Many opponents of Obama who are Christian have been making a certain argument against him that represents a radical departure from the Christian teaching. Simply put: they question whether Barack is a Christian at all on account of the fact that his father was a (nominal) Muslim. They claim that his conversion wasn't real and that he is some sort of "stealth Muslim." (Mark Danner, in the New York Review of Books, recently recounted an example of this objection: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22017#danner)
People who hold this view though, are at odds with Christian theology. Basically, they're disparaging the rites of baptism and conversion--the central rites of the Christian religion! In their view, a person isn't a 'real' Christian unless his daddy was too. In other words: free will, the personal relationship with Christ and individual choice are irrelavant to being saved. They make it seem as though salvation were some sort of genetic or heriditary condition that is passed down from father to son through the blood. Effectively, this means that conversion is impossible and that baptism is only an empty ritual. Now given the fact that the anscestor of all Christians, if you trace their lineage back far enough, had to convert from some other religion (be it Judaism, Paganism or some other belief), that would call into question whether the Christian religion can even be said to exist!
Furthermore, such people should be aware that what they are saying could undermine the effectiveness of Christian missionaries and evangelists working abroad. What is the message they are sending those non-Christians who are considering converting? That they will never be accepted as 'true' Christians simply because of who their parents are? That's a great way to scare off potential converts.
Of course, they have a First Amendment right to believe any old thing they like, but those who advance this view should be aware of the implications of what they are saying: basically, they're founding a new religion!
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Not Your Daddy's Republican Party
Here we are with only two and a half weeks to go before the election and it seems that, for the first time ever, our country will elect a black man to be president. What an amazing turn of events!
Even more amazing though, is what has happened to the GOP. A failed foreign policy, an economy in free-fall and widespread corruption and incompetence are the hallmarks of today's Republican Party. Those old enough to remember an earlier era are scarcely able to believe what they are seeing.
There was once a time, not so long ago, when Republicans were widely regarded as competent and reliable, if a bit boring. They were a party of stolid old-fashioned types who took the business of managing the country seriously. After abandoning laissez-faire ideology in the wake of the Great Depression, they directed their efforts at running the economy (and the budget) more efficiently, rather than trying to reverse the New Deal.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford--the quintessential men in grey flannel suits. Their very lack of star-power, however, was part of their appeal. This was especially true after the Democratic Party flew off the rails at the '68 convention. By then, the country had enough of the Democrats' antics and decided to switch over to the party that represented order and stability. The Republicans of that era tended to eschew anything even vaguely radical--a tendency that was reinforced by Goldwater's crushing defeat in 1964. Unlike the Democrats, they were the responsible party, concerned with boring, uninspiring, grown-up stuff like balanced budgets and balance of power. They were, in short, just what the country needed.
Then something happened: fiscal prudence was jettisoned in favor of supply-side ideology, while the "silent majority" gradually gave way to an evermore deranged Christian radicalism. Ayn Rand meets Jim Jones! George H. W. Bush (also known as '41') was the last of his breed; after him came the flood.
I first noticed something was wrong when they swept Congress in the '94 mid-terms. Newt Gingrich struck me as a grand-standing buffoon, who combined a gift for rabble-rousing with a taste for utopian schemes (the two often go together). Still, he was mild compared with what was coming.
Once Bush '43 took office, it was all over. A more spectacular failure would be hard to imagine, and I doubt that posterity will judge him any more kindly than we do. What ever became of Dad's Republican Party? After eight years of Bush (and six years of Tom DeLay), we now have the largest Federal debt in history, and as for corruption, Jack Abramoff could give Tammany Hall lessons!
In addition to all the practical problems Bush and Co. have caused, there has also been a distinct change in tone during campaigns that I find disturbing. Again, I think it actually began with Gingrich, but it has really taken over completely under Bush, with the help of Karl Rove. Nowadays, Republican campaigns are filled with this whiney, bone-headed populism that is so shrill and hysterical that it almost makes me ashamed to be a white man. I can remember when it was the Democrats pushing this angry, anti-government nonsense and I didn't like it then any more than I do now. I find identity politics inherently contemptible no matter whose identity is being toyed with. Bush, of course, was very good at this stuff, whereas McCain can't seem to do it without visibly squirming; but either way, I think it's a bad idea to substitute grievance politics for workable policies--and it's not a pleasure to watch either.
I am first and foremost a Realist; I am under no illusion that this sort of campaigning is ever going to vanish completely. This temper-tantrum populism has been with us since Andrew Jackson and has been an on-again-off-feature of American politics ever since. And so long as it does not interfere with the serious business of governing, I can tolerate it. But a when a party's campaign rhetoric starts to undermine its ability to rule, and when the peddlers of utopian schemes and paranoid dellusions starts to believe their own rhetoric, the inevitable result is trouble.
And that's why I'm pulling for Obama this year.
Even more amazing though, is what has happened to the GOP. A failed foreign policy, an economy in free-fall and widespread corruption and incompetence are the hallmarks of today's Republican Party. Those old enough to remember an earlier era are scarcely able to believe what they are seeing.
There was once a time, not so long ago, when Republicans were widely regarded as competent and reliable, if a bit boring. They were a party of stolid old-fashioned types who took the business of managing the country seriously. After abandoning laissez-faire ideology in the wake of the Great Depression, they directed their efforts at running the economy (and the budget) more efficiently, rather than trying to reverse the New Deal.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford--the quintessential men in grey flannel suits. Their very lack of star-power, however, was part of their appeal. This was especially true after the Democratic Party flew off the rails at the '68 convention. By then, the country had enough of the Democrats' antics and decided to switch over to the party that represented order and stability. The Republicans of that era tended to eschew anything even vaguely radical--a tendency that was reinforced by Goldwater's crushing defeat in 1964. Unlike the Democrats, they were the responsible party, concerned with boring, uninspiring, grown-up stuff like balanced budgets and balance of power. They were, in short, just what the country needed.
Then something happened: fiscal prudence was jettisoned in favor of supply-side ideology, while the "silent majority" gradually gave way to an evermore deranged Christian radicalism. Ayn Rand meets Jim Jones! George H. W. Bush (also known as '41') was the last of his breed; after him came the flood.
I first noticed something was wrong when they swept Congress in the '94 mid-terms. Newt Gingrich struck me as a grand-standing buffoon, who combined a gift for rabble-rousing with a taste for utopian schemes (the two often go together). Still, he was mild compared with what was coming.
Once Bush '43 took office, it was all over. A more spectacular failure would be hard to imagine, and I doubt that posterity will judge him any more kindly than we do. What ever became of Dad's Republican Party? After eight years of Bush (and six years of Tom DeLay), we now have the largest Federal debt in history, and as for corruption, Jack Abramoff could give Tammany Hall lessons!
In addition to all the practical problems Bush and Co. have caused, there has also been a distinct change in tone during campaigns that I find disturbing. Again, I think it actually began with Gingrich, but it has really taken over completely under Bush, with the help of Karl Rove. Nowadays, Republican campaigns are filled with this whiney, bone-headed populism that is so shrill and hysterical that it almost makes me ashamed to be a white man. I can remember when it was the Democrats pushing this angry, anti-government nonsense and I didn't like it then any more than I do now. I find identity politics inherently contemptible no matter whose identity is being toyed with. Bush, of course, was very good at this stuff, whereas McCain can't seem to do it without visibly squirming; but either way, I think it's a bad idea to substitute grievance politics for workable policies--and it's not a pleasure to watch either.
I am first and foremost a Realist; I am under no illusion that this sort of campaigning is ever going to vanish completely. This temper-tantrum populism has been with us since Andrew Jackson and has been an on-again-off-feature of American politics ever since. And so long as it does not interfere with the serious business of governing, I can tolerate it. But a when a party's campaign rhetoric starts to undermine its ability to rule, and when the peddlers of utopian schemes and paranoid dellusions starts to believe their own rhetoric, the inevitable result is trouble.
And that's why I'm pulling for Obama this year.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Reply to 'Spengler': Why Biden Rather Than Clinton
In today's Asia Times Online, 'Spengler' once again comes down on Obama, critcizing his Vice-presidential pick, Joe Biden. In "How Obama lost the election" (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JI03Aa02.html), he faults Obama especially for passing over Hillary Clinton. I personally never thought there was any chance Hillary would be the Vice-presidential nominee, but I have to admit that I too was at first a bit puzzled by the pick of Biden.
But first, more on Clinton. The reason Obama didn't pick her is quite simple: she doesn't want to be anybody's VP. Hillary has already done her eight years in White House, patiently waiting her turn; she doesn't want to go through that again.
Moreover, she seems sincerely to believe that Obama will lose in November and that would put her in an even stronger position to run again in 2012. She could then go to the voters and say, essentially, 'I told you so'. But if she had to wait a whole eight years, there is every chance voters would lose interest or simply find her too old for the job by then.
How do I know she doesn't want to be Obama's VP? From the way she behaved during the primaries. If she had wanted the number-two job, the thing to do was to cut a deal with Obama sometime back in February or March, dropping out of the race in exchange for being his running mate. Instead, she continued to run long after it was effectively impossible for her to win, in a way that weakened Obama's candidacy without ever really strengthening hers. But four years from now, she could still go back and say to those who voted against her: "I tried to warn you, but you wouldn't listen." So much for Hillary. Now, on to Biden...
I must confess that I myself was a bit puzzled by the pick of Biden--the loquacious, professional Senator from Delaware with all the pizzaz of meatloaf. But just then I realized exactly why Obama picked him. The first rule of choosing a VP, is: "Above all, do no harm." No one votes for a Vice President. The only important thing about the pick is what it says about the Presidential candidate. Biden really has no weaknesses, no skeletons in the closet and he most certainly will not overshadow Obama in terms of personality, so what this says to the voters about Obama is: "I am reliable, I am safe." The very conventionality--the very boringness, if you will--of the Biden pick is meant to reassure those who think he might be unreliable due to inexperience. That's exactly the image Obama needs to cultivate if he is to reassure nervous voters--especially nervous white voters. As a black man, Obama cannot afford to look too radical. He must be more Bill Cosby than Huey Newton if he is to win over Middle America.
And then again, after eight years of erratic (at times, even reckless) leadership in the White House, a bit of stolidness and level-headedness would indeed constitute a noticeable 'change', wouldn't it?
I don't pretend that he's got the election in the bag; I'm sure it will be a close one, definitely too close to call at this point. But I think the Biden pick shows something about Obama that has helped to bring him this far in American politics, and may yet take him to the finishline: his amazing talent for seeming so reassuring and unthreatening--definitely unprecedented in a black politician.
But first, more on Clinton. The reason Obama didn't pick her is quite simple: she doesn't want to be anybody's VP. Hillary has already done her eight years in White House, patiently waiting her turn; she doesn't want to go through that again.
Moreover, she seems sincerely to believe that Obama will lose in November and that would put her in an even stronger position to run again in 2012. She could then go to the voters and say, essentially, 'I told you so'. But if she had to wait a whole eight years, there is every chance voters would lose interest or simply find her too old for the job by then.
How do I know she doesn't want to be Obama's VP? From the way she behaved during the primaries. If she had wanted the number-two job, the thing to do was to cut a deal with Obama sometime back in February or March, dropping out of the race in exchange for being his running mate. Instead, she continued to run long after it was effectively impossible for her to win, in a way that weakened Obama's candidacy without ever really strengthening hers. But four years from now, she could still go back and say to those who voted against her: "I tried to warn you, but you wouldn't listen." So much for Hillary. Now, on to Biden...
I must confess that I myself was a bit puzzled by the pick of Biden--the loquacious, professional Senator from Delaware with all the pizzaz of meatloaf. But just then I realized exactly why Obama picked him. The first rule of choosing a VP, is: "Above all, do no harm." No one votes for a Vice President. The only important thing about the pick is what it says about the Presidential candidate. Biden really has no weaknesses, no skeletons in the closet and he most certainly will not overshadow Obama in terms of personality, so what this says to the voters about Obama is: "I am reliable, I am safe." The very conventionality--the very boringness, if you will--of the Biden pick is meant to reassure those who think he might be unreliable due to inexperience. That's exactly the image Obama needs to cultivate if he is to reassure nervous voters--especially nervous white voters. As a black man, Obama cannot afford to look too radical. He must be more Bill Cosby than Huey Newton if he is to win over Middle America.
And then again, after eight years of erratic (at times, even reckless) leadership in the White House, a bit of stolidness and level-headedness would indeed constitute a noticeable 'change', wouldn't it?
I don't pretend that he's got the election in the bag; I'm sure it will be a close one, definitely too close to call at this point. But I think the Biden pick shows something about Obama that has helped to bring him this far in American politics, and may yet take him to the finishline: his amazing talent for seeming so reassuring and unthreatening--definitely unprecedented in a black politician.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
From Kosovo to Abkhazia
Over the past few weeks, the Russians have used America's reccent actions in Kosovo again and again as a precedent for their own recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia this past Monday. (In February of this year, the U.S. recognized Kosovo as an independent state over the objections of Serbia, to which Kosovo had belonged until then.)
As insistent as the Russians have been in pushing the Kosovo analogy, however, I happen to think they are still selling their own case short. In Kosovo, afterall, the U.S. had no compelling national interest whatsoever. This little country is nowhere near our border, its citizens do not hold U.S. passports, and neighboring Serbia did not constitute anything even vaguely resembling a threat to our security. (On that last point, however, the reverse is definitely not true: we bombed Serbia in 1999, even though there was no clear-cut evidence of any Serb-on-Kosovar ethnic cleansing--as Washington claimed. How could there be? The Kosovar Serbs were outnumbered by the ethnic Albanians nearly ten to one!)
But consider now Russia's predicament in the Caucuses:
As insistent as the Russians have been in pushing the Kosovo analogy, however, I happen to think they are still selling their own case short. In Kosovo, afterall, the U.S. had no compelling national interest whatsoever. This little country is nowhere near our border, its citizens do not hold U.S. passports, and neighboring Serbia did not constitute anything even vaguely resembling a threat to our security. (On that last point, however, the reverse is definitely not true: we bombed Serbia in 1999, even though there was no clear-cut evidence of any Serb-on-Kosovar ethnic cleansing--as Washington claimed. How could there be? The Kosovar Serbs were outnumbered by the ethnic Albanians nearly ten to one!)
But consider now Russia's predicament in the Caucuses:
- The expansion of NATO right up to Russia's very borders would indeed constitute a direct threat to their national security. And even if you are of the opinion the we can be trusted not to abuse our "forward-leaning" position there at some point in the future (by, say, stationing ABM's in Georgia, as we just did in Poland after unilaterally abandoning the Nixon-era ABM treaty), why should Russia trust us? Years ago, would we ever have tolerated any attempt on Russia's part to expand the Warwaw Pact to include Mexico or Canada? I know it's a stretch to imagine such a thing, since neither Mexico nor Canada would ever have wanted to go along with this. But supposing the Soviets could have engineered some sort of coup or revolution in Mexico which brought a far left-wing regime to power there? Well, that's exactly what happened in Cuba, wasn't it? And you know how we responded there. Even before there was any talk of putting missles on the island, we tried to overthrow Castro during the failed Bay of Pigs landing. I'm with the sceptics on this one: expanding NATO eastward was and remains a dangerously provocative policy.
- And what about the rights and national aspirations of the South Ossetians and the Abkhazians? Are they any less deserving of independence and personal security than the Kosovar Albanians? Even if the Russians are being cynical is raising the point (and I'm sure they are), that doesn't prove them wrong. What, afterall, were our motives in Kosovo? I have just made the point that it surely couldn't have been about our national security, since neither Kosovo nor Serbia are anywhere near our border. Could our actions there, perhaps, have had something to do with our desire to make permanent our military presence in the Balkans to act as a way-station for all of our activities in the Middle East and the Caucuses? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel)
I think the Russians would help their case much more if they asked questions like these, rather than going on about U.S. election conspiracy theories, as Putin did earlier today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/28/georgia.russia2).
Monday, August 18, 2008
Playing Poker With the Bear
Today's article by 'Spengler' on the Asia Times website ("Americans play Monopoly, Russians chess," at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH19Ag04.html) makes a compelling case that opening a military base in some new country is often regarded by American strategists (especially Neo-Cons) as an end in itself. He writes:
I once had a very similar thought myself: Americans play poker, while our rivals and enemies play chess.
While chess is a game of long-term strategy, poker is all about short-term bluffing. Expanding NATO all the way to Russia's border, without having enough troops to deal with the blow-back, would be a good example of a recent U.S. bluff.
Poker players also get a new hand every round (a "new deal," in case you ever wondered where that phrase came from). Their bad luck--even their mistakes--from the last hand never carry forward to the next, unlike chess, where one desperate move frequently leads to another. The failure of our ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, have strengthened Iran. But this, in turn, seems only to have made the Neo-Cons all the more determined to attack Iran. Our blunders in the Middle East may yet force us into an even bigger catastrophe over there.
In the final assessment, I think our foreign policy would be a lot better off if our rulers started thinking more along the lines of chess, and less like desperate poker-players in a Vegas casino. Foreign policy, like chess, is one long, continuous game; it is not a serious of disconnected little 'deals' with no long-term implications.
But alas, chess requires a capacity for long-term strategic thinking that seems to be in short supply in the U.S. these days. In today's Washington, the Kennans and Kissingers have given way to the Cheneys and Wolfowitzes--a development I regard as most unfortunate.
...Russia is playing chess, while the Americans are playing Monopoly. What Americans understand by "war games" is exactly what occurs on the board of the Parker Brothers' pastime. The board game Monopoly is won by placing as manyThe Russians, meanwhile, are the consummate chess-players: they ponder every move carefully, trying to anticipate how friend and foe alike will react. Only when they are sure that the odds are in their favor do they make their move.
hotels as possible on squares of the playing board. Substitute military bases, and you have the sum of American strategic thinking.
I once had a very similar thought myself: Americans play poker, while our rivals and enemies play chess.
While chess is a game of long-term strategy, poker is all about short-term bluffing. Expanding NATO all the way to Russia's border, without having enough troops to deal with the blow-back, would be a good example of a recent U.S. bluff.
Poker players also get a new hand every round (a "new deal," in case you ever wondered where that phrase came from). Their bad luck--even their mistakes--from the last hand never carry forward to the next, unlike chess, where one desperate move frequently leads to another. The failure of our ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, have strengthened Iran. But this, in turn, seems only to have made the Neo-Cons all the more determined to attack Iran. Our blunders in the Middle East may yet force us into an even bigger catastrophe over there.
In the final assessment, I think our foreign policy would be a lot better off if our rulers started thinking more along the lines of chess, and less like desperate poker-players in a Vegas casino. Foreign policy, like chess, is one long, continuous game; it is not a serious of disconnected little 'deals' with no long-term implications.
But alas, chess requires a capacity for long-term strategic thinking that seems to be in short supply in the U.S. these days. In today's Washington, the Kennans and Kissingers have given way to the Cheneys and Wolfowitzes--a development I regard as most unfortunate.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Credit Crash
The recent subprime mortgage meltdown (and related financial troubles) in the U.S. got me to thinking about the nature of a credit economy generally--and let there be no doubt: ours is definitely a credit-based economy. The average citizen has a negative savings rate, the Federal Govenment is hopelessly in debt, and our country as a whole has had an unfavorable balance of trade for decades now, even when the dollar is weak. In fact, the only reason we are able to afford all those imports is because the Chinese and other foreign nations have long been willing to use the profits they make off us to purchase U.S. savings bonds, giving our government more spending money on the one hand, while making the dollar artificially expensive on the other. Modern America seems positively premised on the idea of borrowing large sums of money indefinitely.
Economically speaking, credit acts on an economy the way a stimulant acts on the human body. This has been widely appreciated at least since the Federal Reserve Board was created in 1913 and given the effective power to adjust interest rates to stabilize the money supply. John Maynard Keynes in the 1930's advocated temporarily lowering interest rates (along with cutting taxes and increasing government spending) during a recession or depression in order to stimulate borrowing and, with it, consumer demand. But no one ever thought of this as a permanent, day-in-day-out growth strategy until the 1990's, when Alan Greenspan took over.
Abusing credit, the way we have been doing, is just like abusing speed. At first, it was a temporary pick-me-up meant to fend off recessions; but ultimately, it became the great cure-all, helping us to cruise along from one market bubble to the next. Now, as I watch Bernanke hurl more Fed money into the economy in a desperate attempt to create more 'liquidity', I can't help but get the feeling that our country is as hopelessly addicted to cheap money as it is to cheap oil.
And it looks like credit-addiction can be as nasty as any crystall-meth habit. Ever higher doses (that is, lower interest rates) seem to be yielding less and less of a bang. Why, a few years ago, rates actually nearly went to zero, yet median income stagnated and in some cases, actually declined. And despite today's low Fed discount rates and big-ticket Wall Street bailouts, we're nowhere even close to the end of the current recession. Isn't that what dope-fiends call 'tolerance': when ever greater amounts of a drug produces ever weaker highs?
Another, even more frightening effect of speed addiction is the manic, delusional and often violently paranoid mentality that descends on the user. So much of the needless belligerence of the past few years, like the invasion of Iraq, the hyping of the Iranian bomb and all the airport strip-searching going on now strike me ridiculous--if not alltogether dangerous in themselves. I now wonder if the fact that we as a nation have come unmoored from any sense of what a real economy is anymore--something based on production as well as consumption--has made it impossible to understand what our true national interests even are. Is the dominance of the Neo-Con ideology--both haughty and paranoid at once--somehow related to this surreal economic existence of ours?
Economically speaking, credit acts on an economy the way a stimulant acts on the human body. This has been widely appreciated at least since the Federal Reserve Board was created in 1913 and given the effective power to adjust interest rates to stabilize the money supply. John Maynard Keynes in the 1930's advocated temporarily lowering interest rates (along with cutting taxes and increasing government spending) during a recession or depression in order to stimulate borrowing and, with it, consumer demand. But no one ever thought of this as a permanent, day-in-day-out growth strategy until the 1990's, when Alan Greenspan took over.
Abusing credit, the way we have been doing, is just like abusing speed. At first, it was a temporary pick-me-up meant to fend off recessions; but ultimately, it became the great cure-all, helping us to cruise along from one market bubble to the next. Now, as I watch Bernanke hurl more Fed money into the economy in a desperate attempt to create more 'liquidity', I can't help but get the feeling that our country is as hopelessly addicted to cheap money as it is to cheap oil.
And it looks like credit-addiction can be as nasty as any crystall-meth habit. Ever higher doses (that is, lower interest rates) seem to be yielding less and less of a bang. Why, a few years ago, rates actually nearly went to zero, yet median income stagnated and in some cases, actually declined. And despite today's low Fed discount rates and big-ticket Wall Street bailouts, we're nowhere even close to the end of the current recession. Isn't that what dope-fiends call 'tolerance': when ever greater amounts of a drug produces ever weaker highs?
Another, even more frightening effect of speed addiction is the manic, delusional and often violently paranoid mentality that descends on the user. So much of the needless belligerence of the past few years, like the invasion of Iraq, the hyping of the Iranian bomb and all the airport strip-searching going on now strike me ridiculous--if not alltogether dangerous in themselves. I now wonder if the fact that we as a nation have come unmoored from any sense of what a real economy is anymore--something based on production as well as consumption--has made it impossible to understand what our true national interests even are. Is the dominance of the Neo-Con ideology--both haughty and paranoid at once--somehow related to this surreal economic existence of ours?
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
The Mladic Conspiracy
Last week's apprehension of Radovan Karadzic, accused of crimes against humanity in the Bosnian Civil War of the 1990's, astonished the world. This on account not only of the fact that many thought it might never happen, but also because of his radically altered appearance: the formerly clean-shaven, pompadoured 'President' of the wartime Bosnian Serb Republic was shown in the docket sporting a flowing white beard. Acccording to reports, he was given false identity papers about a decade ago by the Serbian Secret Police and was making a living as a new-age faith healer in Belgrade!
Almost immediately afterward, reports surfaced that he had been betrayed by his former comrade Ratko Mladic, the wartime commander of the Bosnian Serb Army who is still in hiding, accused of war crimes. On 24 July, the London Telegraph reported:
(I also heard a similar report on television--I believe it was CNN, in fact.)
I personally find this story doubtful, though. It doesn't make much sense, plus there's a better potential explanation for why Western intelligence agencies would wish to publicize such an account of Karadzic's capture.
First of all, how likely is it that the story about Mladic ratting on Karadzic is actually true? In order to believe this, we would have to assume at least three things:
1.) Mladic actually knew the whereabouts of Karadzic
2.) Mladic would risk capture by contacting the people hunting him, hoping for a better trial venue (namely, one inside Serbia)
3.) Mladic would be inclined to believe that handing over his wartime leader would actually secure him a guarantee against a trial at the Hague
All of these are dubious propositions.
First of all, it does not seem likely that he would have known the whereabouts of Karadzic. It is unlikely that Karadzic himself would have told him, since that would have made it possible for Mladic to betray him. And why would any Serb agency hiding Mladic have told him? It wouldn't have been necessary for him to know where Karadzic was, and it might have increased the chances of Mladic embarassing them, by either purposely or accidentally blowing Karadzic's cover. They certainly wouldn't have wanted that!
Secondly, why would Mladic have risked blowing his own cover by contacting authorities who were after him? (The article did not specify which authorities he was supposed to have contacted; I will assume it was referring to some authority other than those of the Serbian Government--the BND, perhaps?) That would be the absolute last thing a fugitive from justice would do! If he wanted to turn himself in first, then negotiate, I might be able to understand that. But send out signals to potential captors? Highly unlikely.
And thirdly, how likely is it that such a bargain would actually work? I have no doubt that Mladic would prefer a trial inside Serbia, but why would the Hague budge on this point? They've waited over 10 years for Karadzic's capture, just so that he could be tried before the Hague. They had every opportunity to approach Serbia with a compromise until now, yet it seems they never did. They could have included both Karadzic and Mladic in the deal, and that would probably have been acceptable to the Serbian government. But the chances of a partial acquittal and/or more lenient sentences would also have been greater, which is why I'm sure they never did pursue such a deal with Serbia. Why would Mladic have believed them to be amenable to such a deal, after all these years of patient (and up till now, fruitless) waiting?
No, I don't believe any of the conditions were true. The more likely motive for Western intelligence agencies to spread such a story is psy-ops: psychological operations, which is the attempt by a military or an intelligence entity to influence the beliefs of a target group in the service of a tactical goal.
Simply put, I'm sure this is an attempt to smear Mladic, tarring him as a selfish traitor, by implying that he would turn on his former superior (who is still quite popular among Serbs) in order to save himself. Those most likely to know his whereabouts, afterall, would probably be Serb nationalists themselves, who also revere Karadzic. If it is the Serb Government that is protecting him, this might also give them a bit of political cover, by helping to dampen--and perhaps deflect--the anger of the nationalists if and when the government eventually does hand Mladic over.
The psy-ops theory also answers another puzzling question: why would an intelligence service see fit to reveal such a thing to the public? If it doesn't benefit them to know, afterall, it certainly doesn't benefit us to know!
They had better hope, however, that Mladic is apprehended soon; if not, they will begin to look incompetent.
Almost immediately afterward, reports surfaced that he had been betrayed by his former comrade Ratko Mladic, the wartime commander of the Bosnian Serb Army who is still in hiding, accused of war crimes. On 24 July, the London Telegraph reported:
Mladic... allegedly passed on the information in a bargain with investigators to
delay his capture and avoid trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia at the Hague...
A source close to the German foreign intelligence service, the BND, said that Mladic has been negotiating with those hunting him over the terms of his capture, and “gave information on [on Karadzic’s whereabouts] to save himself”.
(I also heard a similar report on television--I believe it was CNN, in fact.)
I personally find this story doubtful, though. It doesn't make much sense, plus there's a better potential explanation for why Western intelligence agencies would wish to publicize such an account of Karadzic's capture.
First of all, how likely is it that the story about Mladic ratting on Karadzic is actually true? In order to believe this, we would have to assume at least three things:
1.) Mladic actually knew the whereabouts of Karadzic
2.) Mladic would risk capture by contacting the people hunting him, hoping for a better trial venue (namely, one inside Serbia)
3.) Mladic would be inclined to believe that handing over his wartime leader would actually secure him a guarantee against a trial at the Hague
All of these are dubious propositions.
First of all, it does not seem likely that he would have known the whereabouts of Karadzic. It is unlikely that Karadzic himself would have told him, since that would have made it possible for Mladic to betray him. And why would any Serb agency hiding Mladic have told him? It wouldn't have been necessary for him to know where Karadzic was, and it might have increased the chances of Mladic embarassing them, by either purposely or accidentally blowing Karadzic's cover. They certainly wouldn't have wanted that!
Secondly, why would Mladic have risked blowing his own cover by contacting authorities who were after him? (The article did not specify which authorities he was supposed to have contacted; I will assume it was referring to some authority other than those of the Serbian Government--the BND, perhaps?) That would be the absolute last thing a fugitive from justice would do! If he wanted to turn himself in first, then negotiate, I might be able to understand that. But send out signals to potential captors? Highly unlikely.
And thirdly, how likely is it that such a bargain would actually work? I have no doubt that Mladic would prefer a trial inside Serbia, but why would the Hague budge on this point? They've waited over 10 years for Karadzic's capture, just so that he could be tried before the Hague. They had every opportunity to approach Serbia with a compromise until now, yet it seems they never did. They could have included both Karadzic and Mladic in the deal, and that would probably have been acceptable to the Serbian government. But the chances of a partial acquittal and/or more lenient sentences would also have been greater, which is why I'm sure they never did pursue such a deal with Serbia. Why would Mladic have believed them to be amenable to such a deal, after all these years of patient (and up till now, fruitless) waiting?
No, I don't believe any of the conditions were true. The more likely motive for Western intelligence agencies to spread such a story is psy-ops: psychological operations, which is the attempt by a military or an intelligence entity to influence the beliefs of a target group in the service of a tactical goal.
Simply put, I'm sure this is an attempt to smear Mladic, tarring him as a selfish traitor, by implying that he would turn on his former superior (who is still quite popular among Serbs) in order to save himself. Those most likely to know his whereabouts, afterall, would probably be Serb nationalists themselves, who also revere Karadzic. If it is the Serb Government that is protecting him, this might also give them a bit of political cover, by helping to dampen--and perhaps deflect--the anger of the nationalists if and when the government eventually does hand Mladic over.
The psy-ops theory also answers another puzzling question: why would an intelligence service see fit to reveal such a thing to the public? If it doesn't benefit them to know, afterall, it certainly doesn't benefit us to know!
They had better hope, however, that Mladic is apprehended soon; if not, they will begin to look incompetent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)