Tag Archives: US

The Humpty Effect:  Finding an Antidote to Brokenness, Dr. Robert Zuber

17 Aug

Take these broken wings and learn to fly. Paul McCartney

I think of the painting by van Gogh, the man in the chair. Everything wrong, and nowhere to go. His hands over his eyes.  Mary Oliver

He ruins things. That’s what he likes. To ruin things. Holly Black

Pick up your pieces. Then, help me gather mine.  Vera Nazarian

There was no part of him that was not broken, that had not healed wrong, and there was no part of him that was not stronger for having been broken.  Leigh Bardugo

This planet is a broken bone that didn’t set right, a hundred pieces of crystal glued together. Tahereh Mafi

We are all wonderful, beautiful wrecks. That’s what connects us. Emilio Estevez

Genius is brokenness harnessed. Abhijit Naskar

She felt as if the mosaic she had been assembling out of life’s little shards got dumped to the ground, and there was no way to put it back together. Anne Lamott

The storm is out there and every one of us must eventually face the storm. Bryant McGill

One small crack does not mean that you are broken, it means that you were put to the test and you didn’t fall apart. Linda Poindexter

Everything had become works.  Like trees these works were tainted by diseased growths, were often hypocrisy, imaginary merit, idleness. Soren Kierkegaard

One of the benefits for me of being away from New York is the ease of exercise.  Not easy exercise but being able to go for runs, even in the early morning, without dodging dogs and people scurrying around inattentively on sidewalks which have long needed a facelift.

But in some places, including Los Angeles, the streets are occupied by the unhoused, people (mostly men) huddled each morning around public bathrooms at the end of municipal parking facilities.

They never bother me.  They often say good morning.  They are equally, quite often and quite clearly at the edge of being broken. Some are food insecure.  Multiply displaced on a weekly basis.  Searching trash cans and alleyways for something to sell or add to their collection of worldly goods crammed into appropriated shopping carts, men waking up to the same reality as yesterday and the day before, hands over their eyes much like the man in the Van Gogh painting, trying to keep from recognizing an immediate environment where so much of what they experience is just plain wrong.

There was a time in my life here in the US, or perhaps I simply conjured it up, when this level of brokenness was the exception more than the rule, a time when institutions of all stripes seemed to be trying to be responsive, when neighbors seemed to be trying to be good neighbors, when people were willing to feel at least a tinge of shame when discriminatory thoughts and the actions which followed crossed into consciousness.

Of course, we have often been some version of broken, often been willing to take our foot off the accelerator of equity and kindness, often  been willing to duck the impending storm rather than face its threats head on.  We have often been insufficiently conscious of an inconvenient human truth, that our propensity for creating and building mirrors at best our propensity for destruction and brokenness. We have experienced as parents and teachers how much easier it can be to destroy than to build as we watch small, angry children knock down Lego structures in a nano-second that it took other children hours to construct. 

But even knowing these uncomfortable truths about ourselves, even knowing of people close to and far from us who simply like “ruining things,” there is something about this moment that feels different, the small armies of ruiners delighting in identifying those people and structures that can be thoughtlessly pushed off the wall towards certain destruction.  A seeming delight in the cruelty of so many Humptys lying in pieces, mindfully shattered almost beyond any hope of repair, one example after another of how much easier it is to ruin lives than to set the many broken bones of traumatized humans to their best healing positions. 

In my own country as in too many other places, we are being “led” by people whose singular skill is breaking things – breaking convention, breaking trust, but also breaking wills.  Breaking them not through the force of argument but through force itself.  If you pay any attention at all to the cruelty which we have a society has unleashed on each other, cruelty which has a good bit of its precedents in many US government administrations prior to this one, it is easy to understand why so many are losing sleep over the destruction of things we have claimed to long cherish, even if we didn’t always act like we did.

This current US administration, like others in various global regions, has learned its “Lego-lesson” well.  Take a wrecking ball to families and programs rather than fixing them.  Push Humpty off the wall with such force and perhaps even righteous delight that it explodes into a thousand pieces, too many for others to gather up let alone reassemble.  This is at the heart of the Project 2025 agenda – too much cruelty to effectively counter, too much destruction to fully repair.  The combination of trauma and uncertainty, as well as once-reliable institutions gutted of functionality and presided over by people for whom ascriptions of “merit” too-often seem as one more figment of their ideology-saturated imaginations, this surely defines a formidable agenda for all of us going forward.  

We are doing our business on a planet akin to a “broken bone that didn’t set right,” a world of grave issues still within our capacity to resolve but with too much stubborn, self-interested, even cruel officialdom reacting to the coming storms by wildly casting blame on predecessors or simply by denying they exist at all.

Most of you who still read these posts are fully aware of what I have laid out here.  You have witnessed the will to destroy and subjugate. You have perhaps even benefited materially from a world tilted in favor of the well-educated and comfortable, tilted to such a degree and for such a long time that our society has taken on the metaphorical shape of a certain tower in Pisa, a shape that has also and perpetually resisted returning to the straight and narrow.

In this context, I recall recently reading a letter to the Washington Post from a self-described “liberal” who apparently is quite pleased with the current White House occupant because her 401K is doing great and she isn’t seeing so many immigrants in her neighborhood.  Clearly, the abject cruelty of some has given license to others to release their very own self-interested genies out of their respective bottles.

So what do we do?  How do we resist this ruinous trend at a time when the odds seem heavily stacked against our better selves, when our societal “arc” is now directed less towards justice and more towards inequity  and lawlessness?   I think there are two lanes that we must pursue together.

The first is the citizenship lane.  Write letters.  Post to blogs.  Join demonstrations.  Organize people around common aspirations.  Learn as much as you can about the origins and history of our now-floundering democratic institutions.  It is important for all of us, but certainly for our erstwhile political leadership, to be reminded that not everyone agrees with them, believes them, supports their agendas, accepts their hypocrisies and dubious ascriptions of  merit.  Not by a longshot.  But it is also important for us to recognize that there are priorities for opposition – that not everything proposed by our political adversaries is adversarial or destructive.  And that a good chunk of our own political supporters have indulged in dubious policies and practices as well.

But beyond civics, we have a responsibility to respond more resolutely to our current climate of violence and brokenness, to ensure that the shards of what has to this point been a formidable eruption of destructiveness do not, to the best of our ability, impact people and places closer to us, leak any closer to our circles of meaning.

We must, in effect, declare and maintain zones less affected by ruin, zones which can demonstrate and reinforce more of the best of which we are capable.  Zones where children are safe, zones where people look after each other, zones where our brokenness can be a source of strength and learning so that we might soar beyond current and inherited limitations. Zones which communicate to those whose business is ruin that ruin shall not be allowed to take root everywhere.  

And this is some of how we might communicate such messaging.  Be better neighbors.  Plant more trees.  Support the people who harvest our crops, heal our wounds and respond to our emergencies.  Volunteer with children.  Extend yourself to strangers.  Dare to inspire others.  Pick up the pieces of your own brokenness and then help others to pick up theirs so that you and they might fly once again.

What I’m sure appears at one level to be pious indulgence must now become an integral part of our struggle with the world and with ourselves.  Don’t let the ruin extend any further.  Let it end with the people and places dear to you, but also with those people and places less known to you, those on whom you still depend and who still remain dependable. Our circles of concern, our circles in defiance of ruin, must continue to expand beyond the confines of domiciles and neighborhoods.

I firmly believe that Humpty can eventually be put back together again, can regain at least some semblance of a dignified place on that proverbial wall.  So too can the unhoused men at the edge of a Los Angeles parking lot.  We are breaking for sure, most all of us in our various contexts, but we are not irreparably broken. Not yet.

If we haven’t already done so, this might be the perfect time for us to get over ourselves, to widen the circles of our interest and our practical concern.  This is our test, the questions are still coming, and we must not permit ourselves to fall apart until all are effectively answered.  

Tags: , , ,

A Fraying Republic and its Broken Bonds, Dr. Robert Zuber

11 May

Quotations Courtesy of Robert Bellah

This society is a cruel and bitter one, very far, in fact, from its own higher aspirations.

The only remaining category for the analysis and evaluation of human motives is interest, which has replaced both virtue and conscience in our moral vocabulary.

Chosen-ness that slips away from the controlling obligations of the covenant is a signpost to hell. 

The energy of creation and the energy of aggression are often only a hair’s breadth apart.

If we allow the external covenant to be subverted utterly, then our task is infinitely greater: not to renew a republic but to throw off a despotism.

There are enormous concentrations of economic, political and technological power that will react harshly to any challenge.

We have plunged into the thickets of this world so vigorously that we have lost the vision of the good.

No one has changed a great nation without appealing to its soul, without stimulating a national idealism.

We are not innocent, we are not the saviors of mankind, and it is well for us to grow up enough to know that.

It has been one of the hallmarks of the current US administration that it is constantly referencing a history about which it (and especially its leader) seems to know shockingly little.  Over and over, we hear that so and so is the worst president “in history;”  that no one has been persecuted like the current office holder “in the country’s history;” that no one has done more for “the blacks than I have in history.”  There are so many more examples of the current president, his loyalists and even at times his dissenters making slanted or even outrageous claims about a “history” which they have done virtually nothing to investigate and which they are using primarily as a tool to whip up political support, much like a preacher who enthusiastically misquotes the bible in order to send his/her parishioners into a frenzy right before the collection plates come out.

I am no historian but have studied enough of our history to know how complex that history has been, a strange brew of idealism and brutality, devotion and indifference, caring for neighbor and foreclosing on neighbors, piety and hypocrisy, opening our doors to others and then punishing them when they arrive, affirming the dignity of all humans while consigning some to be treated like cattle or violently displacing others from their ancestral homes.  

These contradictions are part and parcel of all nations to some degree, but not all nations have had to traverse the wide gap we have had to navigate between our myths and our practices. As I have been reminded while revisiting texts from my graduate school past, including Richard Hofstadter’s “Social Darwinism in American Thought” and the text from which today’s quotations have been mined, Robert Bellah’s “The Broken Covenant,” from the beginning of our national experiment, we have over-assessed our national uniqueness, our erstwhile special relationship to divinity, the abundance of our piety and virtue.  Indeed, and certainly in recent times, we have turned “virtue-signaling” into an art form, and not at all to our credit. At the same time, we have sought to cover or ignore our bursts of utter brutality, our preoccupations with money and the power it can coerce, our sometimes harshly restrictive notions of “neighbor” than our alleged covenantal relationship with any deity would ever endorse, our willing acceptance of a faith which stresses personal conversion to the virtual exclusion of social obligation. 

Indeed, as Bellah points out, those who formed our nation began to erode the covenant almost as soon as it took effect, setting ourselves on a path at times divine and at other times ruthless in  pursuit of national conquest and fortune.  As a country we have consistently talked a good game – indeed at times inspiring other nations to rethink their own oppressive preoccupations – but have surely not always played one.  In practical terms we have sewn together self-interest and idealism in a way which consigns the latter too often to rhetoric while providing a kind of plenary indulgence to the former, a license to accumulate and then lord worldly “success” over others within and outside our own nation with little restraining force or friction.

Bellah noted with sadness our long, national pathway to what was for him a present moment where  “once born” people have taken advantage of a covenant that they themselves no longer abide by or otherwise take seriously, people who have decided that owning neighbors’ properties is preferable to having neighborly obligations and that religion to the extent it is practiced at all is confined to personal rather than social consequence, all about the maximizing of self-interest rather than the practical, virtuous intensification of a wider ministry to others.  

Bellah wrote this book in the 70st and we must confess that much of what he identified, both past and in his present, now stalks our own present a half century later.  We have steamrolled much of our national complexity and allowed partisan rooting interests to replace thoughtfulness about ourselves and our place in the world.  We are all-too-willing to parrot unverified assumptions and positions if they suit our increasingly narrow frameworks.  Even 50 years ago, it was clear that “we are not innocent, we are not the saviors of mankind,”  and even more clear that we stubbornly refuse to own up to that reality. Other peoples and other countries, even those who rightly admire us in a variety of ways, figured that out some time ago.

Fifty years on from Bellah’s contributions, we face another “time of trial,” another period of straying further and further still from a covenant the non-fulfillment of which has become less our collective measure of success and more akin to a “signpost to hell.”  We have allowed the external covenant, the means for keeping our nation on some semblance of course, to crumble thus risking what Bellah posited as “an infinitely greater task,” not to renew a republic so much as to “throw off a despotism.” 

That degree of difficulty is defining our current moment.  However, this moment is not entirely an aberration but a continuation of a pervasive national trend.  We are living now through the implications of a long brokenness, a long period of lying to ourselves about our values and our virtue, a long habit of affirming an exceptionalism that, despite our considerable national achievements, many around the world no longer see as fundamentally exceptional. At official level and beyond, we have embraced what has become a recognizably cruel form of social Darwinism – the notion that “godliness is in league with riches” and that those who can play in that league deserve a free pass to improve their positions at the expense of those less exceptionally endowed.  To those who have much, even more will be given.  To those who have not?  That’s their problem. 

What is true of this current iteration of our broken covenant is not only its utter contempt for those who suffer but its phobia towards any effort to diversify and/or balance society and unlock the potential of all who reside within its confines.  On this Mothers’ Day, while this posting is not exactly a Kay Jewelers moment, it seems relevant to point out the desire of current officialdom to roll back much of what women have gained in large measure through their own talents and efforts.  From restricting voting rights, childcare options and reproductive and other health access to the thuggery of deportations violently separating mothers and children, and the obsessive scrubbing of women’s contributions and leadership from government websites, the options and images of an entitled, smug patriarchy have sought to relegate many women, many mothers, to places they never thought they would visit again in their lifetimes. Happy Mother’s Day indeed.

For Bellah, for many others, this is just one consequence of a covenant which is now little more than a “broken shell,” taking down with it the care and solidarity for one another which was once recognized as our covenantal obligation, but which has long  been buried under an avalanche of greed, projection, indifference and exclusion.  As brokenness gives way to more despotic influences we will need to summon larger quantities of energy, courage and mindfulness to restore bonds of liberty and solidarity that we surely should have done more to protect in the first place.

Tags: , , ,

Race Track: Driving Discrimination from our Ranks, Dr. Robert Zuber

8 Nov
Social diversity is initially threatening but people do adapt over time – new research

The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men. Alice Walker

We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust.  Thurgood Marshall

My color is my joy and not my burden. Bebe Moore Campbell

Wherein is the cause for anger, envy or discrimination?  Mahatma Gandhi

But she knows where her ticket takes her. She will find her place in the sun. Tracy Chapman

The Black woman in the South who raises sons, grandsons and nephews had her heartstrings tied to a hanging noose.   Maya Angelou

Excessive praise arises from the same bigotry matrix as excessive criticism. Stefan Molyneux

It is a glorious November Sunday in New York, a day more like late September than the Sunday after a US presidential election.  I had vowed not to say much about the election results, though there is plenty to reflect on, plenty that elicits fair portions of both celebration and caution; with especially deep gratitude to the remarkable poll workers and vote tabulators who ignored and even at times defied a bevy of threats, including from the leadership of the US Postal Service, armed protestors and a spreading pandemic, to deliver what appears by all independent accounts to be free and fair voting for some 150 million US citizens.  

Despite this gift, we know that threats to this democracy, as to others worldwide, have not been laid to rest.  We know that there are tricks left to be played by those still in power (and those heaping “excessive praise” on them), people who understand full well the metaphorical knives that have been drawn by prosecutors and regulators once they leave the sanctuary of the White House.  Those of us who have been holding our breath (at times even our tongue) that this period of political – even criminal – hardball will soon pass recognize that democratic oxygen is still in short supply and that the grievances – legitimate and otherwise – that have driven us to an authoritarian brink are likely only to intensify over the next 10 weeks.

Assuming that a genuine political transition occurs in my country, and that is no foregone conclusion, we anticipate that (what we interpret as) benefits from a new US administration will accrue in the form of climate action and other multilateral efforts to curb the pandemic, reduce social and economic inequalities, disarm weapons and promote sustainable development.  The UN, which has largely refrained from criticism of the US (as it does routinely with all major state powers and funders), can expect a bit of a post-inaugural holiday as dues are paid in full and abandoned political commitments that can readily be reinstated will be.

This US election season also cast light on a UN agenda that is often-discussed but less-often implemented, and that is the concern for inclusion, the basic belief that all should have a say on matters which affect them; the belief that our increasingly inter-dependent world requires diverse voices on a wide range of matters both complex and mundane, including on matters of governance.  In  the US, our own myth of inclusivity has taken a pounding in recent years by those in positions of authority espousing equivalences between “whiteness” and “greatness.” This has resulted in some hard-to-remove stains on our national character including children separated from families and parents afraid to send their children to the grocery store for fear of confrontation with store managers or police; but also ordinary citizens having to fight through what appears to be willful disenfranchisement as polling places were closed, ballots arbitrarily rejected,  and voting lines in some “minority” neighborhoods permitted to stretch for miles.   

While grievances in my country now spring forth like weeds in an abandoned garden, there are some that have deeper roots, louder echoes of oppression, producing more pervasive anxieties.  There is much listening we need to do far beyond our comfort zones, ideological bubbles, evidence-less presumptions and political preferences.  And a special listening post must be dedicated to those whose “ticket” has yet to guarantee them a seat on most every ride, the mothers and grandmothers whose heartstrings are “tied to a hanging noose,” those who live under threat every day that their next venture outdoors will trigger some hate-filled response or even a one-way trip across the nearest border.  

The UN in its own way has tried to keep alive the flickering flame of inclusiveness, insisting with varying levels of success that we find the courage and the means to ensure that those habitually left behind are invited to the head table; that their “ticket” to viability and safety is deemed as valid as any other’s; that their full franchise is both encouraged and protected; that the fruits of development (or a COVID vaccine) are distributed without politics or prejudice; and that the justifications we employ regarding the “causes” of our discriminatory ways are recognized to be largely without merit.

This past week there were several key events (mostly virtual) at the UN that underscored the ever-deepening relationship between inclusiveness and the promotion of peaceful societies. In the Security Council, in the General Assembly, and during events celebrating the increasingly gendered commitments of UN policing and highlighting efforts to abolish capital punishment, the mantra of inclusiveness and an end to discriminatory practices — as well as the incitement which stokes racism, xenophobia and other human behavior we could better live without — were duly reinforced.

Among the primary takeaways from this long and exhausting week included Malaysia’s lament in the General Assembly’s 3rd Committee that the COVID pandemic “has brought out the worst in us,” specifically with regard to racial and religious discrimination. And in a Security Council discussion on “drivers of conflict, Sir Hilary Beckles underscored the tangible steps needed to reinforce this current “age of apology,” while the Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines reminded delegations that we cannot hope to overcome chasms of distrust and apathy unless we can speed up our current “baby steps”

There was even more of value to digest including UN Special Rapporteur Day’s plea to address and eliminate the “habituation” in many societies that allows people to tolerate discrimination, Mexico’s call for higher levels of government consultation and trust-building with the most vulnerable and marginalized within national borders, and the Netherlands urging of UN member states to be better “truth-tellers” on racial justice.

While one could surely chide the UN for its own “baby steps” regarding its long-delayed success in gender-balancing peace operations and other core security-sector functions, the UN also enables valuable guidance on how hold together a global community which has too often threatened to disengage from one another. Keys to the reconciliation we need include broader-based consultations, higher levels of truth telling and truth-hearing, firmer commitments to address the scourge of incitement in public and online settings, and better protection of spaces where “public goods” (such as a potential COVID vaccine) take precedence over private interests.

But will we listen? The US president-elect’s oft-repeated claim to represent all US citizens — “those who voted for me and those who didn’t” — is a welcome if somewhat conventional claim, albeit with challenges destined to frustrate all but the most sincere and robust of -commitments. We have, regrettably, conspired over many years to create a culture that is long on acrimony and short on listening; long on grievances and conspiracies and short on evidence and compassion; long on self-delusion and short on self-reflection. We are less mindful than it is in our best interest to be, both about the demonizing we do routinely within our own borders, and the violence we inflict — directly or by proxy — beyond them. We simply cannot survive much more of this no matter who occupies the White House.

I want to end on a more hopeful note by referencing last night’s speech by vice-president-elect Kamala Harris. She delivered a strong and humane point of contact with women and men across my country (and likely beyond) for whom “color” has been a burden; a burden for those who have suffered much, often over many generations, but also a burden for those who can see no way out of their own predicaments other than through more threats, more intolerance, more dubious claims of “superiority.”

For Ms. Harris, her own burden seemed, for a glorious moment at least, to have become something more akin to a joy. As she proclaimed with great enthusiasm, “I am the first, but I will not be the last.” She has found her well-deserved place in the sun, but she also recognizes that if that same sun is somehow prevented from shining on all, the ones we like and the ones we don’t, the ones we trust and the ones we don’t, then the democratic values and processes we presume to cherish will eventually and finally slip through our grasp.

Clearly we need more “firsts” in our country and our world, “firsts” emanating from every corner of human community, especially where people are feeling neglected or abandoned, disrespected or humiliated. And as Ms. Harris rightly suggested, we need more “seconds” and “thirds” as well.

Tags: , , , ,

The Fire This Time, Dr. Robert Zuber

31 May

The world is moving so fast, that we have few true experts on tomorrow. All we have are experts on yesterday. Gyan Nagpal

Great magic asks that you trouble the waters. It requires a disruption, something new. Leigh Bardugo

The changes that are required are fundamental changes in the way we are living. Wendell Berry

The time is now proper for us to reform backward; more by dissenting than by agreeing; by differing more than by consent. Michel de Montaigne

Reforming ignorantly will consequence crisis and destruction. Kamaran Ihsan Salih

I don’t want to do away with corporations. I want them to make our cars, but not our laws. Doris Haddock

As I need to remind readers from time to time, especially those from the US, this space is only rarely devoted to an assessment of the US government and its performance, except insofar as that performance jeopardizes the multilateral space where we make our daily claim and only under the most unusual circumstances. There are hundreds of commentators of all political stripes, many seeming to incarnate that old saying of “the blind leading the blind,” that can scratch the itch of partisan critique.

This scratching is generally not for us. But this week, the unusual became the absurd. This is the week where deferred threats and pent up grievances dominated our news feed and showed my country, for all its bravado in spaces such as the UN Security Council, to be too-concerned with expanding the already bloated self-importance of a hyper-partisan leadership even if that means dishonoring our agreements, undermining our obligations, and stoking division among persons with grievances far more legitimate and longstanding than the plutocrats whose laments now dominate the airwaves.

Surely there are people smarter and better equipped than me to draw threads that connect the disruptions of the week – from calling the police on a New York City bird watcher to pulling the US out of yet another UN agency; in this instance the World Health Organization which has done much to alleviate suffering from diseases that have long had a stranglehold on global populations, especially in communities already wracked by poverty and environmental degradation. In this instance, it seems clear what the end game is – pin the COVID blame on an agency that, while not entirely above the political and multilateral fray, is not at all responsible for the failure of my government at the highest levels to heed the warnings of its experts and prepare the public to respond to a virus for which, in very real terms, delay is death.

And then there is the violence in Minneapolis which has spread to many US cities (and even some abroad), violence which is shocking only to people who are not paying attention to who we are now as a nation, not who we imagine ourselves to be. The sometimes-regrettable levels of disruption (including some clearly stoked by “outsiders”) that have followed in the wake of the George Floyd murder have spoken volumes of the psychic distress that all of us have been placed under – pandemic-fueled isolation coupled with economic distress for millions and a plenary indulgence for all manner of ethnic-based violence, racial intolerance, vile conspiracies and partisanship with few voices, left or right, willing to speak truth “to their own.”

This erstwhile “exceptional” nation is now thus only to the degree that we feel entitled to set the rules and then not play by them, to alternately engage and withdraw attention only when it suits our purposes, to abandon leadership where it might contribute to the common good and undermine the contributions of others to that common end.

We’re simply a mess now; at each other’s throats, stressed beyond tolerance, fearful for our children’s future, canceling each other out as though this is all little more than a video game. And while we piously proclaim, yet again, how violence against property will not help solve our racial and ethnic divisions, that piety does not extend to our copious structural violence nor reaches out in remorse to people of color – including the diverse nurses and doctors trying to rescue us from COVID – who have seen only regression and backlash with progress habitually over-promised and under-delivered.

It is hard, indeed, to be an “expert” in either present or future, to figure out who we are and where we are headed, to find that clear vision of what we truly represent, what we really care about, what our current levels of anxiety and dissonance communicate about our potential for justice and healing. But this week I recalled a graduate school seminar based in part around a remarkable book, “The Age of Reform” by Columbia’s Richard Hofstadter. Yes, it is US focused, yes, it is pre-enlightenment regarding its use of uni-gendered language, and yes it is scant on exploring the vantage points of women, indigenous peoples and others. But it is also a remarkably wise and well-researched tale assessing the complexities of our own past, the degree to which reforms in this country were largely the product of flawed individuals who were often getting in their own way and who were only episodically the people they thought they were.

In most of the period, as Hofstadter puts it, from William Jennings Bryan to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, reforms were largely in the hands of two broad and often-diverse movements – populism and progressivism – each with contributions to make to cultural and legislative reforms and each contributing in their own way to the divisions they ostensibly sought to erase. Like in our own time, these reformers encountered a society that was racing ahead at unprecedented speeds, consolidating political and fiscal power along the way and creating inequalities that disrespected traditional patterns of rural life. Such patterns were then being controlled from cities like puppets, puppeteers who essentially saw workers as disposable cogs in the creation of vast fortunes that built the railroads and then gobbled up every bit of usable land for miles along the tracks.

The responses to the speed and greed which characterized much of the late 19th and early 20th century took forms that now resonate unhappily with our own experience. As described by Hofstadter these included scorn towards Europe and Europeans (the source of most immigrants of that time), “racial, religious and nativist phobias,” resentment of big business and the smug elitism of east coast urban areas, as well as of trade-unions and the intellectuals who often looked down on them. There were riots in these times and many repressive responses. A flurry of ideologically-driven publications seemed to “choose hatred as a kind of creed.” There were periods of considerable economic distress as well as contradictory motions – dipping our toes in the waters of multilateralism while most of the rest of our body preferred isolation. Conspiracy theories, then as now, were both abundant and toxic. Distrust of government and other “big” institutions was rampant and (as with so much else in our culture) largely unexamined.

And lest we forget, the progressives of that time shared many populist contradictions, to which one could add a patch of sentimentality regarding the capacity of people for moral reform and a bit of unconfessed complacency (much like our current era) regarding the full, ominous, destructive consequences of the economic havoc unleashed by “captains of industry.” Indeed, while progressives of that time retained the welcome interest in reforming themselves along with the world, there was also a sense (much like our own time) that many also increasingly represented a professional class closer to the interests of those they critiqued than the interests of those they ostensibly represented.

This is a bit longer than usual and I recognize that most of you weren’t counting on a book report. But it is instructive in this time of grave division and high anxiety to recognize the degree to which we have failed, over and again, to fully overcome the foibles of our now-distant past.  Collectively, we have not dismantled our petty discrimination and hatred, our stereotyping and conspiratorial thinking.  We have not insisted on the fairness and equity that ostensibly lie at the heart of our national creed.  We have held too tightly to our distrust of so much that is of foreign origin or governance-related, or of anything that is changing at speeds too rapid to fathom. We in our elite havens have endorsed the “rules” for the political, social and economic order and then disregarded those rules when it suits our convenience. We pass laws relevant to the contexts of lawmakers and their ilk but without concern for how their implications will play out in the many places that lie beyond the concerns of our large urban centers and their mighty institutions.

The stubborn complacency characteristic of our own time has been shocked again this week into anxiety and anger by senseless brutality, reckless governance, an invisible virus, widespread economic uncertainty and a nativism that has long defined a part of our national character and which has now been given some semblance of official permission, as was the case over a century ago, to stereotype and humiliate, to denigrate and intimidate, and much of this at the point of a gun.

Clearly our waters are quite “troubled” now, and it might well be the case that they will need to “trouble” further if we are to heal  current social divisions, honor promises rendered within and beyond national borders, institutionalize more of the courage and compassion of those who keep our pragmatic ideals afloat, make the “magic” that we are still capable of making, and become in fact the people that we so uncritically and enthusiastically profess to be.

We owe as much to those who endured our legacies of violence, greed and discrimination, but also to a future with its own complexities to manage, one that can certainly do without many of the obstacles which we continue to erect in our own path.

Tags: , ,

International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons

11 Mar

From 4-5 March, the government of Norway hosted an International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo. Representatives of 127 member states were present as well as UN secretariat officials, civil society, and other humanitarian response technical experts detailing the environmental, health, and developmental impact of nuclear weapon explosions. It was noted throughout that member states must continue to seize opportunities to act responsibly to prevent any accidental or intentional use of these weapons, a goal guaranteed only by virtue of their abolition. The Foreign Minister of Norway, Espen Barth Eide, offered a Chair’s Summary at the conclusion of the conference that, although it did not offer any concrete recommendations for future movement, did note clearly that, “It is unlikely that any state or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation in an adequate manner and provide sufficient assistance to those affected.”

While the ‘official’ Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) chose not to attend the conference as a collective group (although India and Pakistan sent delegations), there was a clear sense that the status quo of nuclear disarmament discourse can be neither tolerated nor sustained any longer. The argument by the NWS (also the Permanent 5 [P5] members of the Security Council) was that the conference served as a “distraction” from current disarmament efforts. As Ambassador Laura Kennedy of the United States noted to the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, “We [the US] are focusing our efforts and energy on practical steps we and others are taking to reduce nuclear weapon arsenals while strengthening nuclear security and the nonproliferation regime.” Likewise, the government of the UK stated that it was pursuing disarmament through “existing mechanisms” such as the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the CD. In response to this argument, Foreign Minister Eide noted in his opening statement that this conference was not intended to serve as a substitute for any existing process, but also noted that the established fora for nuclear weapons deliberations are all “under serious pressure.” Furthermore, as has been rightly noted by colleagues from Reaching Critical Will, the Nuclear Security Summit process is one example of an “alternative process” that has been enthusiastically embraced by the NWS and thereby clearly illustrates the inherent weakness (if not hypocrisy) of the NWS absence from Oslo. Furthermore, the “step by step” and “practical” approach to nuclear disarmament has clearly not been effective and has remained predicated on an inflexible agenda since the 1960s thereby making it all the more appropriate for governments to supplement existing efforts with new fora and political dynamics.

The technical discussion referenced within the conference programme were indeed rich and involved delegations, representatives of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the UN Development Programme Bureau for Crisis Prevention (UNDP BCPR), the UN World Food Programme, and representatives of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) among others. Both the immediate impacts and longer-term consequences of nuclear detonations were explored by researchers, medical professionals, emergency relief experts, and national officials dealing with nuclear radiation preparedness. Experts stated that global famine, catastrophic climate change, and massive loss of life would be among the long-term ramifications of a nuclear detonation, affecting not just those in the immediate area of the bomb’s “ground zero,” but the whole of the global community. The programme featured several panels of humanitarian response experts detailing how and if governments, international organizations, and other actors could, or rather could not, adequately respond to a nuclear detonation. Dr. Ira Helfand of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear (IPPNW) presented the economic costs of a nuclear detonation, which could be upwards of $ 1 trillion over the long-term, and conjectured that due to climate changes from the explosion potentially one billion people could die of starvation alone. Other experts offered scenarios of nuclear detonation in cities such as Oslo as well as national examples of nuclear radiation emergencies in Romania and Norway. Still other presenters reflected on past examples of dangerous nuclear testing in Kazakhstan, the long-term effects of the Chernobyl accident, and the catastrophic fallout from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Many delegations as well as civil society representatives also cited the examples of landmines and cluster munitions as weapons that have been banned by international law for humanitarian reasons, noting that it was time to do the same for nuclear weapons. Furthermore, ICAN noted in its first intervention that blinding weapons, certain conventional explosive weapons, incendiary weapons, the use of poison, and chemical and biological weapons have all been outlawed, all of which have consequences similar to those from a nuclear detonation.

Quite plainly, the overall conclusion drawn by presenters was that there is no way to adequately prepare for or respond to the impacts of a nuclear detonation. As noted by the Director of UNOCHA Geneva, Mr. Rashid Khalikov, in his presentation on humanitarian preparedness and response, “We should, as the international humanitarian community, continue to consider the extent to which we can respond to a weapon detonation in any meaningful way. Ultimately though, the reality remains that the only sensible course of action is to ensure these weapons are never used.”

While the technical conversation was useful, perhaps more importantly, the tone that has been set for the future of nuclear disarmament efforts has clearly and rightly shifted. The consensus among participants was that the global humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons must be the starting point for discussion of disarmament and a ban on nuclear weapons. Foreign Minister Eide noted in his opening statement that, “For decades political leaders and experts have debated the challenges posed by the continued existence and further proliferation of nuclear weapons. This conference, however, takes a different starting point.” Moreover, as the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) noted in its final intervention, nuclear weapons represent “the greatest humanitarian challenge of our time” and the delegation of Austria called this challenge a “litmus test” for how the international community is able to resolve challenges to humanity’s survival. It is the contribution of a reinvigorated commitment to a humanitarian approach to nuclear disarmament that will have the greatest impact on finally bringing an end to these weapons and the threat to humanity posed by them.

Although the Oslo approach (adopting a humanitarian starting point) has been associated with the drive to end nuclear weapons for quite some time, the renewed energy and commitment by states to this approach is noteworthy. In discussions about proportionality of response, there have been legal and humanitarian elements and international criminal and military law have long acknowledged the principle of proportionality that the response should ‘fit’ the threat and that damage to innocents bears the presumption of impermissibility. Nuclear weapons use can stand up to neither test, in fact not even close.

Particularly in light of the stalemate found across the various parts of the UN disarmament machinery from the CD to the UNDC, this conference offered various stakeholders, including the vast majority of UN member states, the chance to converge around the common goal of nuclear disarmament and abolition with renewed energy and enthusiasm. Moreover, with the announcement of an important follow-up meeting to be hosted by the Government of Mexico, there is genuine commitment that this recalibrated approach to nuclear disarmament will enable more robust steps towards nuclear abolition to be taken and sustained.

 

–Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , , , ,

That They May Like ‘US’

24 Sep

This is a guest blog post from one of our former interns, Nnamdi Iheakaram, Esq.

A foreign policy that is based on a state’s ability to project force will tend to pursue unilateralist goals. The immense benefit derivable from this strategy is evident when weaker states readily abandon non-essential legitimate claims rather than engage a state that has power advantage and the will to exploit that advantage.  Undeniably, it is well-known that war is more likely when conquest is easy.  However, the interest in question must be essential, such as the threat to a state’s sovereignty, to warrant any state risking the possibility of a direct military conquest. Because most interests are non-essential, it becomes attractive for stronger states to resort to their military might in the event of more essential threats to their interests.

The US has always had a power advantage which it has employed in securing its interests. Not long ago, in 2009, a new US foreign policy approach based on mutual respect of other states and their cultures was pitched to an enthralled audience in Cairo, Egypt. The goal was to reassure the Muslim community that the United States was not an enemy and that the new US government would seek to work closely with all peace loving states in ensuring international peace and security. To give effect to these declarations, the US government gave direct support to protesters all across North Africa and the Middle East during the 2010 Arab Spring and even called on the Egyptian President, an ally, to relinquish power as demanded by the protesters.

While this support may seem appropriate to passionate advocates who are committed to democracy and the self-governance of all people, an objective analysis of the situation may show that supporting a rebel movement that is not clear on its objectives, violates the laws of a legitimate government, and seeks military assistance to unseat a government, is itself unlawful and counterproductive. Accordingly, it was unwonted when the US called on its Egyptian ally to relinquish power as opposed to reestablishing effective control and initiating a constitutional review that would bring about a more representative government structured around the rule of law and secularism. But the US interference, which was based on a new commitment to democratic rule, was undermined by its inconsistent treatment of similarly situated states.

Thus, just as it was difficult to identify any supporters of the continuation of the government of Col. Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, it was equally difficult to identify any law that could support an intervention in Libya while requiring non-interference in Saudi Arabia. The reason is simple: the Libyan government had effective control of its territory while effective control in, for instance, a state likeSaudi Arabia was enabled by external interests. In the 2011 Libyan intervention, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept, developed to avoid mass atrocity crimes, was tarnished as it appeared to have been adopted only to justify and legitimize interference in the domestic affairs of a state, which included removal of the head of that state, thereby exposing one of the fundamental flaws of the concept.  While Qaddafi had been accused of killing less than a thousand rebels at the time the “no-fly-zone” was imposed, commentators such as Jordan Street have been clear that “the bombing that NATO embarked upon to protect their initial mandate has also shown to be flawed due to the high mortality rates among civilians.”  .  The killing of Libyans, it appears, is justifiable when effected under an internationally approved political program.

This is the legal and moral quagmire that is encountered when scholars attempt to interpret popular rules or principles of international law without considering the historical backgrounds and the socioeconomic factors determining the purposes or grounds for their application. Accordingly, it is imperative that international action (or more specifically, intervention in states) be framed in a way that makes it consistent and predictable as opposed to flexible and heteronomous. The former (which is consistent and predictable) would ensure that US policies seek to maximize and protect US interests without undermining or diminishing the welfare of other states, while the latter (which is flexible and heteronomous) would ensure that US policies seek to maximize and protect US interests, largely regardless of consequences. The benefit of taking the first approach is that policies aimed at the maximization and protection of interests are not knowingly detrimental to other states and thus, are in line with international law , while the second approach brings about policies that use other states as means to the goal of maximization and protection of interests.

The recent attacks on US interests in Libya and elsewhere, call for concern for the safety of all diplomats. It is unacceptable that individuals representing their nation’s interests should be imperiled for the mere fact that they accepted a responsibility to serve a diplomatic purpose.. There is no justification for the protesters or anyone to take the lives of others on the righteous pretext that the uncivil and supposedly heretical actions of some bigoted, attention-seeking artists provided  sufficient provocation.

Matters regarding religion are emotive and until the denigration of the faith of others is discouraged by non-coercive measures, extremists of various faiths will actively continue to take matters into their own hands in defense of their beliefs. When economic grievances are rooted in sociopolitical problems that cannot be effectively and easily framed as a rallying cry for action, religion is employed as a tool for rallying otherwise diverse groups against an allegedly ‘common enemy.’  Whether such actions are justified is dependent upon the rationale or factuality of their grievance. But one fact remains indisputable, despite the high cost of the US involvement in the Middle East, there is a clear reluctance to adjust the current US Middle East policy. The implication is that conditions which will likely lead to the reoccurrence of violence persist.

While the West viewed the Arab Spring as an effort by an oppressed citizenry to  rid itself of autocratic leaders, anti-western elements viewed it as aimed at removing less effective Western political acolytes. Having declared the Arab Spring a success, it is unclear how a US Ambassador could be assassinated in Benghazi, a city that was the stronghold and capital of the US-supported rebel forces that fought against Qaddafi. What is not in dispute is that the West has interests in the Gulf and has chosen to selectively interfere in the affairs of states in order to secure those interests. The rationale for this position is subject to debate; however, it can be asserted that a legal, purpose-driven approach that seeks to protect the interests of all involved will be more effective in securing long-term peace than a value-driven approach that is subject to the whims and caprices of self-interested foreign interveners.

Thus, instead of trying to capitalize on the current violence for political purposes, US leaders must use the on-going presidential campaigns to develop, articulate and communicate a realistic and reassuring foreign policy aimed at absolute respect for the rule of law on the international scene and less reliance on force as a means of securing interests. Such a change ensuring that power is not an advantage and that weakness is not a disadvantage is necessary in persuading states like Iran and North Korea to abandon realist security measures which increase the risks of devastating  conflict. It is suggested that only a change in US policy will positively affect the perception and attitude of these states, not an increase in its military might.  The US must choose between the better peace that flows from its support for universally recognized, just policies or a fragile peace held together by the fear of its military might.. A just foreign policy may or may not improve the welfare of other states, but an unjust foreign policy will deliberately diminish the welfare of other states.

Tags: , , , , ,

Nothing to lose: the CTBT and US ratification

20 Aug

In September last year we discussed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and made the ironic connection that despite nuclear weapon testing having largely ceased, key states remain reluctant to sign the treaty. Indonesia has since ratified. That now leaves eight Annex Two states to ratify for the treaty to come into force.

So how about the US?

The US signed the CTBT in 1996 but was rejected by the senate three years later so has never been ratified. Back then, reservations were about US nuclear reliability (the potential need for future testing) and the difficulty of verification (how to ensure that other states abide by the treaty).

Since then, major strides have been made at both domestic and international level so these reservations can now safely be put aside. The National Research Council and the Stockpile Steward Program conclude that new technological capacity has advanced so far that physical testing is now unnecessary. Global monitoring for verification is also sufficient: with over 330 monitoring facilities having been brought together under the CTBTO umbrella. Sixty-one of these detected North Korea’s 1996 underground test.

Now without any excuse the US should go ahead and ratify the long overdue treaty. President Obama had ratification on the agenda early in his administration (during his famous Prague speech) but this was not realized. Many now believe that an Obama second term could see CTBT ratification returned to the agenda. A Romney administration could and should and could also pursue this.

The US would be placed in a better position should the treaty come into force, as global nuclear monitoring has the potential to become very powerful. And just to top things off, the US has not physically tested any nuclear weapon since 1992. There’s nothing to lose.

– Kees Keizer

Tags: , ,

The CCW4 and Cluster Munitions

15 Nov

Currently, in Geneva, diplomats are convening the 4th Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW4) Review Conference. The Convention, negotiated by 51 states in 1980, seeks to outlaw specific types of conventional weapons used in armed conflict to protect military personnel from inhumane injury as well as non-combatants from harm. When the treaty entered into force in 1983, it covered  incendiary weapons, mines and booby traps, and weapons designed to injury through very small fragments. In 2001, the Convention was voted to cover intrastate conflict as well as international ones under all its provisions. There are five protocols in force: (1) Non-detectable fragments, (2) Landmines, booby traps, and other devices, (3) Incendiary weapons, (4) Blinding lasers, and (5) Explosive remnants of war.  A related piece of international law, the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), comprehensively bans the use of cluster munitions and was signed and ratified by 111 states.

The controversy now rests in the negotiations of a new protocol on cluster munitions for the CCW (Draft available here). Many advocates are concerned that this will severely undermine the ban under the CCM by providing cover for the future use of cluster munitions, which ultimately causes indiscriminate harm as well as the threat of explosion well beyond the end of the conflict in areas inhabited by civilians. Arms control advocates are arguing that this protocol will “provide a specific legal framework for their use.” The US and allies such as Israel, Brazil, India, and China, cite the ‘humanitarian’ provision in the protocol draft that bans the use of cluster munitions produced before 1980, although post-1980 munitions also cause indiscriminate harm to civilians and these older munitions would most likely have to be destroyed regardless of the protocol because of their age. The most recent use of cluster munitions reported in April 2011  used in civilian areas in Misurata by Qadaffi loyalists were contemporary weapons surely produced after 198o. The draft also allows for a deferral period of 12 years, which ultimately allows for use of weapons that will eventually be banned by the protocol.

As a back drop to adoption of a framework that allows for the use of cluster munitions is a larger normative problem: adoption of an instrument of international humanitarian law that is weaker than a previously (and generally accepted) adopted law. This is a dangerous undertaking that we hope the US and others will reconsider.

For up-to-date information on the negotiations, follow @marywareham, @banclusterbombs, and @nashthomas on Twitter.

-Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , , , ,

Arms Trade Treaty goes domestic

3 Aug

Predictably, reactionary news networks, along with their followers, are on the defense over the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), many warning that domestic rights are being compromised as “anti-gun elites” run rampant at the United Nations.

We’ve heard it all before: ‘United Nations’ End Run Around Constitution?’, ‘NRA Takes on ‘Anti-Gun Elitists’ at UN’, ‘Sen. Moran & 44 Senators Tell Obama Administration Second Amendment Rights’. Most of this is of course reactionary crazy-talk – baseless assumptions of a UN conspiracy against US gun-owners.

Most citizens would of course recognize the importance of such a treaty. The ATT is about international arms transfers. Currently, the global trade in conventional weapons (warships, battle tanks, fighter jets, machine guns) is unregulated; internationally agreed standards do not exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use, not into the hands of those abusing human rights, including terrorists and criminals, and helping to prevent needless armed conflicts and killings around the world.

A recent rebuttal of the far fetched claims came from GAPW’s Robert Zuber. In an article by USnews.com ‘Opposition mounts to UN gun control treaty opposition mounts to UN gun control treaty’, followed with over 20o comments – he responded with the following:

“Since neither the author of this piece nor those writing comments (so far) was in the room as UN delegates were making final preparations for Arms Trade Treaty negotiations, perhaps a bit of a reality check is in order.

 Once again, the NRA has done a splendid job of reaching out to select US media. However, the individual from the NRA who was given a platform at the UN to make a US-focused speech at the ATT Prep Com (a courtesy which is rarely extended and then normally only to groups exhibiting a broader geographical interest), walked out of the building once his remarks were concluded.   Neither did he apparently bother to attend the sessions leading up to his remarks.  Apparently, like so many sharing opinions on this issue, it was better not to taint his outrage with too much direct experience.

It is certainly predictable to have media folks whip up a frenzy about the UN taking away peoples’ guns and rendering them helpless against the alleged tyranny of the state.  However, as the chief US negotiator to the ATT process — someone who has not been the most congenial presence in the Prep Com room — would readily acknowledge, the ATT is not a disarmament treaty.  It does not propose to destroy weapons or to eliminate their legal possession.  It provides guidelines for arms transfers and seeks to end diversion by which arms traded legally end up in the hands on non-state actors such as criminals and terrorists, are used to violate the human rights of populations, or are ‘re-gifted’ by recipient governments to line their own pockets.   Which of these three diversion potentials the NRA, your readers, the author of this piece, or even our DC legislators would refuse to support is their own call to make, but to refuse to support any of these objectives is simply beyond reason.

I was a gun owner for much of my life.  I respect but don’t fear weapons.  Nor do I fear the ATT or the non-existent ‘power’ of the UN to strip citizens of their guns.   Readers are free to hate the UN.  They are also free to act as though the second amendment is the only legally relevant, binding aspect of the US Constitution.  But what some are accusing the ATT process of promoting is simply nonsense as even 20 attentive minutes inside the Prep Com room would readily reveal.”

Follow discussion on the ATT process:

http://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blog/11-07-19-global-arms-trade-treaty-picks-speed

http://attmonitor.posterous.com

– Kees Keizer

Tags: , , , ,