A serious attempt was made to funnel all economic activity of Liberia to the capital city of Monrovia and through its port (a few other towns had sprung up, including Buchanan). Development was very slow, and towards the turn of the century, France and England started exerting their authority over areas once claimed by Liberia. In fact, The European nations were responsible for the boußndaries that today constitute the border of the Republic of Liberia. With no army and no real diplomatic authority, Liberia had no choice but to except the demarcations as determined by France and England, which left Liberia with an English colony on its northwest border and a huge French-controlled territory on its northeast and east.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Liberia had very little to show for is fifty years of existence. It was believed by most that the end of the Civil War would result in a huge wave of immigrants from the former slave population in the southern United States.
For various reasons, that flood of new settler blood never really occurred. In 1904 the Liberian government finally granted citizenship to all Liberians, but many indigenous tribes continued to oppose efforts at development. In the mid-twentieth century, the United States became more involved in Liberia, with the construction of Roberts International Airport and new port facilities for Monrovia. In 1945, Liberia became one of the original members of the United Nations, and was one of the first countries to openly oppose the Apartheid policies of the South African government. Growth was slow and incremental, but progress was being made. Rubber and Timber were being exported, and diamonds along with other precious metals and gems were discovered. The soil appeared to be perfect for creating a fruit-based export avenue, and Liberia's history and the coastal areas seemed ideal for establishing a tourist industry. In 1979, the economy was healthy and jobs were being created. Unfortunately, a military coup was staged, led by Master Sergeant Samuel K. Doe of the Krahn ethnic group. Doe and his supporters accused then-President William R. Tolbert, Jr. of corruption and of giving preferential treatment to particular tribes to the detriment of others. Tolbert and most of his cabinet were executed, along with many members of his political party; his family barely escaped Monrovia with their lives.
From 1980 until internationally-monitored elections in 2005, Liberia was literally hell-on earth. Liberia suffered one coup after another, with each new government more despotic and violent than the previous one. (If someone is interested in the details of the coups and the attempts at new governments, then Google is your answer.) In fact, after 2000, it seemed the entire region was engulfed in war. A horrendous Civil War swallowed Sierra Leone whole and created an entire generation of victims with missing limbs (instead of killing the enemy, it became habitual to just hack off a limb). And the various mines planted everywhere rang up a high limb-count as well. And to my surprise, even traditionally stable Cote d'Ivoire, with its French patisseries and tree-lined boulevards, fell victim to civil strife. I'm so pleased to say that since 2005, a sea-change has occurred. Peace in Sierra Leone, a new government and peace in Cote d'Ivoire, and a brilliant, no-nonsense President in Liberia.
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a Harvard-trained economist with a sparking reputation, took office with a tremendous display of energy and confidence. The Liberian people immediately responded, and since then growth has been the word for a new generation of Liberians. The western banks and governments love Sirleaf, and she has done wonders battling that eternal, always-present beast of African governance: corruption. She has surrounded herself with gifted individuals and everyday makes a point to go into the street and communicate with the people.
Johnson was re-elected in 2011 and is, in my opinion, personally responsible for convincing international banks and governments to write-off billions and billions of dollars of Liberian debt. This has allowed the Liberian government more freedom of movement regarding development projects and education. I'm sure that Sirleaf has political opposition in Liberia and that some may accuse me of being a Sirleaf sycophant (I like the way that sounds). Well, guilty as charged. I love what this woman has done to strengthen and give hope to the faultering country, and I pray that the Ebola crisis doesn't destroy all that she has worked to build.
Mea Culpa To Dallas From Liberian President
(Part I)
It's possible that in over two months of writing posts for this blog (I have yet to miss a day), this post may be the most important.
In truth, the American Colonization Society (ACS), which was supported by both President Abraham Lincoln and Orator/Senator Henry Clay, believed that repatriation of former slaves to Africa was preferable to emancipation (freedom) within the United States. Some in the organization were concerned about the difficulties former slaves would encounter after emancipation, while others felt it was in the best interest of both whites and blacks that they be returned to Africa. However, it's important to keep in mind that by 1860 a large portion, if not the majority, of slaves had been born in the United States, or the Caribbean, rather than in Africa.
 |
| Life Membership Certificate ACS |
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Liberia had very little to show for is fifty years of existence. It was believed by most that the end of the Civil War would result in a huge wave of immigrants from the former slave population in the southern United States.
From 1980 until internationally-monitored elections in 2005, Liberia was literally hell-on earth. Liberia suffered one coup after another, with each new government more despotic and violent than the previous one. (If someone is interested in the details of the coups and the attempts at new governments, then Google is your answer.) In fact, after 2000, it seemed the entire region was engulfed in war. A horrendous Civil War swallowed Sierra Leone whole and created an entire generation of victims with missing limbs (instead of killing the enemy, it became habitual to just hack off a limb). And the various mines planted everywhere rang up a high limb-count as well. And to my surprise, even traditionally stable Cote d'Ivoire, with its French patisseries and tree-lined boulevards, fell victim to civil strife. I'm so pleased to say that since 2005, a sea-change has occurred. Peace in Sierra Leone, a new government and peace in Cote d'Ivoire, and a brilliant, no-nonsense President in Liberia.
Johnson was re-elected in 2011 and is, in my opinion, personally responsible for convincing international banks and governments to write-off billions and billions of dollars of Liberian debt. This has allowed the Liberian government more freedom of movement regarding development projects and education. I'm sure that Sirleaf has political opposition in Liberia and that some may accuse me of being a Sirleaf sycophant (I like the way that sounds). Well, guilty as charged. I love what this woman has done to strengthen and give hope to the faultering country, and I pray that the Ebola crisis doesn't destroy all that she has worked to build.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
What Are Chinese Students Taught About The West? (Part II)
Link: The Opium Wars
Part II
In 1836, most of China was cut off from trade with the Western world. What trade that did occur left the Chinese with a healthy trade surplus. Europe, the United States and Russia (heretofore referred to as "The West") wanted access to Chinese markets, and they wanted it bad. At the time, the drug Opium (grown primarily in Turkey and in Her Majesty's Dominion of India) was being smuggled into China at a steadily increasing rate. The import of Opium was threatening the balance of trade, not to mention the growing number of Chinese who were becoming addicts. Ironically, the sale of Opium was illegal in England at the time. The Chinese government decided that what was good for the goose was good for the gander, and not only made Opium illegal, but in 1839, raided a number of warehouses and ships in Canton and burned their cargo of Opium. The Chinese may have felt that they were well within their rights to combat what was obviously a menace to Chinese society, but their actions could not have been more damaging to China's interests. The war that followed was one-sided. The British held every military advantage and occupied areas around Canton. In 1842, the Chinese were obliged to agree to the Treaty of Nanking, which ceded Hong Kong to Great Britain and opened up various ports to trade.
The United States and France approached China after the Treaty of Nanking, and demanded the same concessions. The idea of "most favored nation" took root in China, and to many Chinese, they became lower class citizens in their own country. The British and the French again defeated China in the Second Opium War (1856). In 1858, with the signing of the Treaty of Tientsin, foreigners (read missionaries) were allowed to travel unimpeded throughout China, and the Western nations were allowed to open embassies in Peking. This last concession is more important than it may seem. The Chinese revered their Emperor, and to allow "foreign devils" to live in the same city was a terrible insult. More ports were opened to trade, the Opium poured into China, Christian missionaries seemed to be on every street corner, and the Chinese Civil Administration became prostrate with corruption. In 1898, a movement of peasants calling themselves "Boxers", decided to remove the foreigners from China (initially the Boxers were protesting the insults inflicted on Chinese peasants by mostly American missionaries). The movement swelled to hundreds of thousands, and forced its way past Chinese authorities and occupied Peking. Cixi was powerless to stop the Boxers, and their intent to remove the foreign devils sounded promising, so she sided with the Movement as it laid siege to the foreign legation (the collection of Western embassies). Eventually a rescue army of Austrians, French, Brits, Russians and even Japanese troops crushed the Boxer rebellion. Cixi was allowed to stay on the throne, but another round of humiliating concessions were forced on China.
Imperial China died with Cixi (actually, Cixi was succeeded in 1908 by the child-emperor PuYi. His story is also a fascinating read, as he lived long enough to experience Mao's Cultural Revolution). Fast-forward to 2014, and one finds Chinese history books paint a less-than flattering portrayal of the West in the nineteenth century. I've seen a few translated versions, and not surprisingly, a bit of Sino-license has been applied. But just as the West had a monopoly on history in 1900, its China's turn to interpret history in a self-serving fashion. The few Chinese that I have had the pleasure to know are very aware that current Western accounts of the Opium Wars and the Boxer rebellion are much more accurate. But even in its accuracy, the greed and avarice with which the West conducted its China policy beggars shame. Less than 180 years ago, British and French diplomacy was centered around creating a nation of Opium addicts. I'm sure that many historians and armchair revisionists will disagree with my assessment, but there it is. As someone who on occasion has had delicate dealings with a number of Chinese, let me say that my respectful acceptance of the shameful behavior on behalf of the Western governments in the mid 19th century, was well-received and greatly appreciated.
Part II
In 1836, most of China was cut off from trade with the Western world. What trade that did occur left the Chinese with a healthy trade surplus. Europe, the United States and Russia (heretofore referred to as "The West") wanted access to Chinese markets, and they wanted it bad. At the time, the drug Opium (grown primarily in Turkey and in Her Majesty's Dominion of India) was being smuggled into China at a steadily increasing rate. The import of Opium was threatening the balance of trade, not to mention the growing number of Chinese who were becoming addicts. Ironically, the sale of Opium was illegal in England at the time. The Chinese government decided that what was good for the goose was good for the gander, and not only made Opium illegal, but in 1839, raided a number of warehouses and ships in Canton and burned their cargo of Opium. The Chinese may have felt that they were well within their rights to combat what was obviously a menace to Chinese society, but their actions could not have been more damaging to China's interests. The war that followed was one-sided. The British held every military advantage and occupied areas around Canton. In 1842, the Chinese were obliged to agree to the Treaty of Nanking, which ceded Hong Kong to Great Britain and opened up various ports to trade.
The United States and France approached China after the Treaty of Nanking, and demanded the same concessions. The idea of "most favored nation" took root in China, and to many Chinese, they became lower class citizens in their own country. The British and the French again defeated China in the Second Opium War (1856). In 1858, with the signing of the Treaty of Tientsin, foreigners (read missionaries) were allowed to travel unimpeded throughout China, and the Western nations were allowed to open embassies in Peking. This last concession is more important than it may seem. The Chinese revered their Emperor, and to allow "foreign devils" to live in the same city was a terrible insult. More ports were opened to trade, the Opium poured into China, Christian missionaries seemed to be on every street corner, and the Chinese Civil Administration became prostrate with corruption. In 1898, a movement of peasants calling themselves "Boxers", decided to remove the foreigners from China (initially the Boxers were protesting the insults inflicted on Chinese peasants by mostly American missionaries). The movement swelled to hundreds of thousands, and forced its way past Chinese authorities and occupied Peking. Cixi was powerless to stop the Boxers, and their intent to remove the foreign devils sounded promising, so she sided with the Movement as it laid siege to the foreign legation (the collection of Western embassies). Eventually a rescue army of Austrians, French, Brits, Russians and even Japanese troops crushed the Boxer rebellion. Cixi was allowed to stay on the throne, but another round of humiliating concessions were forced on China.
Imperial China died with Cixi (actually, Cixi was succeeded in 1908 by the child-emperor PuYi. His story is also a fascinating read, as he lived long enough to experience Mao's Cultural Revolution). Fast-forward to 2014, and one finds Chinese history books paint a less-than flattering portrayal of the West in the nineteenth century. I've seen a few translated versions, and not surprisingly, a bit of Sino-license has been applied. But just as the West had a monopoly on history in 1900, its China's turn to interpret history in a self-serving fashion. The few Chinese that I have had the pleasure to know are very aware that current Western accounts of the Opium Wars and the Boxer rebellion are much more accurate. But even in its accuracy, the greed and avarice with which the West conducted its China policy beggars shame. Less than 180 years ago, British and French diplomacy was centered around creating a nation of Opium addicts. I'm sure that many historians and armchair revisionists will disagree with my assessment, but there it is. As someone who on occasion has had delicate dealings with a number of Chinese, let me say that my respectful acceptance of the shameful behavior on behalf of the Western governments in the mid 19th century, was well-received and greatly appreciated.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
What Are Chinese Students Taught About the West? (Part I)
Link: The Opium Wars
Part I
Within the diplomatic community it is well known that the Chinese (mainland) continue to harbor a certain amount of historic resentment towards the United States, Russia, and Europe. During my career, I raised this issue with every one of my Chinese contacts. I love history, and I have tried to get my hands around the China story. But its a monster, let me tell you. I decided to focus my intial foray into l'histoire chinoise on the last two centuries, give or take a few years. One book I recommend is "Dragon Lady", 1992 by Sterling Seagrave. The Dragon Lady of the title is none other than the Manchu Qing Dynasty's last true ruler, the Dowager Empress Cixi (Tzu Hsi). The manner in which history was allowed to treat the legacy of Cixi is a good example of why we so exasperate the Chinese. To many non-English speakers, it appeared that, until recently, the white, English-speaking male owned history. Cixi ruled for 47 years, from 1861 until her death in 1908. She was originally one of many concubines chosen for the Manchu Emperor Xianfeng, and when he died, was fortunate enough to have born his only son.
For the next half-century Cixi managed to survive all manner of internal disruptions, alongside the slow but methodical dismemberment of China by the Western Powers. I am not an apologist for Cixi; certainly she was involved in some decisions that are both cruel and hard to imagine. But she provided the European and American press no-end of gossip. Since no one was in a position to speak on behalf of the Empress Dowager (actually, a few brave souls tried and failed), a number of self-described "Chinese Historians" and "Sino-Experts" turned Cixi into the most evil, corrupt, lustful creature since, well, Nero. This perception was still accepted in the United States in 1963, when the blockbuster movie "55 Days at Peking" (an attempt to chronicle the 1898 Chinese Boxer Rebellion) introduced Cixi as the stereotypical cunning, deceptive Oriental who spoke perfect English! Thanks to a growing number of historians and Sterling Seagrave, Cixi's reputation has been somewhat recovered. But the average Chinese citizen can't hold a grudge just because of ol' Cixi, right? Actually, compared to the crimes committed by the Western Powers during the Opium Wars (and after), Cixi's vilification pales.
Some historians argue that the issue for the Chinese people is not the actual events that took place, but the attitude of "West is superior to East" than took root. Terms like "Chinese Laundry" became common. Most Americans are unaware of the part Chinese labor played in building the transcontinental railroad, not to mention the west coast communities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. But in my experience, it always comes back to the Opium Wars. I believe that the majority of Chinese are convinced that the era of the Opium Wars and the arrival of Christian Missionaries is when the West decided that the Chinese people were somehow inferior to Europeans.
(To be continued with Part II)
Part I
Within the diplomatic community it is well known that the Chinese (mainland) continue to harbor a certain amount of historic resentment towards the United States, Russia, and Europe. During my career, I raised this issue with every one of my Chinese contacts. I love history, and I have tried to get my hands around the China story. But its a monster, let me tell you. I decided to focus my intial foray into l'histoire chinoise on the last two centuries, give or take a few years. One book I recommend is "Dragon Lady", 1992 by Sterling Seagrave. The Dragon Lady of the title is none other than the Manchu Qing Dynasty's last true ruler, the Dowager Empress Cixi (Tzu Hsi). The manner in which history was allowed to treat the legacy of Cixi is a good example of why we so exasperate the Chinese. To many non-English speakers, it appeared that, until recently, the white, English-speaking male owned history. Cixi ruled for 47 years, from 1861 until her death in 1908. She was originally one of many concubines chosen for the Manchu Emperor Xianfeng, and when he died, was fortunate enough to have born his only son.
For the next half-century Cixi managed to survive all manner of internal disruptions, alongside the slow but methodical dismemberment of China by the Western Powers. I am not an apologist for Cixi; certainly she was involved in some decisions that are both cruel and hard to imagine. But she provided the European and American press no-end of gossip. Since no one was in a position to speak on behalf of the Empress Dowager (actually, a few brave souls tried and failed), a number of self-described "Chinese Historians" and "Sino-Experts" turned Cixi into the most evil, corrupt, lustful creature since, well, Nero. This perception was still accepted in the United States in 1963, when the blockbuster movie "55 Days at Peking" (an attempt to chronicle the 1898 Chinese Boxer Rebellion) introduced Cixi as the stereotypical cunning, deceptive Oriental who spoke perfect English! Thanks to a growing number of historians and Sterling Seagrave, Cixi's reputation has been somewhat recovered. But the average Chinese citizen can't hold a grudge just because of ol' Cixi, right? Actually, compared to the crimes committed by the Western Powers during the Opium Wars (and after), Cixi's vilification pales.
Some historians argue that the issue for the Chinese people is not the actual events that took place, but the attitude of "West is superior to East" than took root. Terms like "Chinese Laundry" became common. Most Americans are unaware of the part Chinese labor played in building the transcontinental railroad, not to mention the west coast communities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. But in my experience, it always comes back to the Opium Wars. I believe that the majority of Chinese are convinced that the era of the Opium Wars and the arrival of Christian Missionaries is when the West decided that the Chinese people were somehow inferior to Europeans.
(To be continued with Part II)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)