Where did Syria get its poison gas?

After the American Century                                                                                                                                                        

I have read the headline stories in the newspapers of three nations, and fail to find much discussion of a vital question: Who supplied the poison gas to Syria? Such weapons are outlawed by an international treaty that has been widely respected since the 1920s. Such gas is not made in a basement by a self-taught chemist, and the delivery systems are also complex and demand sophisticated manufacturing. 

Scientific American has posted an article about this issue, detailing the difficulties of determining who made the sarin gas. It points out that fragments of the bombs that contained the poison gas can offer some useful clues. "The materials composing the rockets could differ depending on who made them, thereby pointing a finger at who deployed them." This is no doubt true, but apparently no such analysis has yet been completed.

Meanwhile, Der Speigel reports that German Intelligence has concluded that the gas used was almost certainly sarin, and that it believes the Syrian government (and not the opposition) has the expertise to manufacture both the gas and the small missiles used to deliver it. The  delivery system itself requires considerable expertise. It sprays out the gas as a fine, deadly mist that lingers longer in the air during the early morning hours, when the missiles hit, than it does during the heat of the day.  In short, the gas, the missiles, and the sophisticated delivery system all point to the government. The same story reports that German Intelligence intercepted a phone call that also seemed to confirm Assad's direct involvement with the attack.

While different sorts of evidence seem to point to the same conclusion as to who used the gas, however, we still do not know who made it. A third party might have been involved. For example, Iran has the ability to make it, and it supports Assad. Russia has long been an ally, and of course they too could produce it. Whoever these persons are, they should be the focus of an international manhunt. The only use for sarin nerve gas is slaughtering indiscriminately all the people who happen to be nearby when it is released. Those who manufactured it and the military people who used it should be named, shamed, caught, tried, and punished. Their assets should be seized and used to help surviving victims. They must become infamous.

The Jewish Press says that the central figure in Syrian gas production is Dr. Amr Najib Armanazi. He is head of Syria's Scientific Studies Research Center. The United States Treasury reached the same conclusion, and as early as 2005 it imposed sanctions on him and his enterprise. Should there not be a warrant for  Dr. Amr Najib Armanazi's arrest and trial in The Hague?

Dr. Amr Najib Armanazi

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/meet-the-monster-behind-syrias-chemical-weapons/2013/08/29/

Dr. Amr Najib Armanazi

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/meet-the-monster-behind-syrias-chemical-weapons/2013/08/29/

Three Encounters with the late Seamus Heaney

After the American Century                                                                                                                                                          

I heard Seamus Heaney three times over three decades. In each case, we briefly spoke afterwards. The first was in about 1972, when he came to the University of Minnesota to give a well-attended reading. He was in his early thirties and had recently become a poet full-time. He seemed modest and a little amazed at his reception on the American poetry reading circuit. I was a graduate student then, not so much younger than he, and we spoke only briefly in a relaxed moment at the reception afterwards. It was already clear then that he had a marvelous ear and a remarkable facility. 

Young Seamus Heaney

The second encounter was about six years later, at a college in upstate New York, where I was teaching. By this time he was far more famous as a poet and more polished, really elegant, as a public speaker. He had also begun to lecture on famous predecessors. The one I heard compared Yeats and Eliot, focusing on how they described the process of writing poetry. The gist of it was that while Eliot seemed more academic and even added footnotes in some poems, he nevertheless seemed to experience the act of creation as a flow that was always temporary. These outpourings might be reworked, of course, but the initial surge of creativity was crucial. In contrast, Heaney argued, Yeats described writing poetry as hard work, like getting down on your marrow bones to scrub floors or like breaking stones. For him, evidently, writing was a craft and a struggle.

I recall this lecture not least because it showed how deeply Heaney was interested in two of the greatest poets of the first half of the twentieth century. In the talk he made no immodest comparisons between himself and either of the poets he was discussing. Nor on that occasion did he wish to be drawn out on his own methods of composition. My sense then was that his own experience of writing was more like Eliot's. This was later confirmed by something he said later in life: "The gift of writing is to be self-forgetful, to get a surge of inner life or inner supply or unexpected sense of empowerment, to be afloat, to be out of yourself." 

We spoke for a few minutes. I did not expect him to remember me, but he fondly recalled Chester Anderson, who had invited him to Minneapolis, and who was one of the leading scholars on James Joyce and modern Irish literature. (I could tell him that all was well with Professor Anderson, who had held the reception for Heaney where I first met him.)

The third and last time I heard him was in Copenhagen, when I was on the faculty at the university there. He was friends with one of my older colleagues, a man who had memorized thousands of lines of poetry. He has passed away since then, and he cannot present whatever might be his version of this story. Therefore I will not give his name.

I came early to the poetry reading, and ran into my older colleague and Heaney in a nook below stairs. They had an open wine bottle, and I was immediately pressed to take a plastic cup and help myself. I did so, and listened to their conversation, which was a mix of memories of various people and appropriate lines of poetry that they called to mind. It was not showing off in the least, but playful, occasionally a little competitive, and quite funny. But after twenty years I cannot recall the details.

As the time for the reading drew near, I went up the stairs to the hall, in order to get a decent seat. Heaney had not yet won the Nobel Prize, but it seemed obvious that he was a very plausible candidate. I was in time to secure a good spot and then waited. Eventually, Heaney arrived, alone. He  sat down and waited. The clock moved well beyond the appointed hour. As my colleague did not come, he finally went up to the podium, looked out at the crowd and said, "Well I suppose you all know who I am and that this is a poetry reading, so I may as well begin. No introduction is needed, surely."  He then began to read. After two or three poems, my colleague rushed in, a bit red in the face.

"Seamus. What are you doing? I have to give my introduction." The crowd tittered and had to restrain itself from laughing.

"Oh, sit down," Heaney said jovially, waving him toward a seat, "I am well started now."

"What about the introduction?"

"You can give it afterwards." Which is what he did. It was a bit incoherent (for the wine had taken full effect!) and totally unnecessary. But Seamus seemed to enjoy it all the more for that. When the "introduction" was over, they went off to dinner.

In all three of these encounters. I found Seamus Heaney to be an unpretentious, warm man. He was brilliant, of course, and far more able than most poets at presenting his work to readers. His passing is a loss to the literature of the world, and also (as sometimes is not the case) a great human loss. I wish I had heard him more often.

Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" Speech 50 Years later

After the American Century                                                                                                                                                           

To Black activists and college students in the middle 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. was not the iconic figure  who is being remembered this year, on the fiftieth anniversary of his famous "I have a Dream Speech." Delivered from the Lincoln Memorial in August, 1963, that speech was the rhetorical high point of the Civil Rights Movement. 

Martin Luther King delivering his "I Have a Dream" Speech

One only has to look at a photograph of King to begin to discern why he fell somewhat out of favor on university campuses between 1963 and 1968. King invariably wore a dark suit and had a short haircut. He dressed like a banker or a mainstream politician. By 1968 students had adopted a colorful wardrobe of loose-fitting clothing and long hair. Only a small, square minority had crew-cuts or short hair. That "look" declared one’s sympathy for the military. Dressing like Martin Luther King was just not cool.

King also made a point of presenting himself as a Christian. This was a good strategy in the American South in the late 1950s, as it challenged the minds and reached out to the hearts of his opponents. King challenged the core values and identity of Southern racists, who regarded themselves as quintessentially Christian. But on university campuses, emphasizing Christianity was more controversial and did not win support from Marxists, for example, or from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Indeed, in the late 1960s many Hippies were turning toward Eastern religions and non-Christian religions.

Martin Luther King was still respected for his early work in Civil Rights, but by the middle 1960s young Black students were distancing themselves from him. The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) had begun as an outgrowth of his civil disobedience campaign against segregation. But by 1967 SNCC had rejected non-violence, Black Power was the new slogan, and more confrontational tactics were being adopted.  Some even called King an Uncle Tom.

King’s goals were under attack. He called for assimilation. Black Power demanded separation; not integration into mainstream white society, but separate businesses, separate organizations of all kinds, and even separate Black states. The more radical white student leaders rejected the white middle class itself.  They did not think that African Americans would benefit from assimilation. The white middle class, they thought, was not the solution but the problem. Their values, radicals believed, were dangerous. They were imperialistic and violent. They subscribed to patriarchy, and keep down women, Blacks, Native Americans, and Third World peoples.  The new ideology of Black Power proclaimed that “Black is beautiful” and called for liberation from white society. The Black Muslims and Malcolm X had arrived at similar conclusions.

Stokley Carmichael and the more radical students wanted revolution not assimilation. From this perspective, King was part of the problem. They did not want "to overcome" with whites and join in a new color-blind society. They instead wanted Black communities that affirmed a distinctive Black culture and consciousness. They wanted to stop what they regarded as the white war on people of color, whether in the United States or in Vietnam.  Martin Luther King met with Lyndon Johnson at the White House. In contrast, Stokley Carmichael and SNCC refused to meet with him.

When Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, student radicals were angry, but they also felt vindicated. They regarded the shooting as final proof of their own arguments. The assassination seemed to demonstrate that non-violence could never work. In 1968, a Revolution seemed necessary, and it seemed near.

Half a century later, it is painfully obvious that the radical students were wrong. The years after 1968 did not lead to revolution or even a liberal government. On the Left, Richard Nixon's election in 1968 was regarded as the last gasp of an old order that would soon be swept away. But between 1968 and 1992 Republicans would hold the presidency for all but 4 years. The United States proved far more conservative than student radicals thought. 

Looking back a half century to 1963, King has emerged as a towering figure, an effective organizer, a captivating public speaker, and a man able to mobilize and unite disparate groups to effect fundamental change. He has been canonized as the visionary who redefined what the American Dream might yet be. He appears great today, but he also illustrates all too well that a prophet often is not recognized in his own country. Only with the passage of time have Americans begun to understand his true stature.  

King still speaks to the world's problems today. The following words from his Nobel Prize acceptance speech apply with considerable force to all too many contemporary crises, particularly in the Middle East.

"Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers."

Tenth anniversary of the 2003 North American Blackout.

After the American Century                                                                                                                                                        

The tenth anniversary of the 2003 Blackout passed a few days ago. Fortunately, such a large blackout has not occurred again inside the US, but this is no reason to feel sanguine about electricity supply. The blackout in 2003 was a cascading failure that started in Ohio, tripped by an overhead line touching a tree limb. It was a hot day, which meant that demand for air conditioning was also high, and that caused the high tension lines to heat up. When this happens, they sag down. Power companies know this, and well-run companies make sure that the area below the lines is kept clear. But trees and bushes keep growing, and when not kept in check they soon rise closer to the lines. 

In short, the time of the accident was hardly a surprise. August is late in the growing season, when trees have had months to intrude upward. A hot day in August is hottest in the middle afternoon, and this is when the lines sagged down and touched the trees. The cascading effects knocked out power for 50 million people in Ontario, Canada and the eastern United States. The old adage, "For want of a nail, the horseshoe was lost. For want of a shoe, the horse was lost. For want of a horse. . ." still applies.

Since 2003 the monitoring of the power system has improved, and power plant operators have a few seconds more to notice when a problem occurs. But remember that electricity moves at 186,000,000 miles per second. A breakdown in Ohio can cascade a long way in one second.

If you want to know more about this problem, including how blackouts relate to terrorism, the smart grid, and the future of energy use,  a New York Times article appeared in November the same year that this was posted, and I have also written a short book on the problem, When the Lights Went Out.

What next for Snowden in the limbo of Moscow? Asylum or disapperance?

After the American Century                                                                                                                   

What will happen to Mr. Snowden, still  in  Moscow?

One possibility is that he retains one or two big revelations as bargaining chips, in hopes that he can use them to gain a safe harbor. Moscow does not seem to be exactly that sort of place, given the treatment of journalists there, and the continuance of the Tsarist tradition of sending critics to prison. Putin-land is surely not the ideal location for a whistle blower. He might want to trade secrets for security in Russia, but other nations could be interested, depending on what he might have.

South American destinations have been in the news, more likely Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru or Bolivia than Chile, Argentina, or Brazil. Considering these possibilities underlines the nature of the problem. A large and important country is not likely to burden itself with the difficulty of entertaining Mr. Snowden. A small country probably would not likely think the risk had any payoff. Only a small to medium-sized nation that is somewhat independent of the US, probably with a left-leaning government (Venezuela comes to mind), is a likely safe haven.  Back in the Cold War, there were a few nations in Europe that might have been possible. Yugoslavia would have been ideal and Finland or even Sweden might then have been possible.

Assume, for the moment, that Mr. Snowden does find permanent asylum. Then what? He will  be a fish out of water. He will need to learn the language and the culture. He will need a job, perhaps not a difficulty since he has real computer skills. He presumably will also need protection. Soon, his knowledge of US National Security will be out-of-date and of no interest to any foreign power. He will then be of only symbolic value to the host nation, someone that they can point to as proof that they are tolerant, freedom-loving, and critical of Uncle Sam. 

Presumably Snowden hoped for more when he decided to give up his well-paying job in Hawaii and become a whistle-blower. Surely he imagined that the revelations he brought would be so shocking that major powers would come to his rescue. Perhaps they are, albeit behind the scenes. One could imagine that Germany or France might quietly prefer to have a chance to talk with him. (Since writing this he has met with the Germans.) But if so, this is all likely behind thick veils of secrecy. 

Snowden might have expected a groundswell of popular support, which in part has materialized both inside the US and abroad. The US officially wants him captured and brought back to stand trial, but does Obama really want such a media circus? A trial would delight the Republicans and erode the unity of the Democratic Party, because those on the left would tend to see Snowden as a martyr. Indeed, the best thing for Obama might be to have Snowden end up in some banana republic where he could be depicted as a fugitive from justice, and where he could then gradually fade from public attention. 

Following this line of thought, it is perhaps not entirely disagreeable to Obama to have Snowden malingering in Moscow. Where are the Russian whistle-blowers, after all, but in prisons? Snowden without assistance can neither escape nor fade conveniently away. But the latter is actually what Putin and perhaps Obama might eventually prefer. Give the man a facelift, new identity, exile, and anonymity. If he disappears without a trace, he would have little incentive to reappear on the world stage.

Snowden's disappearance would not be justice, and it would would not reconcile the massive security he uncovered with the ideals of democracy. But it has a certain noir elegance worthy of a novel.

The Poor Use of Energy in the Middle East

After the American Century                                                                                                                  

The consumption of energy is a topic usually taken up when discussing China or the United States. Yet the Middle East is not only a major oil-producing region, but an important consumer of oil and natural gas. Unlike the United States or China, however, higher use has not been accompanied by improved energy efficiency.

Doha Qatar, night view

The following table shows the growth in CO2 emissions for OECD Europe, the United States, China, and the Middle East, from 1980 until 2000.  Recent statistics are more fragmentary, but they strongly suggest that the relative positions in this table (ranked according to how close they have come to sustainable growth)  have changed little since 2000. OECD Europe is still the only large region or nation that has come close to achieving sustainable growth, although the United States has begun to do better since 2008.

   Growth in CO2 emissions, selected nations and regions, 1980-2000

 

-->

Selected Region / nation	Population growth (annual)	GDP % growth (annual)	Energy Intensity Change (annual)	Carbon Intensity Change (annual)	growth CO2  Emissions (Annual)	20 year growth in CO2 emissions 1980 = 100
OECD Europe	0.53	1.73	- 1.00	- 1.06	0.18	103.7
United States	0.96	2.15	- 1.64	- 0.21	1.23	127.7
World	1.60	1.28	- 1.12	- 0.45	1.30	129.5
China	1.37	8.54	- 5.22	- 0.26	4.00	219.1
Middle East	2.98	0.04	2.45	- 1.14	4.34	233

The far right-hand column indicates the overall growth in CO2 for each region. It becomes immediately clear, The Middle East, aside from all its political problems, also has serious problems with energy misuse, in good part because oil and gas are abundant in the region. Their price is kept low, and with an annual population growth rate of almost 3%, there are millions more people using energy in the Middle East. More recent statistics show that between 1980 and 2010 Middle East use of oil and natural gas has quadrupled.

Moreover, in stark contrast to all the other regions listed, the Middle East is the only place were energy is being used more carelessly and less efficiently. Look at the third column, "energy intensity" which measures such things as whether cars get fewer or more miles per gallon, whether appliances use more or less electricity to accomplish a task, and so on. In the world as a whole, energy intensity is improving. In China, dramatic improvements in energy intensity do a great deal to offset the enormous increase in GDP. As a result of this factor and lower population growth,  CO2 emissions did not increase as fast in China as they did in the Middle East.

The Middle East has long been increasing CO2 pollution levels faster than Europe, the United States, or China, even though the region's economies as a group scarcely expanding. The population grows, but the economy scarcely holds even. Rising energy use is not part of a dynamic growth economy, as in China or East Asia. 

If one drills down to the national level, the Middle East  dissolves into contrasting oil-rich economies and oil-poor economies, and into sharply divided social classes. But that is not my subject. I merely want to emphasize the failure of the Middle East as a whole to develop efficient energy use. Despite a view highly-publicized solar projects and windmills, almost all energy consumption remains oil and natural gas. For thirty years the Middle East has gone down the path of unsustainable stasis, when most other economies have sought sustainable growth. 

See also: Technology: Energy Rationing or Quotas?  America vs. Europe, 2100 

The Meaning of Obama's Massive Phone Monitoring: Is this Telegate?

After the American Century                                                                                                                                                          

I have meditated a good deal today on the massive phone monitoring effort by the US government. This cannot simply be explained away as a legacy of the Bush years, for apparently the efforts have intensified during the Obama Administration. Here are some thoughts about what this may mean.

Practical. When millions of phone calls are being monitored every day, the sheer amount of data collected requires an enormous investment in equipment and a large staff to deal with the flood of information. Alternately, if there is not a large staff, then the information cannot be analyzed and used. Billions of dollars must be spent on this cyber defense system, and one wonders if spying on millions of people is the best way to spend this money or to make the country safe.

Anti-Terrorism as a justification. The justification for gathering all this information, and also apparently for monitoring hundreds of journalists, is the need for greater security. This sort of argument is impossible to refute, since it relies on unstated dangers and secret information that by definition the public cannot know about. The public is just supposed to trust the government receives real security benefits from the information gathered. Yet one cannot feel at ease with this situation, for it violates the basic rules of the American democratic system, which is built not on blind trust but a free press that serves as a watchdog. A government that spies on journalists and citizens does not inspire their confidence. 

The Bill of Rights. It is often said that the Constitution does not explicitly protect privacy. This is true, but the First Amendment does protect free speech (hardly encouraged by monitoring phone calls) and the Fourth Amendment specifically protects citizens against searches and seizures. Tracking phone calls, wire-tapping, and the like are arguably a form of search and a seizure of information. The fourth amendment reads in full, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Who can possibly believe that the government has defined "the place to be searched" in specific and personal terms for the millions whom they have been spying upon? I do not feel secure in "my papers and effects," which it is surely plausible to translate into today's world as secure in my digital documents and electronic communications.

Obama's Authority is eroded by these revelations.  He has weakened his presidency, and in so doing becomes a little less able to inspire the confidence of citizens or of allies. Unhappily, these revelations must be contemplated almost immediately after the public learned that the Internal Revenue Service may also have abused its powers. Time and investigations will show whether there is a pattern here, but the combination of the IRS scandal, the scandal over listening in on hundreds of journalists, and the telephone call monitoring suggests widespread arrogance in the executive branch. Given the Congressional deadlock on many issues, a weakening of the president's authority, as well as the distraction these scandals are causing, all diminishes the chances for compromises and legislative achievements.

The Bottom Line. The problems of the Obama Administration are to a considerable degree of its own making. Presidential second terms are often difficult, and this one seems to be no exception. Think of Lyndon Johnson after his re-election, when antiwar protests dogged his every step. Think of Richard Nixon's second term, engulfed by Watergate. Think of Reagan's second term, and Irangate. Think of Bill Clinton's scandal-ridden second term and the attempted impeachment. And finally, think of George W. Bush's second term, when his approval ratings sank below 25%. Since 1963, not one  president found a way to escape controversy and unpopularity in a second term. Obama unfortunately seems headed toward a similar fate. One senses that there will be more revelations, in what one might call "Telegate."