GilmerFreePress.net

Servant Leaders vs. Empty Suits

The Gilmer Free Press

In a normal world, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress would have been roundly mocked by the audience for its hypocritical fear mongering. In a normal world, 70 years beyond Hiroshima, major powers would have long since acceded to the wishes of their constituents and established far more extensive arms reduction treaties. In a normal world, there would be a single, not a double, standard challenging the undiluted evil of nuclear weapons, no matter who possesses them. That single standard would underpin not only a regional but also a planet-wide effort at nuclear disarmament. And in a normal world, a foreign leader would not have been handed the most prestigious possible venue to undermine delicate, complex negotiations merely to allow him to score political points in two countries simultaneously.

To focus upon the existential danger of a nuclear Iran is to miss the point Albert Einstein, one of the most prophetic Jewish thinkers, made back in 1946: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” By making Iran into Israel’s nemesis, Netanyahu particularizes and localizes what should be universal and planetary: for Israel to be secure, all nations must be secure. Every nuclear point of tension on the planet today is equally an existential threat to all of us: Ukraine-Russia, India-Pakistan—and Israel-Iran.

Netanyahu did not call for general nuclear disarmament because he is stuck in an old mode of thinking based in his limited identification with his own nation, a nuclear-armed nation tied in ethical knots by the need to choose between democracy and privileging a particular ethnicity. In this old mode, self-interest is defined in terms of what’s good for my own country, in particular for the Jewish citizens of my country, rather than the planet as a whole. The scenario of a nuclear-free zone in the region is dismissed because it doesn’t fit with the Israeli—and American—right wing’s hyper-macho view of response to perceived threats. The drift toward nuclear catastrophe continues, even accelerates, in an atmosphere of mutual paranoia and denial.

In this obsolete mode of thinking, “we” are exceptional and “they” are the axis of evil. “We” project our own unacknowledged aggressiveness onto adversaries and dehumanize them, justifying endless mistrust, closed hearts, and killing that resolves nothing. “We” become more and more like the very thing we fear and hate, descending into torture, unjust land appropriation, secret arms sales, assassination, imperial expansion of spheres of influence—dysfunctional tactics common not only to both Israel and Iran, but also to the U.S. Fear of non-state actors having the same power as the nine nuclear states to incinerate millions in seconds rationalizes extreme behavior against perceived extremists. Would the United States have descended into torture so quickly and completely without the specter of an extremist Muslim with a suitcase nuke?

A new mode of thinking would acknowledge that the nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle, that the impossibility of victory in a nuclear war is a challenge shared by all nations, and that it is imprudent to let the tail of fear wag the dog of arms sales, both conventional and nuclear. In the new mode of thinking, the emphasis is taken off bilateral conflict and becomes a cooperative international effort to inventory, control, and lock down loose nuclear materials everywhere. This would cost infinitely less than the trillion dollars the U.S. is planning to spend over the next decade to refurbish its nuclear arsenal.

Netanyahu is inarguably right to assert that Israel lives in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the world, but there is much that he and his fragile coalition could do to begin to make it a safer neighborhood for themselves—beginning with restraining illegal settlement colonization of Palestinian land.

An alternative vision of global security is taking shape, based in initiatives that slowly build trust on the basis of overlapping environmental crises and other challenges that simply cannot be addressed by militarism. To grow this embryonic vision toward robust maturity, we need fewer empty suits, pawns in the dangerous game of arms sales and endless war, and more servant-leaders, figures like Dag Hammarskjold, Oscar Arias, Vaclav Havel, and Aung San Suu Kyi, people who exemplify the new mode of thinking for which Einstein implied the need if our species is to survive beyond the nuclear age. As Netanyahu’s hero Churchill once said, “To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.”

~~  Winslow Myers ~~

G-Comm™: Hoppy’s Commentary - Notes from Under the Capitol Dome

image

Last Wednesday was crossover day. Bills had to be passed out of their originating chamber by the end of the day to give them any chance of being approved by the other body. That means a lot of bills died yesterday; some good, some bad. There’s always next year.

—The House has passed the “forced pooling” bill. HB 2688 provides a way for reluctant gas rights holders to be required to participate in natural gas drilling when the rights holders for 80 percent of the property agree.  It’s a contentious bill, and opponents forced the bill to be read in its entirety first, all 68 pages. That was followed by a long debate on the floor where supporters argued that forced pooling will help the natural gas industry expand even more, but opponents argued that it amounts to an illegal taking of property.

—West Virginia will soon have a new, more strict abortion law. The House easily overrode Gov. Tomblin’s veto of the fetal pain bill Wednesday. The Senate will do the same. The legislation, which will go into effect in 90 days, prohibits abortions after 20 weeks unless the fetus is not viable or the mother faces a serious health hazard. The last time lawmakers overrode a gubernatorial veto was in 1987 when the Legislature turned back Arch Moore’s veto of the budget bill.

—House Republicans say a bill that would have required drug testing for welfare recipients has died, an apparent victim of time constraints with just a week and a half left in the regular session. The bill passed the Senate earlier. At least 12 states have the drug testing requirement, although Florida’s law was struck down in the courts.

—Gov. Tomblin has signed into law HB 2004 which gives lawmakers oversight for how the state Department of Environmental Protection plans to meet the federal EPA’s sweeping plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. State DEP Director Randy Huffman opposed the bill, but he decided not to put up a big fight against it. The whole issue may be moot since there’s a legal challenge to the EPA’s authority to force states to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

—Lawmakers are taking yet another crack at campaign finance reform. SB 541 raises the contribution caps in West Virginia elections from the current $1,000 to $2,700 per cycle with an inflation provision. The bill also calls for greater disclosure by those making contributions. Supporters say they want to try to slow the growing amount of spending by independent groups, which currently do not have to disclose their donors. Senators worked out a bipartisan bill and it passed last night.

—Labor is planning another big demonstration at the Capitol. UMWA president Cecil Roberts, AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka, state AFL-CIO President Kenny Perdue and Teamsters Secretary-Treasurer Ken Hall headline the Saturday rally, which they say will bring in 40 busloads of demonstrators. The labor leaders will speak against a coal mine bill that changes safety standards and legislation that alters how prevailing wages are determined.

—One glaring omission from this year’s otherwise productive legislative session is anything significant on roads. The West Virginia Contractors Association released a study this week indicating a $500 million increase in spending on highways and bridges would create 10,000 new jobs and generate $1 billion in additional economic output. But the question remains, where does the $500 million come from? That will have to be an issue for another legislative session.

G-Comm™: Hoppy’s Commentary - Lawmakers Strike a Balance on Natural Gas Drilling

image

The House of Delegates has passed an important but controversial bill that provides a fair and equitable way for the natural gas industry and mineral rights holders to take advantage of the state’s massive gas reserves.

HB 2688 creates “lease integration” (or “forced pooling” as many call it) for deep and shallow wells. A driller who gets permission from 80 percent of the mineral rights owners on a tract of land can petition the seven-member Oil and Gas Commission to force the holdouts into the pool. Currently, a single holdout can block horizontal drilling into the Marcellus Shale.

The bill includes important protections for the holdouts.

The gas company must first make a good faith effort to negotiate with the holdouts. They must be paid “just and reasonable” royalties based on comparable payments in the region. The gas company cannot deduct any production and post-production costs from the royalties. (Those deductions are a sore spot with mineral rights holders.) There can be no surface disturbance on the forced pool tracts. Holdouts who are dissatisfied with the commission’s findings can appeal to circuit court.

The oil and gas industry has failed several times in recent years to pass forced pooling, but proponents took a different approach this year. Del. Woody Ireland (R-Ritchie), who has a long history of working with—and sometimes fighting with—the gas industry brought all the stakeholders together for meeting after meeting to reach a compromise.

The West Virginia Farm Bureau eventually signed on, saying the bill balances the importance of private property rights with the desire of farmers to capitalize on their gas and oil mineral rights. The West Virginia Royalty Owners Association, which historically opposed forced pooling bills, supported this bill. Spokesman Tom Huber says HB 2688 is a fair bill that “addresses both the needs of the oil and gas industry and the legitimate concerns of West Virginia property owners.”

Not everyone is happy. Among the 40 opponents in the House—the bill passed Wednesday 60-40—was a coalition of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. They argued forcing a property owner into a deal he objects to amounts to an illegal taking of property.

Historically, the courts have disagreed. Most states have some form of forced pooling law and the doctrine has been tested many times.  An American Law Reports review of state and federal court rulings concerning laws in a dozen states found that “compulsory pooling… ordinances are valid” and do no violate due process.

The opponents to HB 2688 chose to ignore that West Virginia already has forced pooling for all deep vertical wells into the Utica Shale and the current statute provides little protection for those mineral owners. This bill provides assurances for them, as well as the rights holders of the Marcellus deposits.

The stakeholders worked long and hard to write a reasonable bill and it appears they have done just that.

Beyond Deterrence, Compassion

The Gilmer Free Press


Ronald Reagan’s assertion back in 1984 that “a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought” seems to have become accepted across the political spectrum in the U.S. and abroad. The level of destruction that would result would at best make it impossible for medical systems to respond adequately and at worst lead to climate change on a global scale. Reagan continued: “The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”

Thirty years later, the paradox of deterrence—nine nuclear powers with weapons kept absolutely ready for use so that they will never have to be used—is far from resolved. Meanwhile 9-11 bent our imaginations toward suicidal nuclear terrorism. The possession of even our large and varied arsenal of nuclear weapons would not deter a determined extremist. Fear became so powerful that it motivated not only the grotesque proliferation of information-gathering agencies but also assassination and torture. Anything became justified, including trillion dollar stalemated wars, to preempt the wrong adversary from getting their hands on a nuke.

Are there flashpoints where systems designed for reliable and eternal deterrence blur into a new landscape of deterrence breakdown? The example du jour is Pakistan, where a weak government maintains a stable—we hope—deterrent balance of nuclear forces against India. At the same time Pakistan percolates with extremists with possible sympathetic connections to the Pakistani military and intelligence services. This focus upon Pakistan is conjectural. It may be unfair. A nuclear weapon could just as easily fall out of state control in regions like the Caucasus or—who knows?—even at some U.S. base where security was lax. The point is that fear of such scenarios distorts our thinking as we struggle to respond creatively to the reality that nuclear deterrence doesn’t deter.

To see the fruits of this fear comprehensively invites seeing the process across time, including future time. The familiar argument that nuclear deterrence has kept us safe for many decades starts to break down if we simply imagine two possible worlds: a world toward which we are heading hell-bent if we don’t change course, in which self-escalating fear motivates more and more nations to acquire nuclear weapons, or a world where nobody has them. Which world do you want your children to inherit?

Cold War deterrence was aptly called the balance of terror. The present mythic division of irresponsible extremists and responsible, self-interested nation-states encourages an Orwellian mental contortion: we conveniently deny that our own nuclear weapons are themselves a potent form of terror—they are meant to terrify opponents into caution. We legitimize them as tools for our survival. At the same time we project this denied terror upon our enemies, expanding them into perverted evil giants. The terrorist threat of a suitcase nuke overlaps with the revived threat of the Cold War turning hot as the West plays nuclear chicken with Putin.

Peace through strength must be redefined—to become peace as strength. This principle, obvious to the many smaller, non-nuclear powers, is reluctantly perceived and quickly denied by the powers that be. Of course the powers that be are not unhappy to have enemies because enemies are politically convenient to the robust health of the arms manufacturing system, a system that includes a prohibitively expensive refurbishment of the U.S. nuclear arsenal that wastes resources needed for the looming challenge of conversion to sustainable energy.

The antidote to the Ebola-like virus of fear is to begin from the premise of interrelationship and interdependence—even with enemies. The Cold War ended because Soviets and Americans realized they had a common desire to see their grandchildren grow up. However death-obsessed, cruel and brutal extremists seem to us, we can choose not to dehumanize them. We can keep our perspective by recalling the brutalities in our own history, including the fact that we were the first to use nuclear weapons to kill people. We can admit our own part in the creation of the villainous nest of murderousness in the Mideast. We can dig into the root causes of extremist thinking, especially among the young. We can support vulnerable but worthy initiatives like the introduction of a compassion initiative in Iraq, led by an Iraqi poet. We can emphasize how many challenges we can only solve together.

In the early stages of the U.S. presidential campaign, candidates are unusually accessible—an opportunity for citizens to ask probing questions that penetrate beneath scripted answers and safe political bromides. What would a Middle East policy look like if it were based not in playing multiple sides against each other but rather in a spirit of compassion and reconciliation? Why can’t we use some of the massive pile of money we plan to spend to renew our obsolete weapons on securing loose nuclear materials around the world? Why is the U.S. the top arms dealer? As president, what will you do to help our nation live up to its disarmament obligations as a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

~In memory of peace activist Cynthia Fisk, 1925-2015.

~~  Winslow Myers ~~

Click Below for additional Articles...

Page 418 of 459 pages « First  <  416 417 418 419 420 >  Last »





The Gilmer Free Press

Copyright MMVIII-MMXIVIII The Gilmer Free Press. All Rights Reserved