Saturday, May 7, 2005

Yalta


The United States has apologized for several of its Second World War actions,
most notably the internment of Japanese-Americans. However, George Bush's
apology for the 'sellout' at Yalta is bound to rekindle debate over one of the
foundational moments of the post-war world. ABC
news reports:



Second-guessing Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Bush said Saturday the
United States played a role in Europe's painful division after World War II a
decision that helped cause "one of the greatest wrongs of history"
when the Soviet Union imposed its harsh rule across Central and Eastern
Europe. ...  "Certainly it goes further than any president has
gone," historian Alan Brinkley said from the U.S. "This has been a
very common view of the far right for many years that Yalta was a betrayal of
freedom, that Roosevelt betrayed the hopes of generations." Bush said the
Yalta agreement, also signed by Britain's Winston Churchill and the Soviet
Union's Joseph Stalin, followed in the "unjust tradition" of other
infamous war pacts that carved up the continent and left millions in
oppression. The Yalta accord gave Stalin control of the whole of Eastern
Europe, leading to criticism that Roosevelt had delivered millions of people
to communist domination. "Once again, when powerful governments
negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable," the
president said. "Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of
stability left a continent divided and unstable."



Yalta marked the moment from when Winston Churchill first openly called the
Soviet Union a menace to the Free World. With Nazi Germany clearly dying, Stalin
had replaced Hitler as the principal menace to Britain. Interestingly enough,
the United Nations was created at Yalta. It is the only one of the four major
conference decisions whose writ history has not yet rescinded or made moot. The four
decisions
were:



  • divide Germany into four ‘zones’, which Britain, France, the USA and
    the USSR would occupy after the war.

  • hold elections in the countries of eastern Europe.

  • set up a government in Poland which would contain both Communists and
    non-Communists.

  • set up the United Nations.


Roosevelt was to die shortly afterward and Churchill would be evicted from
office by Britain weary of war. Yet Stalin remained. But from his position as a
private person, Churchill had one final word of warning to utter. At a speech
in Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, Churchill said:



"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an "iron
curtain" has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the
capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin,
Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous
cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet
sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet
influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control
from Moscow."



When the Yalta conference was held, US forces were still West of the Rhine.
Roosevelt was extremely sick. Britain all but exhausted. Yet so was the Soviet
Union. And the United States was soon to be the sole possessor of the atomic
bomb. Whether it was possible to prevent Stalin from taking over Eastern
Europe without devastating it will always be an open question. In one sense, it
is always futile to apologize for history. But George Bush's apology is really
addressed toward his perception of American historical intent. He seems to be
saying 'yes my predecessor intended to carve up the world with Josef Stalin. He
had no right to deliver people into bondage and we will never do it again.' It
is a moral apology, no less futile than regrets over slavery or the
dispossession of the Indian tribes.

Friday, May 6, 2005

Back to the Future


Max Boot describes on vision of 21st century US forces: the 19th century
British Army. In Foreign
Affairs
article (hat tip: MIG), Boot argues that while Iraq has shown US
forces to be masters at blitzkrieg, they were less than adept at handling
guerilla war. To remedy that, he suggests looking to the past.



Whether or not the United States is an "empire" today, it is a
country with interests to protect and enemies to fight all over the world.
There is no finer example of how to do this cheaply and effectively than the
British Empire. In 1898, it maintained only 331,000 soldiers and sailors and
spent only 2.4 percent of its GDP on defense, considerably less than the 3.9
percent the United States spends today. This puny investment was enough to
safeguard an empire that covered 25 percent of the globe. ...



The old British Army, he says enjoyed four advantages: a technological edge
over their native opponents; an army optimized for colonial fighting; a system
of native auxiliaries; and "an unparalleled group of colonial
administrators, intelligence agents, and soldiers--many of whom would, in their
spare time, double as linguists, archaeologists, or botanists. Adventurers such
as Richard Francis Burton, Charles "Chinese" Gordon, T. E. Lawrence
("of Arabia"), and Gertrude Bell immersed themselves in local
cultures, operating to advance the empire's interests on their own, with scant
guidance from Whitehall." One way to pay for the transformation, Boot
suggests, is to abandon certain highly expensive weapons programs -- like the
F-22 -- an investing in more and better ground troops and equipment,
understanding that these ground troops will be better not merely as fighters,
but as linguists and nation builders.


The immediate objection that comes to mind is the fate of the 19th century British
Army itself. The splendid colonial force was shredded by its first encounters
with a technologically equal enemy as it went to war against the Boers at the
turn of the century, then later against the Germans in the First and Second
World Wars. The British Army could not in the end prepare itself to fight
against opposite ends of the spectrum with equal success. The close order
tactics developed in the colonial wars (for force protection) were to spell
their doom when confronted by the Mauser rifles and automatic cannon of the
Boers. The real challenge is to transform the US military in ways that will make
it effective both against terrorist tactics and a conventional threat, like
China's, where an F-22 may have some worth.

Egypt


Egyptian Special Operations have arrested four leaders of the Muslim
Brotherhood in Cairo. According to the Washington
Post
:



Abdel Moneim Mahmoud, a senior Brotherhood member, said police arrested
Essam el-Erian, one of the organization's most senior members, and three other
leaders during raids on several homes in Cairo. "They took them to police
cars waiting outside surrounded by masked members of the Egyptian special
operations forces," Mahmoud said. Police also detained more than 130
Brotherhood members in Cairo and outside the capital, said Abdel-Galil el-Sharnoubi,
editor of the group's Web site. ... Although banned since 1954, the Muslim
Brotherhood is probably Egypt's largest opposition movement and the government
tolerates some of its activities. Fifteen Brotherhood members hold seats in
parliament, having been elected as independents.



The question is why. Ha'aretz
suggests the arrests are not necessarily extraordinary: just a roundup of the
usual suspects over the occasional political difference.



The Muslim Brotherhood, established in 1928 and banned since 1954, is used
to intermittent government crackdowns. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said
in an interview with Egyptian television last month that he would not allow
any religious group to become a political party but added that he would not
object to Muslim Brotherhood members joining political parties.



But News24
and the BBC are more specific: they suggest that Mubarak is eliminating any
roadblocks to an uncontested Presidential election. 



The banned Muslim Brotherhood has been in open confrontation with Egyptian
authorities for the first time in 24 years with its wave of protests demanding
an end to President Hosni Mubarak's "dictatorship". ... Under
growing domestic and international pressure, the 77-year-old Mubarak agreed
last February to amend the constitution to allow multi-candidate elections for
the first time in Egypt's history. The amendment is to be discussed in a
parliament plenary session on May 10, but Mubarak has yet to announce whether
he will run for a fifth six-year term in presidential elections in September.
Under the proposed changes, a candidate would need the support of 10% of
lawmakers and other members of regional and local councils, all bodies which
are dominated by Mubarak's National Democratic Party (NDP). "The Muslim
Brotherhood is using foreign pressure on the Egyptian regime to improve its
own political and legal standing," said political analyst Nabil Abdel
Fattah.



The BBC
reports that it will be hard for the Muslim Brotherhood, or any other opposition
party, to get the 10% support to field a candidate to run against Mubarak,
though perhaps the Egyptian leader is not taking any chances.



Under the planned law an independent candidate would need to be endorsed by
65 of the 444 members of parliament. Correspondents say an independent is
unlikely to get such backing as the ruling party has an overwhelming majority
in parliament. Independents - including supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood -
make up the most vigorous opposition in Egypt, but number fewer than the 65
needed to endorse an independent candidate.



But at any rate, the opposition may see this as their chance to unseat
Mubarak. If so, the Muslim Brotherhood is ironically banking on the US-driven
"Arab Spring" to obtain its share of power. Fouad Adjami in his recent
Foreign Affairs article, The Autumn of the Autocrats
argues that in general, the Arab dictators can no longer hold the line. (Hat
tip: DL) The powerlessness of the Middle Eastern President's Club was ironically
established first in Iraq and then Lebanon, when no one rode to Saddam's rescue
or to Assad's. Who then will ride to Mubarak's?



Cairo will not intercede on behalf of Damascus. If the Egyptians attempt
it, their intervention will come without conviction. U.S. policy owes no
deference to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. If anything, the Bush
administration's new emphasis on reform and liberty only highlights the
inadequacy of Mubarak's own regime. ...


But suddenly it seems like the autumn of the dictators. Something different
has been injected into this fight. The United States -- a great foreign power
that once upheld the Arab autocrats, fearing what mass politics would bring --
now braves the storm. It has signaled its willingness to gamble on the young,
the new, and the unknown. Autocracy was once deemed tolerable, but terrorists,
nurtured in the shadow of such rule, attacked the United States on September
11, 2001. Now the Arabs, grasping for a new world, and the Americans, who have
helped usher in this unprecedented moment, together ride this storm wave of
freedom.



The price of reaching for the prize of liberating the Middle East is the
acceptance of the attendant dangers. That does not mean the goal is not worth
striving for, only that in advancing, the sword and shield must be held at
guard. The American wave that swept Saddam from power will logically shake the
foundations in Cairo and Riyadh. In more ways than one, Iraq was a surprisingly
decisive campaign; though what the decision will be, history has yet to reveal.

Friday, March 11, 2005

by Susan Herzog, Information Literacy Librarian @ Eastern Connecticut State UniversityLast update: January 2007Due to time constraints and the explosion of articles about blogs, this blog will no longer be updated.Part 2: Articles & Interviews About BlogsPart 3: BlogBib: Blogging @Your LibraryPart 4: BlogBib: Blogging ToolsPart 5: BlogBib: Select Librarian/Library BlogsPart 6: BlogBib: Books on