Elections and the Shell-Shocked ‘Left’

Elections and the Shell-Shocked Left

The Dangerous Mizrachi Red-Herring

Currently, it looks as if it may prove harder to form the new coalition government than expected. This will provide at least some uplift to the spirits of the Center-Left which is still in a state of shock. 

The election result obviously disappointed and dismayed many – especially in the media. As a result, many have been casting about for a scape-goat. This turns out to be voters of a Mizrachi background. They are variously supposed to be too hostile to the Arabs to appreciate the finer points of genuine peace-mongering, or too poor or uneducated to understand that by voting for Bibi they were voting against their own interests. 

This reminded me of a talk I attended many years ago in the UK given by James Klugmann. James was one of the brilliant group of Cambridge communists associated with the spies Philby, Burgess and others before the Second World War. He was also a marvelous lecturer. Almost everyone who met him immediately called him James (his name was actually Norman). 

In this particular talk, his purpose was to answer the question of why the then British Prime Minister, the Labour leader Harold Wilson, was such a failure and had betrayed the working class yet again. Klugmann said he had asked this question at an earlier version of the talk and a voice in the audience had shouted, 'because he's a bastard'. Klugmann responded that while this theory certainly had its attraction, he wasn't entirely sure it satisfied as an explanation.

1 Read more

Explaining Obama's Disastrous Mishandling of Iran, the Middle East and Israel (Part 2)

04 April 2010

Explaining Obama's Disastrous Mishandling of Iran, the Middle East and Israel (Part 2)

Obama’s View of International Conflict

There are two major factors that explain President Obama’s approach and why it is going so seriously wrong (see Explaining Obama's Mishandling of Iran, the Middle East and Israel #1 ). 

The first factor is that Obama is guided by a distinctive understanding of international conflicts and their resolution. The origins of this view lay in his earlier years as a political activist which were largely spent in communal, religious and labour circles. The main issues involved were with various leftish/liberal/radical activists over causes such as poverty, racism, injustice, lack of opportunities and so on. There's nothing essentially wrong with that, of course. And in so far as he considers the blame for social ills to originate within the capitalist system and/or with US imperialism and its racism, inequalities, arrogance, this goes a long way towards explaining his radicalism and his associations in Chicago politics....

1 Read more

Explaining Obama's Disastrous Mishandling of Iran, the Middle East and Israel (Part 1)

02 April 2010

Explaining Obama's Disastrous Mishandling of Iran, the Middle East and Israel (Part 1)

The Unfolding Disaster

The key argument to be made is that President Obama has a distinctive understanding of international conflict and of the Middle East in particular. Further, the argument is that this understanding is fatally flawed. As a result, instead of being the framework for solutions to the conflicts in the region, it is in fact making the problems in the region worse (see The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership #1 ).

Although some of the gloss has worn-off, there are many who still love President Obama. His words have a wide appeal. But to love him for his words and to ignore that everything he touches in the region is going badly wrong is to be too easily satisfied. 

His policy of getting tough with Israel over settlement building and the public battering of Netanyahu by Obama, Biden and Clinton, has predictably hardened the attitude of the leaders of the PA towards returning to negotiations; they can hardly afford to look softer than the US president. At the same time, looking over their shoulders at Hamas, they are pleased at the golden opportunity to look tough. In any case, why do they need negotiations when it looks certain they can get far more by letting the US, UN and Europe impose tougher terms on Israel than they could possibly get themselves?

1 Read more

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 3

27 January 2010

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 3

Can Obama Restore US Credibility in International Affairs?

Speaking softly and charming the socks off everyone is fine. But when this strategy fails to turn wild and dangerous regimes into partners for peace and stability, what then? 

Firstly, without a big stick and the willingness to use it, friends can't rely on you. This means they are bound to make alternative arrangements - especially the weak ones and those nearer danger. Two broad alternatives are possible for them: join an alliance against the danger or strike the best deal possible with it. 

Secondly, without a big stick and the willingness to use it, enemies don't fear you. This means they gain the confidence for hostile ventures because they can succeed and escape retribution - or think they can. This means that weak leadership makes problems worse. For example ....

1 Read more

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 2

26 January 2010

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 2

Coercion, Consent and the International Power Vacuum

Shortly before becoming President of the US in 1901, Theodore Roosevelt made his famous declaration, “speak softly and carry a big stick”. This expresses an essential element of international relations.
In international relations, effective leadership is only possible when friends and enemies are confident that the leaders are able and willing to act decisively. States with dictatorial and anti-liberal values, different ambitions, aims, pressures and different means at their disposal will only fall into line when it's in their own interests to do so or they have no other viable option. This is the usual mix of consent and coercion. Between close friends, this may more politely be called being cajoled or convinced. Or between less close friends, being bullied and/or bribed.

In short, the use of soft and hard power is an absolute requirement for any functional international order - or any other order, for that matter....

1 Read more

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 1

24 January 2010

The Weakness of Obama's International Leadership Part 1

The Vacuum in International Leadership

Sadly and dangerously, the track record of Obama in international matters is terrible. It is only impressive for those who love his words but ignore the results. In short, he impresses those who don’t count. To the nasty regimes he is a buffoon.

Obama’s Abysmal Track Record

Any doubts about this should be dispelled by a quick look at just a selection of his international activities:

i) His first presidential visit overseas to Turkey was rapidly followed by Turkey making a series of very public and ostentatious demonstrations of support for enemies of the US (and Israel): Sudan, Syria, Iran and Hamas. 

ii) On his first presidential visit to Europe, Obama asked for help from the Europeans to deal with economic crisis and to raise more troops for Afghanistan. Naturally, he was listened to in a friendly and polite fashion, with great photo ops, and super sound bites etc, but his requests were politely declined....

1 Read more