David Remnick, Vaclav Havel in Jerusalem

David Remnick in The New Yorker, Vaclav Havel in Jerusalem:

Not long after his unlikely rise from Czech prisoner to Czech President, Václav Havel paid a visit to Moscow. Until that moment, the leaders of Eastern and Central Europe had arrived at the gates of the Kremlin as little more than nerve-racked supplicants. They came to receive instructions and to pay obeisance to the General Secretary. Now Havel was there to see Mikhail Gorbachev, but, with an air of modest self-confidence, he carried a set of demands and an ironic prop. As Michael Žantovský tells the story in his excellent new biography, Havel asked that the Soviet Union remove its troops from Czech territory, and that the two nations sign a statement declaring them equals. Gorbachev, who had already relinquished his imperial holdings, agreed, at which point Havel produced a peace pipe, telling Gorbachev that it had been given to him by the chief of a Native American tribe during a recent trip to the United States. “Mr. President,” Havel said, “it occurred to me right there and then that I should bring this pipe to Moscow and that the two of us should smoke it together.” Žantovský, who was Havel’s press aide at the time, recalls that Gorbachev “looked at the pipe as if it were a hand grenade.” Then the Soviet leader turned to Havel and stammered, “But I . . . don’t smoke.”

Continue reading

Thought for the Day: 29 September 2014

From Bill Moyers, “Buying the War“:

APRIL 25, 2007:

BILL MOYERS: [IN THE SPRING OF 2003] THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TOOK LEAVE OF REALITY AND PLUNGED OUR COUNTRY INTO A WAR SO POORLY PLANNED IT SOON TURNED INTO A DISASTER. THE STORY OF HOW HIGH OFFICIALS MISLED THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN TOLD. BUT THEY COULDN’T HAVE DONE IT ON THEIR OWN; THEY NEEDED A COMPLIANT PRESS, TO PASS ON THEIR PROPAGANDA AS NEWS AND CHEER THEM ON.

SINCE THEN THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED, AND MANY ARE DYING TO THIS DAY. YET THE STORY OF HOW THE MEDIA BOUGHT WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE WAS SELLING HAS NOT BEEN TOLD IN DEPTH ON TELEVISION. AS THE WAR RAGES INTO ITS FIFTH YEAR, WE LOOK BACK AT THOSE MONTHS LEADING UP TO THE INVASION, WHEN OUR PRESS LARGELY SURRENDERED ITS INDEPENDENCE AND SKEPTICISM TO JOIN WITH OUR GOVERNMENT IN MARCHING TO WAR.

OUR REPORT WAS PRODUCED AND DIRECTED BY KATHLEEN HUGHES AND EDITED BY ALISON AMRON.

Continue reading

Ukraine conflict

From the CBC, 19 February 2014:

The anti-government demonstrations that have gripped Ukraine for nearly three months have been steered by divergent protest movements. The demonstrations began when President Viktor Yanukovych reneged on a plan to form a trade alliance with the European Union, saying it would jeopardize the country’s trading bonds with Russia.

Some protest groups are seeking to force Yanukovych to agree to the EU trade deal while other nationalist parties are calling for greater independence free from foreign influence. Here are the key players in the political crisis that continues to unfold.

Link

See also:  NY Times, How It All Began: a Cold War Battle Heats Up

Lydon is back!

Christopher Lydon will be back on WBUR Thursday nights starting tonight!   Years ago he hosted a morning program on BUR, The Connection, which was the best radio show I’ve ever listened to.  The show covered just about every topic you could imagine and Lydon was a great host – got good guests and actually did his homework before the show so that he and his guest could have an intelligent on-air conversation.  He took the job very seriously.  The Connection started off as a local program then went national after a few years – still had a Boston focus though.  Anyhow, Lydon was let go after he and the station couldn’t negotiate a new contract.  The new host was decent but the show wasn’t nearly as good as when Lydon was host.  Lydon went off to create Radio Open Source, which is what BUR will be broadcasting on Thursday nights.  I listened to a number of episodes when it was internet only – all good – but tuning in required I go a bit “off the beaten path” so I didn’t listen often.  In contrast, BUR is my default station.  I’ll be glad to hear Lydon and I’m glad he’ll be getting a wider audience again.   He’s an excellent journalist.

Archive of The Connection broadcasts here.  (I think Lydon’s last broadcast was March 9, 2001.)

Chemical weapons clean-up

Readings:

 

Does chemical weapons counter-proliferation matter? Apparently so. Good.

Reiterating what I wrote last night:  Why hasn’t the need to contain and decommission Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile been cited as a legitimate basis for invasion?  (Perhaps not sufficient basis for a US-only intervention but an international one.  For example, an intervention supported by the parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention.)

Spending a significant fraction of your working life on a fairly narrow set of problems can provide you unique insight into important aspects of the world most people have never considered.  It can also lead you to believe that your work is more important than it is.  One condition needn’t preclude the other – the former sometimes increasing the risk of the latter.  Perhaps it’s because I spent fifteen years working on chemical and biological weapons defense problems that I believe chemical weapons counter-proliferation is important.  I understand the health threats, effective deployment, trace-level detection issues, decontamination issues, etc.   Having the technical understanding probably makes me more sensitive to proliferation issues than most people.  Does it make me overly sensitive?  I’m probably not the best judge of that.  More generally:  Does chemical weapons counter-proliferation matter?  Is the fact that the Syrians have a chemical weapons stockpile much ado about nothing?  (That is, is it much ado about nothing provided you’re not a Syrian civilian?)

I have a tough time with the thought that counter-proliferation isn’t in the national interest.  Counter-proliferation is taken seriously when it comes to nuclear weaponsIt should be taken seriously for biological weapons.  It should be taken seriously when it comes to chemical weapons.  (Think a few rounds of VX dispersed in a urban environment would be less horrific than a dirty bomb?  I’m skeptical.)

Continue reading

Syria: 1) Recent reads and 2) Does chemical weapons counter-proliferation matter?

This is not World War II.  Assad is not Hitler.  This is not the Cold War.  Damascus is not West Berlin.  Limited strikes wouldn’t accomplish a damn thing in terms of dissuading Assad from using chemical weapons and would do nothing to contain them.  The possibility of a US strike making the conflict worse – turning it into a regional war – seems significant.  For those and a number of other reasons I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be a bad idea for the US to attack Syria.  As I stated in an earlier post, no matter what actions are taken or not taken there will be negative consequences and plenty of opportunity to second-guess, but I believe that refraining is the least bad option at present.

Related readings: