Why tear up the past?

https://images.app.goo.gl/FiFcHrXXYQbssj3D6

A destroyed statue of Ulysses S. Grant, why?

We’re in the midst of a rapidly changing reaction to perceived and actual police violence against unarmed black males which has gone beyond its original purposes to protest against that violence.  It has morphed into protest against many features from our past that were connected in one way or another to the issues of slavery and race in our history and present.

All dramatically changing  movements will include excesses, an example from the 1960s includes: https://sites.google.com/a/lakewoodcityschools.org/womensrights_1960/home/women-s-protests

Freedom trash cans were places set up by some women to dispense of women’s garments and included bra burnings.  In 1968, radicalized women protested the Miss America pageant as exploitive of women.  Some of us remember those days.  Those protests didn’t last long, but the fact that they took place illustrates the point made in this blog.

Now, we have statues, monuments, and place names associated with the Confederacy and/or racism being torn down or changed.  This has gone too far, in this author’s view.

Why was a statue of Grant torn down?  Allegedly because his wife’s family owned slaves.  The folks who did this displayed their ignorance of what Ulysses S. Grant did as commander of all the Union Armies to destroy slavery.  Later as President, he helped push for the 14th and 15th Amendments to protect the rights of African Americans.  He also used federal power to break the KKK.  He did what he could.

The alleged defacing of the Lincoln Memorial is a hoax.  See: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/statue-in-lincoln-memorial-was-not-defaced-by-protesters/

Why tear down or deface statues and monuments of Confederate leaders?  Because the great majority of them were put up usually by white women’s organizations who raised the funds and then got permission from public authorities to put them in public squares to help enforce white supremacy in the 1880s into the 1920s and again in the 1950s.  They were not put up primarily to honor those leaders.  General Lee, for example, specifically opposed any statues or monuments to supposedly honor him.  His explicit wishes were later ignored.  That was dishonorable.

Here, we MUST draw a distinction between those statues and monuments as opposed to those put up on Civil War battlefields to honor the men who fought there.  Surely, we can make that clear. Those put up much later should be moved to museums or at least used as teaching devices where they are; or, perhaps moved to Civil War battlefields to join those already there.  They ought not be destroyed as they ARE part of our history that should be remembered.   My long experience in college teaching has been that few of my students were aware of when and why and by who these statues were created. What do you think?

Well, what about President Woodrow Wilson?  Here, it gets complicated.  He segregated the U.S. Government and had the White House host a showing of D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation which was designed to show that the KKK redeemed the South and with it the nation from radical reconstruction and blacks.  It is a false narrative (though an innovative film in its techniques), but Wilson believed it and said so.  There is no question that he was a racist. His legacy has been seriously debated at Princeton more than once before the current discussion.

And, yet, he was a Progressive Reformer.  He eventually pushed for women’s suffrage though only under pressure to do so.  See the film Iron Jawed Angels but with serious caution: https://teachinghistory.org/nhec-blog/25483.  But, he helped get it done. 

His lasting legacy is hard to quantify but it has been immense.  Please consult: https://millercenter.org/president/wilson/impact-and-legacy.  Also:   https://www.biography.com/us-president/woodrow-wilson.

Do we toss him into the dustbin of history and change key parts of Princeton named after him?  Try this from Princeton’s current President: https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/06/27/president-eisgrubers-message-community-removal-woodrow-wilson-name-public-policy.

This author issues a qualified dissent.  If you look at his academic career, it was stellar and had a lasting positive impact on Princeton.  Overall, after his stay at Princeton, his legacy is without question of great significance.  So, which is more important?  His impact on Princeton?  His overall legacy?  His racism?  The changes made to remove his name at Princeton strike this author as a bit of an overreaction, but what do you think? Teach about his legacy.

I’ll end with a food for thought from our experience in Presov, Slovakia.  Suzanne, my wife, and I were teaching at Presov University in 1996-7 while on leave from Black Hawk College in Moline.  Of course, we noticed the hammer and sickle memorial in the town center.  What was that Soviet emblem there to represent? 

It turns out that after Communism fell and the Soviet tanks left there was a serious discussion on whether or not to tear it down.  The decision was to leave it as is because it was part of their history since the Red Army had liberated Presov from the Nazis, at great cost in lives at Dukla Pass  https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/tank-battle-dukla-museum-at-svidnik.html. 

Yes, Soviet communism was awful, but that emblem needed to be taught about, and it has been.

Suzanne and I think that’s a good role model.

STATUS OF SEVERAL OF TRUMP’S FOREIGN POLICIES

STATUS OF TRUMP’S MAIN FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVES

NAFTA REVISED TO THE USMCA—accomplished with bipartisan support, without Speaker Pelosi it would not have passed.  Was NAFTA completely revised?  No, it didn’t need to be, but it did need to be updated. Its main goal was to integrate Mexico into the highly developed world of the U.S. and Canada.  It did that. Mexico went from an underdeveloped nation to one of the top twenty in the world, currently ranking 15th and that is the main reason why few illegals come from there to the U.S. Here’s a reasonable analysis of NAFTA’s pros and cons: https://www.thebalance.com/nafta-pros-and-cons-3970481

Another analysis comes from: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/nafta-and-usmca-weighing-impact-north-american-trade.

And, finally, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/business/economy/usmca-deal.html

Trump can claim ½ credit for USMCA and Pelosi the other ½.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS—accurate figures are not easy to come by since most who are illegal don’t want to be known, still try this: https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-are-in-the-united-states-and-who-are-they/

It is important to note the main source of illegals since 2010 has not been from those coming into the U.S. illegally, it has been those who have overstayed their visa requirements.  Suzanne, my wife and I, know how this works. Trump’s wall and its supporters either are unaware of this or choose to ignore it. I’m not going to touch the issues related to the wall except to say there was no serious security threat that required it.  It is significant that when the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress they did not fund it.

For Trump’s promises and the realities they face try this: https://www.brookings.edu/research/hitting-the-wall-on-immigration-campaign-promises-clash-with-policy-realities/  Most of the land on the TX side of the border is privately owned and Texans are very loath to accept eminent domain. https://www.revealnews.org/article/this-land-is-our-land-many-property-owners-wont-sell-for-trumps-wall/

Trump has had part of his wall built, however.  On the other hand, he has made it much more difficult for asylum seekers to get here.

NORTH KOREA—While Trump’s efforts gained much publicity, little of substance has transpired as a result: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/11/north-korea-decries-stunted-us-ties-after-historic-summit.  It appears his efforts granted legitimacy to the North Korean dictator with nothing to gain from it except photo ops.  It has not stopped North Korea from testing its weapons. It does not appear that Trump’s objectives have been met.

CHINA—Again, a great deal of publicity but not that much of substance has been accomplished.  The Chinese Communist Party was formed with a goal of never again agreeing to “unequal” treaties and Trump’s efforts appear to have convinced China that that is what he has in mind.

America First clashes with Chinese First.  https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45899310.  Some progress was made: https://www.china-briefing.com/news/the-us-china-trade-war-a-timeline/.  But: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/economy/us-china-trade-war-resume-coronavirus-intl-hnk/index.html

Another look: https://www.ft.com/content/6124beb8-5724-11ea-abe5-8e03987b7b20

Trump has shifted to re-election mode and believes it is advantageous to attack China’s reputation.   That is not going over well in China.  He seems to believe the U.S. alone can bring China to heel, but that won’t happen.  Again, he has no international support for his efforts.  The first phase deal is but a start, yet it is a start.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative is breathtaking in its reach, and its implications.  Suzanne and I have been on the Old Silk Road and got some of the implications of this vast new initiative.  https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative

TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership)—The TPP was designed originally in large part to deal effectively with China, but Trump withdrew from it arguably because it was negotiated by Obama and not whether or not it was a good idea.  https://asiasociety.org/video/tpp-current-state-trans-pacific-partnership.  By withdrawing, now Americans must pay TPP tariffs.  That has been mitigated some by a new trade deal between Japan and the U.S. The TPP is working well for those in it. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11120#:~:text=On%20October%207%2C%202019%2C%20after,expansions%20to%20improve%20market%20access.

Trump’s withdrawal has not aided American interests.

The E.U.—For all the emphasis on China, this is the main economic relationship for the U.S.  See: https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/united-states/

The E.U. offered to work with the U.S. to deal with China but were rejected by Trump.  So, the E.U. negotiated its own strategic deal with China: http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/china/docs/eu-china_2020_strategic_agenda_en.pdf

The E.U. also offered to work with the U.S. to improve the Iran deal, but Trump also rejected that offer and despite the serious efforts of Macron and Merkel, Trump withdrew from the Iran deal.

Trump’s relations with the E.U. has not been helped by his praise for Hungary’s dictator Orban: https://balkaninsight.com/2019/08/05/why-trumps-role-model-is-hungarys-viktor-orban/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/13/donald-trump-says-hungary-prime-minister-viktor-orban-doing-tremendous-job/1190060001/

This fits with a pattern of Trump’s praise for dictators such as for China’s Xi, Russia’s Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jung-un, the Philippines Duterte, Egypt’s el Sissi, Turkey’s Erdogan (a phone call with Erdogan led to a precipitous withdrawal of US troops that stood between Turkish and Kurdish forces leading to a bloodletting on the Kurdish side); and the long dead Mussolini—see Madeline Albright’s book Fascism..  He has been publicly proud of their praise of him.  By the same token, he has been known for criticizing democratically elected leaders such as Macron, Merkel, Trudeau, and others.  According to Carl Bernstein’s sources, he has been especially obnoxious personally to former PM May and Chancellor Merkel.

His relations with the EU have not improved.

WITHDRAWING FROM THE IRAN DEAL: This simply has not worked out as Trump had imagined it would.  He has had no support from any of the other signatories of this deal for his withdrawal and its consequences.  https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-status-iran-nuclear-agreement

Trump complained the deal did not include provisions to halt Iran’s development of ICBMs, but neither Russia nor China were supportive of such provisions.  Russia had already sold its state-of- the-art antimissile system to Iran and China is Iran’s main weapons supplier.  He also complained the deal did not touch Iran’s penchant for proxy wars.  True, but the signatories could not agree on doing that.  Why not? Iran’s support for Assad’s regime suited Russia’s efforts to keep him in power.  In actuality, Iran’s commitment to proxy wars has increased since U.S. withdrawal from the deal.  Pompeo’s 12 demands of Iran are perceived by Iran to mean forced regime change and that just isn’t going to happen.  Even if it did, the U.S. might eliminate the mullahs, but the power would then go to the Iranian Rev Guards and all would suffer from that.  Iran’s domestic critics are not united and lack a common agenda. 

At any rate, Iran has a host of internal problems that existed before Trump and have only gotten worse.  Iran was not a good candidate for investments and trade.  Iran is not an existential threat to the U.S. or Israel.  The main threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons would be its Sunni rivals would then want theirs. 

Having unilaterally withdrawn from the Deal; and applying severe sanctions on Iran have not achieved Trump’s objectives and don’t seem to be likely to in the future.

OVERTHROWING THE MADURO REGIME.  No doubt about it, the Maduro dictatorship is wretched, but Trump’s efforts have not been nor are they likely to be successful.  Why not?  Support for the regime by Russia, China, Iran and Cuba.  Trump’s recognition of Juan Guaido as the actual President of Venezuela have not been successful.  Juan has been unable to gain the internal support of enough potent interest groups to carry out his potential presidency.  Nor, is he likely to do that.  The good news is that Trump has wisely avoided military intervention.

NATO—Trump has consistently complained about the relative lack of European countries as members of NATO.  He has a point there, but they agreed already in 2014 for all to meet the 2% of GNP spending each should supply by 2024 as a result of Putin’s acquisition of the Crimea.  He tried to get them to increase their giving but got in return only a recommitment to their existing agreement.  Further, see: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-03-20/nato-thriving-spite-trump.

Recently, he, unilaterally without consulting NATO, began the process of withdrawing 9,500 troops from Germany.  This naturally reinforces doubts about his commitment to NATO.  And, there are good reasons for those doubts: https://qz.com/1585911/does-the-us-need-nato/

This fits a pattern of Trump just not liking international treaties and organizations that the U.S. has been the main party within them.   He appears to want only bilateral agreements where possible.  That would undermine the post WWII world the U.S. created.  He has withdrawn from a significant number of international agreements already.  He has significantly frayed our relations with NATO.

Overall, there is a mixture of plusses and minuses in his initiatives.

A Bay of Piglets? Americans attempted to overthrow Maduro in Venezuela

It is still hard to believe such a half assed attempt was made to overthrow Venezuela’s awful, wretched government. But, one was made not long ago.

It has been compared, naturally, with the ill fated Bay of Pigs operation. But, I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. The Bay of Pigs operation was designed under Ike and carried out by CIA backing under JFK. It had over 1,400 Cuban exiles accompanied by a handful of American agents with the purpose of overthrowing Castro’s regime. It had dreadful consequences for those involved and later.
But, this recent effort had nowhere near that kind of numbers and support from the U.S. It did have the signed backing of Juan Guaido, who has had Trump’s support as the legitimate head of state of Venezuela. Trump’s backing has not worked for multiple reasons.

What we can say is that it is unlikely that the Trump administration agreed to this effort. However, the Trump administration created the kind of atmosphere that encouraged it to carry out “Operation Gideon” which maybe had around 60 armed supporters (maybe as many as 300 depending on who you read). Maybe the Trump administration knew something about it and did nothing to stop it.

But, it miserably failed. Dictator Maduro, who reportedly gets instructions in part from his very dead predecessor and from the long ago dead Simon Bolivar—there has been a Bolivar Cult there, had infiltrated it, knew about it, and his admin easily put it down. It was more farce than a serious effort to get rid of Maduro.

But, even if this had had U.S. support, it was unlikely to have succeeded contrary to Pompeo’s claims. Why? Maduro has support from Cuba (whose secret police has trained his and have a significant presence in Venezuela), Russia, Iran, and China. Those are formidable obstacles to an overthrow being successful. Their support has been perhaps decisive in helping Maduro’s Venezuela with dealing with Covid. They have advisors present in multiple capacities.

An American invasion, as threatened by Trump, could kill some of those advisors. That could lead to direct conflicts we do not want or need. Iran has been sending oil tankers to help Maduro out as well as a way to get around the Trump administration sanctions on the Maduro regime. Indeed, Iran and Venezuela have developed a strategic partnership.

With all of this there is a long history of American interventions in Latin America that have harmed our relations. Against this background, this latest attempt bears resemblance to the “filibustering” expeditions pre-Civil War in Central America and the Caribbean. As a reminder for the readers, these were private military attempts to subvert and hopefully rule a Central American nation without U.S. government support.

Narcisso Lopez, starting in 1849, led three efforts to boot the Spanish out of Cuba. None worked; the Spanish captured the perps in the last one and had them executed. This all led to the Ostend Manifesto as a circular written effort by American diplomats in Europe to encourage the U.S. government to buy Cuba and if that didn’t work perhaps to take it. That died still born.

The most successful, for a time, was William Walker’s efforts to take and rule Nicaragua. He succeeded and his rule was recognized officially by President William Pierce in 1856. His rule ran afoul of Cornelius Vanderbilt who had his rule destroyed. Walker tried two more times and on the coast of Honduras the Brits captured him and executed him by firing squad.

The Civil War brought an end to these escapades. But, this latest effort in Venezuela reminds me of them. All in all, this history has not led to a good U.S. reputation in Latin America.

What now? Maduro’s regime is in serious trouble. Mismanagement, corruption including collusion with the drug cartels, have all led Russia to reconsider its support. If Russia backs out, his regime becomes vulnerable. But, does the opposition have “the right stuff” to take advantage of these issues and lead to a successful domestic (U.S. aided) coup? Maybe, but they didn’t do well at it before and there’s no guarantee they will.

An American “invasion” would be unwise to say the least. It would almost certainly lead many who don’t like the regime at all, to resist the American led invasion. It is unlikely to get Congressional and American public approval. Better to bet on a domestic takeover. It might succeed, but don’t count on it. A Bay of Piglets was not the way to get it done. What would you recommend?

Bay of Piglets? Americans attempt to overthrow Maduro in Venezuela

It is still hard to believe such a half assed attempt was made to overthrow Venezuela’s awful, wretched government.  But, one was made not long ago.

It has been compared, naturally, with the ill fated Bay of Pigs operation.  But, I don’t think that’s a fair comparison.  The Bay of Pigs operation was designed under Ike and carried out by CIA backing under JFK.  It had over 1,400 Cuban exiles accompanied by a handful of American agents with the purpose of overthrowing Castro’s regime.  It had dreadful consequences for those involved and later.

But, this recent effort had nowhere near that kind of numbers and support from the U.S. It did have the signed backing of Juan Guaido, who has had Trump’s support as the legitimate head of state of Venezuela.  Trump’s backing has not worked for multiple reasons. 

What we can say is that it is unlikely that the Trump administration agreed to this effort.  However, the Trump administration created the kind of atmosphere that encouraged it to carry out “Operation Gideon” which maybe had around 60 armed supporters.  Maybe the Trump administration knew something about it and did nothing to stop it.

But, it miserably failed.  Dictator Maduro, who reportedly gets instructions in part from his very dead predecessor and from the long ago dead Simon Bolivar—there has been a Bolivar Cult there, had infiltrated it, knew about it, and his admin easily put it down. It was more farce than a serious effort to get rid of Maduro.

But, even if this had had U.S. support, it was unlikely to have succeeded contrary to Pompeo’s claims.  Why?  Maduro has support from Cuba (whose secret police has trained his and have a significant presence in Venezuela), Russia, Iran, and China.  Those are formidable obstacles to an overthrow being successful. Their support has been perhaps decisive in helping Maduro’s Venezuela with dealing with Covid.  They have advisors present in multiple capacities.

An American invasion, as threatened by Trump, could kill some of those advisors.  That could lead to direct conflicts we do not want or need.  Iran has been sending oil tankers to help Maduro out as well as a way to get around the Trump administration sanctions on the Maduro regime.  Indeed, Iran and Venezuela have developed a strategic partnership.

With all of this there is a long history of American interventions in Latin America that have harmed our relations.   Against this background, this latest attempt bears resemblance to the “filibustering” expeditions pre-Civil War in Central America and the Caribbean.  As a reminder for the readers, these were private military attempts to subvert and hopefully rule a Central American nation without U.S. government support.

Narcisso Lopez, starting in 1849, led three efforts to boot the Spanish out of Cuba.  None worked; the Spanish captured the perps in the last one and had them executed.   This all led to the Ostend Manifesto as a circular written effort by American diplomats in Europe to encourage the U.S. government to buy Cuba and if that didn’t work perhaps to take it.  That died still born.

The most successful, for a time, was William Walker’s efforts to take and rule Nicaragua. He succeeded and his rule was recognized officially by President William Pierce in 1856.  His rule ran afoul of Cornelius Vanderbilt who had his rule destroyed.  Walker tried two more times and on the coast of Honduras the Brits captured him and executed him by firing squad. 

The Civil War brought an end to these escapades. But, this latest effort in Venezuela reminds me of them.  All in all, this history has not led to a good U.S. reputation in Latin America. 

What now?  Maduro’s regime is in serious trouble.   Mismanagement, corruption including collusion with the drug cartels, have all led Russia to reconsider its support.  If Russia backs out, his regime becomes vulnerable.  But, does the opposition have “the right stuff” to take advantage of these issues and lead to a successful domestic (U.S. aided) coup?  Maybe, but they didn’t do well at it before and there’s no guarantee they will. 

An American “invasion” would be unwise to say the least.  It would almost certainly lead many who don’t like the regime at all, to resist the American led invasion.  It is unlikely to get Congressional and American public approval.  Better to bet on a domestic takeover.  It might succeed, but don’t count on it.   A Bay of Piglets was not the way to get it done.  What would you recommend?

Black America in Peril

The most recent issue of The Economist on p. 25 carried the headline Black America in peril.  The article begins with a quote from Dr. W.E.B. Dubois in 1899: “The most difficult social problem in the matter of Negro health…” was why were so few whites bothered by that problem.  He carried out a pioneering sociological study of “Negro health” in Philadelphia.  His research indicated that: “The Philadelphia Negro” lived and suffered in the worst sections of the city with abominable health care.

Regarding the police murder recently in Minneapolis by a white officer against a black unarmed citizen, one really should see if the issues Dubois identified are still in essence true?  The answers point to YES they are.  Take a look at D.C., for example.  In the two poorest black wards the black residents have little access to decent food and health care.  Thus, it should not be surprising that the group most impacted by Covid-19 are blacks.  If they contract the virus, they are 2.4 times more likely to die from it than whites.  Covid-19 was bound to especially harm those in tightly compacted neighborhoods with high poverty rates coupled with obesity and diabetes issues.

President Obama made a serious effort via the ACA to address these issues by extending Medicaid.  The 20 million Americans who received health care thanks to that act were most likely blacks or Latinos.  As The Economist pointed out, this helps explain why the opposition to the ACA came primarily from whites especially connected with the GOP.  This conclusion was reached earlier by Dr. Kevin Fiscella in The American Journal of Medicine in August, 2015: “In summary, opposition to ACA is largely by white Americans. This opposition seems to be associated with increasing political polarization surrounding the Obama presidency, perceived self-interest, and racial attitudes.”  It is noteworthy that President Trump has been shrinking the act’s reach through technical changes.

If you add to the Covid-19 results the unemployment rate, due to the various shutdowns, is twice as high among blacks as it is for whites then you are in a better position to understand why there are so many protests and with that riots.  Further, there is likely to be a rental crisis regarding payments for those who have lost their jobs or are on layoff.  That is especially likely to hit blacks.  In Minneapolis, black home ownership was much less than white home ownership. 

Finally, we come to perceptions of police relationships with blacks and whites.  The gap is large between blacks and whites.  Close to 81% of blacks believe that police are far more likely to use deadly force against them than 61% of Hispanics and 33% of whites.  Research shows that DWB (driving while black) IS a reality.  Many blacks are certain they are more likely to be followed in upscale stores than whites.

Perhaps the most significant current disconnect is the gap between who certain elected politicians blame for the riots and those who actually did cause them.  The politicians are quick to blame “outside agitators” (sound familiar to those involved in the Civil Rights movement?) such as Antifa on the left; or, right wing white hate groups.  In fact, the evidence suggests that the majority of the perpetrators are local, not from outside.  The CBC news team reported that the majority of those arrested, for example, in Minneapolis, came from that region.  They have also reported that it appears that too many PDs have not learned the lessons from Ferguson, MO. 

In short, we live in a racially divided society and have done so for a long time.  Dr. King’s Dream has yet to be fulfilled.  So, what will you do about that?

Forced Uighur Assimilation: Deja Vu?

OK, reader, let’s assume that you were forcibly taken from your family and home to a residential school by age 6. There, you would not be able to speak your native language or practice your native religion. You couldn’t wear your traditional clothing and would be thoroughly regimented. You would not be able to leave the school voluntarily. What actually took place in your new residence and school would be mostly kept from public view. The public would be told that you are being well taken care of and are learning useful vocational skills. You are not allowed to complain about what happens to you. The government is finding ways to settle people on the lands so long used by your families.

You are at a “reeducation” camp. You are being forced to assimilate; or, to put it another way, forced to participate in the genocide of your culture.

So, who are you and where are you?

Your choices are: (1) boarding schools for Native Americans; or, (2) boarding schools for Uighurs currently living in Xinjiang Province in China.

Actually, you could be at either one. Maybe that helps explain why there isn’t that much outrage over what is happening to the Uighurs in China? Whenever the U.S. complains, which it seldom does, about what China is doing to its Uighurs, the Chinese government will bring up what the U.S. did with its Native Americans. V.P. Pence and Sec. of State Pompeo have condemned Chinese policies towards the Uighurs. But, has President Trump applied sanctions on China for these policies?

No. He has several times expressed praise for China’s strongman Xi Jinping without expressing reservations about Xi’s human rights abuses which have become worse over time.

The Chinese will cite that there have been terrorist activities carried out by Uighurs. And, there have been as part of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a group that uses violence to set up an independent East Turkistan. That movement is considered by the U.N. Security Council and by the U.S. government, post 9/11, as a terrorist organization. One could argue that the U.S. and the U.N. have provided the Chinese government with a rationale for their above described policy though, in fact, there have been but a few Uighurs who have conducted terrorist attacks.

Well, how about the “hostiles” among our Native Americans who resisted, by force, being placed on reservations on land that no white man wanted?

Are there significant differences between the two choices noted above? Yes, (1) the Chinese have implanted a thorough going surveillance system to track residents wherever they go using facial recognition cameras and DNA samples tied to a database. But, those kinds of technology were unknown in the later 19th century in the U.S. (2) The Native Americans were NOT U.S. citizens whereas the Uighurs are Chinese citizens. But, does Chinese citizenship entitle the Uighurs to anything like our Bill of Rights? Only in theory. (3) the Uighurs are Muslims while the Native Americans had their own religions. (4) The ETIM is tied to terrorist groups outside of China including the Taliban and Al Qaeda whereas the Native Americans had no such support.

Given our own history with Native Americans and more recently with those detained near our border, what should President Trump do about the human rights abuses carried out against the Uighurs?

from thoughtco.com

China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Far More Than the Old Silk Road

Suzanne, my wife, and I have been on the old silk road in Kazakhstan.  If there is a “middle of nowhere” this had to be it!  The photo below is a caravansary which was a welcome place to stay on the way to and from China to the Middle East on the old silk road.  Its origins dated to the second century BCE and was an important trade route until the end of the 14th century.  While it was known for the transport of silk, it had other purposes as well.

As important and exotic it may have been, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is much more sweeping in its purposes and connections.  As the map here shows, its Belts (actually the roads) and the Roads (actually the sea routes) connect multiple cultures and nations, 71 by recent count.  It encompasses over half of the world’s population and a quarter of the global BDP.  It meets China’s needs for markets to its excess capacity while open for trade from many nations.  China has already invested $210 billion in it, chiefly construction of infrastructure and will amount to at least $340 billion for those purposes.

Art and Suzanne Pitz on a Caravansari on the Old Silk Road

It has proved controversial since a number of the impacted nations now owe half of their foreign debt to China.  The list includes Djibouti, Kyrgystan, Laos, the Maldives, Mongolia, Montenegro, Pakistan, and Tajikistan.  This “debt trap diplomacy” understandably worries many about Chinese economic imperialism.  In response, China has forgiven substantial amounts of that debt perhaps to curry favor.  There have also been concerns that the belts for trade could also be belts for the Chinese military though China has yet to exhibit much interest in doing so outside of developing a port/base at Djibouti.

So, what is China up to?  Much of it is Xi’s vision for China. He has been heavily influenced by studies of the rise and fall of the Qing Dynasty.  Its crises came to a bloody height in the 1860s rather like the U.S. has been so influenced by its own Civil War.   That era included a series of “unequal” treaties begun with Great Britain’s successful efforts to force China to accept the importation of opium.  China had a huge army and a decent sized navy with cannon, but the British cannon outranged the Chinese.

Gunboat diplomacy worked and China paid the price.  Xi is not about to have China give in to any more unequal treaties.  Instead, his vision for China’s return to greatness is hinged on the Belt and Road Initiative.  It is more than about hard infrastructure.  It includes China setting up international courts to resolve commercial disputes relating to this Initiative based on models established by Dubai and Singapore that have been accepted.  Will those courts indeed be independent of Beijing?

As an example of its importance, the map makes clear that Iran is essential for the initiative’s success.  Hence, China has become Iran’s main weapons provider and co-conspirator in finding ways to evade Trump’s sanctions on Iran.  It does not appear that President Trump is sufficiently aware of Xi’s motivations and goals.  How should the U.S. deal with this Initiative in your view?

South China Sea: Overlapping Claims

Take a look at the map of the overlapping claims in the South China Sea.  Why should we pay attention?

from southchinasea.org

For one, close to 30% of all of the world’s trade goes through it.  Most are aware of the importance of the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, Gibraltar, and the Strait of Hormuz; however, not so many know about the strategic location of the Strait of Malacca which helps make Singapore a wealthy city state.

Secondly, it is the second most important choke point for the transport of oil, the first being the Strait of Hormuz; yet, it is first for two thirds of internationally traded LNG (liquified natural gas).  This Strait is VITAL for Japan, Korea, AND China as so much of their energy comes via that route.  It is the shortest sea route between Persian Gulf suppliers and key Asian markets. China has astoundingly built islands from scratch from the ocean floor with facilities such as air fields and port facilities potentially to control the sea routes.

Third, the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that the South China Sea holds about 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 11 billion barrels of oil in proved and probable reserves, most of which lie along the margins of the South China Sea rather than under disputed islets and reefs.  See the map provided to see the locations of the artificially made Paracel Islands and the Spratley Islands. An old principle of real estate ownership applies here: location, location, location. How does their location impact the region’s trade?

All of this highlights how important it is to have dominant sea power located there, thanks to the dictums set down by Alfred T. Mahan so many years ago. Thus far, that sea power is in the hands of the U.S. Navy though China is enhancing their’s with the apparent goal of surpassing the U.S. Navy in that region. China is not yet committed to building a world wide high seas navy, only to have a navy to protect their interests in the South China Sea and Djibouti in the Middle East.

Artificial Islands in the South China Sea (from Wikipedia)

Actually, as the second map discloses, some claims have been solved.  It is the rest that are problematic. In 2016, a South China Sea arbitration tribunal of the Hague attempted to resolve China’s claims to resources and ruled that their claims were incompatible with the UN Convention on the Sea’s ruling of that region’s high seas open to all.    China has yet to accept the results. How that is to be resolved is still unclear.

Finally, the Strait of Malacca IS essential for China’s Belt and Road Initiative to be carried out.  Will China attempt to control it?  And, if so, what can be done about that?  China may intend to control the South China Sea; but, the Strait of Malacca is probably out of its reach for some time.  At the very least, we can expect growing tensions within the South China Sea between the various nations, especially China, laying claim to substantial portions of it. 

It is a potential flash point. What do you think can be done about their claims?

China: Quo Vadis?

Our relations with China have become increasingly complicated since Xi has acquired more power. He has instituted more of a regulatory state, BUT there has also been a significant growth in entrepreneurship. Their small businesses on the whole are doing better than what ours have experienced in the Covid-19 crisis. It is a countervailing power to Xi’s power acquisition. There is an inbuilt tension between the two.


Trump’s main interest has been in trade but that distracts from much larger trends at work. His efforts to blame China for the covid-19 breakout are unlikely to bear fruit. And, even if those efforts proved China was somehow responsible for causing the breakout were successful, the U.S. option are limited.


Xi and his ruling party are highly influenced by their perceptions of the Qing’s dynasties serious problems that led to humiliation from the U.K. Americans tend to see free trade as a positive good. China’s leadership sees free trade as hypocritically advantageous for the U.S. We think of religious freedom as a main source for stability, but the PRC sees Christianity and Islam as destabilizing. Thus, their regime suppresses both. Hong Kong appears to Americans as an economic success story, but China is reminded of British imperialism. China sees Trump’s America First as but a new version of that.


Here are several areas where China is unlikely to relent: (1) China has made an irrevocable commitment to state controlled capitalism while allowing for individual entrepreneurship. (2) China is not wedded to a coherent, universal ideology. The Communist Party of China is no longer Communist, but the Party is committed to one party rule albeit with allowance for elections at the local levels. (3) China does not have nor is it likely to have an independent judiciary let alone a free press. (4) China is not going to quit exporting technology. (5) China is not likely to give up on requiring those who build plants in China to share their technology secrets with China. (6) China’s BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) is inextricably linked to their future though their ruling party sees that their implementation has evoked resistance and must be modified. China seeks to restore its greatness at the center of the world.


Perhaps most important of all, China’s long history and deeply imbedded extended village relationships have favored the collective over the individual. China has no experience with western style democracy in its own governance nor is it likely to. The issue really has been more how authoritarian will its government be. It has learned from the horrid excesses imposed by Mao that Xi is just not going to be a mass murderer. Strong centralized control, yes, but murderous on a large scale, no. Concentration camps for the Muslims in its West, yes, but mass murder no.


China has been remarkably stable since Deng’s reforms of 40 years ago, the longest period of stability in China’s modern life. The model he put in place has stood the test of time, but it will not lead to democracy any time soon. Those who want to see China today as simply a warmed-over version of Mao’s totalitarian, murderous regime are mistaken.


But, China has inbuilt issues that will be hard for it to resolve and continue to grow economically. It is aging especially thanks to the long-term deleterious effects of its previous one child policy. Its exam system to enter the best colleges is so strict and jobs so insufficient for those who pass them that it has yet to resolve this disconnect. Its BRI has engendered legitimate complaints of being too overbearing in imposing debts upon its recipients. For this initiative to achieve a genuine win/win status, China must adapt. The U.S. by itself is unable to take much advantage of these issues.

HISTORIC PRECEDENTS FOR BANNING CHURCH SERVICES IN A PANDEMIC

During the 1918-1919 “Spanish flu” pandemic, neither the federal government or the states took any action and were not expected to so any closings were left to local municipalities. So, here are several examples of actions taken by local municipalities followed by a general conclusion.


https://www.9marks.org/article/how-dc-churches-responded-when-the-government-banned-public-gatherings-during-the-spanish-flu-of-1918/ At the peak of the Pandemic church services were banned in D.C. as part of a ban on all public gatherings on Oct. 3, 1918. The DC Protestant churches called an emergency meeting on Oct. 5 and agreed unanimously to abide by the ban. The African American churches also agreed unanimously to abide by it.
Some tried to get a workaround approved for outdoor meetings but those too were banned.
Once the numbers of deaths began to decline by Oct. 28 pressure began to stop the ban. The ban was lifted on Oct. 31.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-1918-influenza-pandemic/
During the pandemic, restrictions on public gatherings affected churches. In Washington, D.C., a group of Protestant ministers “voted unanimously to accede to the request of the District Commissioners that churches be closed in the city.” Churches were also closed in cities such as Dallas, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, and Seattle, yet remained open in Chicago and San Francisco. Where there were church closings, there were only a few instances of disobedience. A Baptist pastor in Murray, Kentucky, held services on January 26, 1919 in violation of the state’s ban and was arrested in his pulpit at the evening service. A Catholic priest in St. Louis was allegedly turned in to police after 200 parishioners were seen at the church. The priest told police the people snuck in through the church’s side windows, and he didn’t see them. No charges were pressed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997248/ Lessons Learned from the 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota
Very different policies were pursued by the two cities. Despite St. Paul’s principle health official’s conviction that the closing of public places would be ineffective, on November 6 St. Paul’s government officials overruled him and enacted a closing order for the whole city, including schools, theaters, churches, and dance halls. The St. Paul Citizens’ Committee—consisting of 15 physicians, church leaders, and community members who were appointed by St. Paul’s main health official, Dr. Simon—was concerned by the record of 218 new cases on November 5, as well as 36 deaths between November 4 and November 5, 1918, so they recommended this policy change (Figure 1). The number of new cases began to decline 10 days later, with only 24 new cases, and the next day, Dr. Simon reopened St. Paul businesses and churches. While the churches were closed, there were no significant protests from church leaders about the closings.
Minneapolis closed its schools on two separate occasions but not all public places.
https://www.omaha.com/history/panic-buying-bans-on-large-crowds-omaha-went-through-this-before-when-spanish-flu-hit/article_eb1bf591-39b5-52c4-b97d-e2323deb1343.html
When the flu epidemic hit Omaha one of its first fatalities in the City of Omaha, the Rev. Siefke S. de Freese, the 35-year-old pastor of St. Mark’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, had died suddenly after coming down with the Spanish flu symptoms — just days after conducting services and interacting with hundreds of parishioners. At least 25 other Omaha residents were sick with flu.
The city’s health commissioner, Dr. E.T. Manning, knew he had a problem. A big one. After weeks of afflicting East Coast cities, the Spanish flu pandemic had reached Nebraska.
Within 24 hours, Manning issued a sweeping order closing churches, schools, movie houses and theaters, and shutting down public events. He banned spitting in public, and urged people who felt sick to self-isolate. He told people to stop kissing. People who did venture out wore surgical masks.
“Prohibition of public gatherings is the only way known to medical science to check the spread of disease, and I believe we are justified in ordering that to prevent a more serious situation,” Manning said, according to a report in The World-Herald. “I would rather be blamed for being overcautious than to be responsible for a single death.”
Manning’s quick action was credited with saving many lives over the next three months. But Omaha still suffered. Before the end of the year, at least 974 people died in the city of about 180,000 residents, and 14,000 became ill — though both numbers are believed to greatly underestimate the scope of the disease.
The Spanish flu remains the worst natural disaster in Omaha’s history.
The churches complied with the ban until the crisis had passed.


Conclusion: banning worship services was not regarded as some form of religious persecution. It was questioned by churches once the death rates began to go down significantly. Churches complied with few exceptions so public enforcement was not a major issue. It appears that very few, if any, saw the bans as an infringement on their 1st Amendment rights.
So, a good question would be why has that turned into more of an issue in this pandemic over a century later? That’s a topic for another time to deal with.