Andrew Hagen

Last year I wrote about the rumors of a planned genocide in South Africa of white people upon the death of Nelson Mandela. (*) I stressed there that the proper attitude toward these rumors was intense, withering skepticism combined with a willingness to look at new facts. I called for President Mbeki of South Africa to respond to the rumors.

Yesterday I received the following e-mail message from Gawie Snyman, a reader in South Africa. He gave me permission to reprint this here, and to use his name.

I’ve heard of these rumours - from whites and blacks, but unfortunately it stays rumours.

I think you’re right - Pres. Mbeki should be confronted to comment on this publicly. Unfortunately, he is not known for being outspoken and I think he would never address it.

I further agree with you that when we look at the circumstances surrounding Southern Africa you tend to get this revolution where people are getting massacred.

I believe to grasp it in its whole, we must start by acknowledging that most of these Southern African governments has strong ties with Communist ideals - as they were funded by Soviet Russia, etc. while they were fighting the governments of the day.

We all know it’s easier to promise than to provide and Africa is known for power struggles and coups.

I do think that something must be brewing within the ANC. It was clear - during the Jacob Zuma debacle - that there is a big extremist group in the ANC who is much more communist-orientated. They feel that transformation is too slow and it must be sped up significantly.

I feel that as in Zimbabwe a much bigger anti-colonial drum would be beaten - to find another boogie as the cause of the problems - in Africa a mere presence of whites is often perceived as a sign of colonialism.

Unfortunately as you stated above - this is mostly speculation and difficult to frame with hard facts.

However, when we search for signs of genocide in South Africa - we need not look far. Since the fall of Apartheid more than 1,500 white farmers were murdered on farms and these figures are still rising. These attacks are done with military precision. The incompetence of the SA Police Service is too good an excuse for the government’s failure to stop this.

When we look at the recent Firearms Control Act passed by Parliament and we take into account that most gun-related crimes are committed with non-licensed and illegal fire arms, it is odd that the government started their attack on gun-related crimes with the legal owners of firearms.

Many perceive this as a precaution to disarm the whites in order to make them more vulnerable to farm attacks and other general gun-related crimes.

I guess the point I am trying to make is: It might be that there is a planned “final solution”, but the genocide has already started and we don’t need to wait for Mr Mandela’s death to see it, we just need to look around us.

The value of this is that it is a view from the ground level in South Africa, and includes judgments and opinions formed on that basis.

The BBC has some reports on these events in South Africa. (article 1 †) (article 2 ‡)

How should we regard all this? First, in a way, this is an example of what is happening all over the overpopulated, overcrowded planet. People are squeezing other people out of their land.

Second, the charge of genocide, when not justified, is onerous and overwrought. A person might make that charge to exaggerate or enhance a claim or grievance. Then it becomes a harmful thing to say. For example, racism in America against African-Americans is very bad, but it is not genocide, even though once in a while a person or two claims it is. Charging genocide when there is no genocide will not help one’s cause.

Third, the charge of genocide deserves investigation. The best way to stop a genocide is to prevent it before it gets started. For example, if Pol Pot and the Khmer Rogue could have been stopped earlier, millions of lives would have been saved.

Fourth, a realistic assessment of South Africa’s landholdings must be made. In a country with the demographics and history of South Africa, it is not serious to consider that whites will continue to own 75% of the land in the country. Land reform will happen one way or another. White farmers might consider making a reform proposal to the government. This might expedite the process. The emotions of the moment could be cooled.

Fifth, any potential victims of genocide should study the subject of genocide. Since World War II, many scholarly works have been published. For example, Daniel Goldhagen’s book, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, is worth reading and pondering. With a theoretical understanding of genocide, one can better understand it, and how it usually involves military, paramilitaries, and citizens.

Sixth, potential victims of genocide should discuss the subject openly among themselves. This will reduce ignorance.

Seventh, the International Criminal Court at the Hague might provide relief. South Africa is a party to the treaty. (§)

Eighth, efforts by the South African government to take away the guns of white citizens and to disband militias should be opposed, unless the government can convincingly explain why it intends to do this, and how it would not lead to violence or genocide.

Ninth, potential victims of genocide should start developing international links for support and possible refugee flows.

With recent events in Zimbabwe fresh in mind, we would be wise to neither overreact nor underreact to events in South Africa. We should combine intense, withering skepticism with a willingness to look at new facts.

Christopher Caldwell analyzes why France and the Netherlands voted overwhelmingly “no” to the EU Constitution, thus dooming the EU as a legitimate entity. In Caldwell’s Weekly Standard piece, he quotes the French blogger Etienne Chouard, who wrote (as translated): (*) (†)

1. A constitution has to be readable to permit a popular vote; this text is unreadable.
2. A constitution doesn’t impose a political ideology; this text is partisan.
3. A constitution is revisable; this text is locked in . . .
4. A constitution protects people from tyranny through separation of powers; this one doesn’t have real checks and balances and separation of powers.
5. A constitution is not handed down by the powerful; it is established by the people themselves, to protect them from arbitrary power, through an independent constitutional assembly elected for the purpose and disbanded afterwards; this text entrenches European institutions designed 50 years ago by the men in power.

Chouard’s site is online. (‡) Without France, the EU is a non-starter.

The next stage will be the playing out of two primary controversies. (1) What kinds of democratic input will people in the various European countries indeed have? For example, if most vitamins and dietary supplements might be banned (§), would the people have a right to be heard on this issue at the ballot box, or through their democratically elected representatives? Alternatively, would bureaucrats make the decision for the people? (2) What sorts of European integration can be accomplished without a full-fledged EU? For example, on defense, passport policies, and trade policies, Europe can stand together. On issues such as immigration, currency, and economic policy, however a national, not a regional, government would appear to be the logical choice, and preferred by most Europeans.

The euro has roared. Now it heads to oblivion.

Steve Suo reported yesterday in the Oregonian that Mexican imports of cold medicine have soared “from 66 tons to 224 tons in the past five years, customs records show. That’s roughly double what the country needs to meet the legitimate demands of cold and allergy sufferers, an analysis by The Oregonian found.” (*) Cold medicine contains pseudoephedrine, a needed ingredient to make the dangerous and illegal drug meth. Meth is sometimes termed “hillbilly crack” because of its deadly effects.

The drug cartels have been bypassing tighter American regulations on cold medicine. They’re now getting what they need through porous Mexican customs filters.

Follow the money. Who is bribing whom?

The US needs to address this with the Mexican government. Mexican controls over pseudoephedrine must be significantly and immediately tightened.

Academic inquiry now backs the loose talk of how war could result in a decade or so from the disproportionately male populations of Asian countries, especially India and China. (*)

The Bush Administration is not giving the nuclear threats of Iran and North Korea the attention they deserve. The New York Times editorializes that we should offer positive incentives to change the ambitions of the bomb builders in the remaining spokes of the Axis of Evil. (*)

Positive incentives to those bent on malign ends tend not to have benign results.

Iran could be dealt with by attacking political targets from the air and fostering revolution from within, following the example of Serbia in 1999/2000. The weapons program can then be destroyed from the ground or left with a democratic open society that poses no threat.

Kim Jong Il’s grip on North Korea depends on the flow of Chinese energy and goodwill. Diplomatically, we need to drive a wedge between Kim and China. America’s trade ties with China should be leveraged to achieve that wedge. Economically, we need to put a heavier squeeze on North Korea. At some point, Kim can be nudged out.

Henry Kissinger gives advice to the President and the country on how to proceed in foreign affairs in the critical stage that is the next four years. (*)

Anecdotes, rumors, hearsay, and other highly questionable sources suggest that the black population of South Africa conspires to massacre the white population of South Africa upon Nelson Mandela’s death. (*) Of South Africa’s total population of 42.7 million, 13.6% are white. (†) Therefore, up to several million lives would be at stake if the rumors reflect truth. Due to the extraordinary amount of harm that is possible, it is worthwhile to look into these rumors, even though the very suggestion of them sounds incredibly absurd.

The rumors are worthy of some attention by South Africans and that part of the world possessed of a basic understanding of history. Sometimes when a former oppressor loses power or becomes a minority, a slaughter ensues of the former oppressor. There are numerous reports of black abuses of power in the new South African government specifically at the expense of whites. (I stress the word “abuse,” meaning that the allegations suggest that more is taken from whites than what justice requires.) Here, the Zimbabwe situation provides an example. (‡) Additionally, the region has a recent history of genocide in Rwanda and the Congo.

The proper stance on this matter is: intense withering skepticism that this event will happen, coupled with a willingness to look for facts, however uncomfortable, that lead to a conclusion of whether this theory is true or false. If there is a reason to believe the theory is accurate, all due precautions are warranted.

Below are Google searches on some of the names that swirl about.

Operation Our Rainy Day.

Operation White Clean-up.

Operation Vula

Night of the Long Knives south africa

Operation Iron Eagle

Red October campaign

Operation Uhuru

If there are rumors of any other planned genocide in the world, I am not aware of them. I would like to know about any such thing.

Based on interviews with North Korean refugees in China, Nicholas Kristof reports that there is little thought of revolution from within or opposition to the regime of Kim Jong Il. (*) North Koreans are cut off from the rest of the world. They have no sense of how other countries are different. They hear only the state propaganda of how North Korea is a rich country.

Bush’s advisors base US North Korea policy on regime destabilization. Unless North Korea literally starves to death, Kim Jong Il’s regime appears quite stable.

Recently, an American non-governmental group received an official tour of North Korea’s nuclear weapons development plant. (†)

There is no reason to believe North Korea is going the route of Libya—toward giving up its nuclear weapons program. There is every reason to believe that North Korea offered the tour to make it fully apparent to the US that North Korea has nuclear weapons. This indicates their bravado. Their bravado indicates that Bush’s North Korea policy is failing.

Thanks to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Kim Jong Il’s totalitarian, starving North Korea now enjoys the uncontested slot as the worst regime in the world.

John H Fund looks inside a North Korea travel guide. (*)

North Korea expert Bruce Cumings is a typical paleoliberal on foreign policy matters. (†) When it comes to North Korea, however, that view seems to be the right one. We cannot truly threaten North Korea with war, and therefore peace is the only option. Preferably, peace would be on our terms. There is some thought that a preemptive strike could work against North Korea, however. (‡)

Koreawatch provides current commentary. (§)

I opposed the April 2002 overthrow of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez, and applauded when it failed. I noted that Venezuela faces numerous problems, particularly in its economy. (*) The US gets much of its foreign oil from Venezuela.

I opposed the post-coup recall effort against Chávez as undemocratic. He won an election for a term in office through 2006. I suggested that Venezuelans allow him to serve out his term, and that any recall process was illegitimate.

Lowell Ponte now reports on some of the machinations Chávez has engaged in. There are untoward signs of links from Chávez to Castro’s Cuba and perhaps even to Islamist terrorism. (†)

Ponte correctly notes that the recall process is part of the Venezuelan constitution. I had mistakenly believed that the recall process was against the Venezuelan constitution. I was wrong.

The Venezuelan government has stymied the recall process, even though it was declared legitimate by outside arbiter bodies like the Organization of American States (OAS). The government has refused to abide by the constitutional recall process. In doing so, the government stifles the voice of the people.

I’m changing my position. I now side with those who call on Chávez to allow the recall process to go forward. It is proper and legitimate under the Venezuelan constitution for a recall to occur. The democratic system and the rule of law in Venezuela ought to command respect from all Venezuelans, especially from the leader of the government.

English-language web logs that focus on Venezuela include Caracas Chronicles (‡) and Venezuela News and Views. (§) Vcrisis.com also provides insight. (**)

Jonah Goldberg says we should forget the UN and create a League of Democracies. This organization would take the place of the UN, particularly with regard to the functions of the Security Council. (*)

That’s a great idea, as I have said before. (†)

Thirteen black churches were recently burned down by hate groups. The news media have not bothered to cover it. Maybe it’s because those churches are in Africa, and the people that burned them are radical Muslims. (*)

Apparently it doesn’t mean as much then.

Additionally, various other acts of persecution continue as radical Muslims attempt to coerce and intimidate black African Christians into becoming their dhimmis, or slaves. Nothing to see here. Over one hundred Christian churches have also been closed in China.

Good thing we’re not in a war of civilizations or anything.

They say Bolivia doesn’t exist, but Eduardo Galeano insists that it does in the Progressive. (*)

Last month, Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada was (†) was forced from power (‡) amidst popular disaffection in this land of broken promises. (§) The poorest country in the region has a great reservoir of natural resources it could theoretically drawn upon.

President Bush has failed to take a leadership role in Latin America. His administration has no coherent Latin America policy. As a result, in countries like Bolivia, problems such as poverty and cocaine production fester (**), and unless the Administration lives up to its responsibilities, the problems will eventually will boil over into chaos or, potentially, military hostilities.

President Bush, it’s time to get a coherent policy. Any plan is better than the absence of one.

James S. Robbins ably enunciates the get-tough approach to North Korea. (*) The Stalinist backwater is more of a criminal enterprise than a state, North Korea will not enter into any arms control regime in good faith, and there is no reason for us to unilaterally surrender our superior bargaining position.

Robbins draws an analogy to Reagan’s rebuff of Gorbachev’s offer at Reykjavik in 1986. Reagan wisely turned Gorbachev down. There was no reason to drop SDI when, in any case, the USSR could not compete in that area.

The situation with 21st Century Stalinism is different. The Soviets could be trusted to not sell their nuclear weapons to the highest bidder. The Soviet leadership was clearly ready to negotiate in good faith. Kim Jong Il is a less likely negotiating partner. He broke the 1994 Agreed Framework, for example. He has sold ballistic missiles to Pakistan and Iran. Yet, an appeal to his sense of self-survival can be made successfully.

It is right for Robbins to use the possibility to bolster his argument that North Korea could sell nuclear weapons to a hostile state or group, such as Al Qaeda. Yet, that possibility also bolsters the argument of the negotiations camp. It is necessary to disarm Kim Jong Il somehow, because if we do not we are likely to be stung either directly or indirectly. My argument is that we can disarm him peacefully.

North Korea of 2003 is different from the Soviet Union of 1986. Kim Jong Il has not plotted a course where his state could collapse of its own weight. It will either die in flames or slowly modernize. Gorbachev was instrumental to the Soviet collapse. He insisted that when various SSR’s (Soviet Socialist Republics, the constituent parts of the Soviet Union, like Lithuania, Latvia, and the Ukraine) began to announce their split from the USSR (the Union of SSR’s), Gorbachev let them go. The Soviet constitution provided for the right of SSR’s to split should they ever so decide. Gorbachev merely required that the Soviet constitution be honored as written, and so it was for one of the first and only times.

Kim Jong Il is not Gorbachev. He will not allow a peaceful disintegration. He will take his half of the peninsula down either the fiery path of oblivion and ruin, or the communist-capitalist hybrid model of China. The peaceful outcome here is better, so long as North Korea is sans nuclear weapons. Over time, human rights conditions in North Korea are bound to improve, particularly as free markets establish themselves. Once North Korea is disarmed, furthermore, it will be more amenable to human rights demands.

Robbins is right when he says the US should drive a hard bargain. On top of disarmament, the US should demand a process for further negotiations where human rights can be addressed. The US should demand that the North Koreans both negotiate in good faith and disarm in good faith. We should be prepared to go to war to make our demands stick. We should also be prepared, however, for Pyongyang to meet our demands.

The President should make this a personal top priority. It has been pushed to the back for too long.

North Korea has shifted course and will continue negotiations on its nuclear weapons program. On the other hand, Chinese analysts have given their assessment of the talks, and are blaming the United States.

The switch comes as China’s top diplomats have grown increasingly concerned that the United States does not have a negotiating strategy beyond using multilateral talks to put pressure on North Korea, analysts who have spoken to Chinese officials about the issue said today.

In contrast, these analysts said, China is persuaded that North Korea is prepared to trade away its nuclear program for the right mix of security and economic incentives.

Wang Yi, China’s vice foreign minister and the host of last week’s talks, told reporters in Manila on Monday that he considered the United States the “main obstacle” to settling the nuclear issue peacefully. He did not elaborate. . . .

(*) Allow me to. George W. Bush is a stubborn old mule. Bush’s orneriness is a character trait with both good and bad dimensions. In this case, being a stubborn old mule is more bad than it is good.

There is no need to give North Korea a non-aggression pact or a peace treaty. Such a gift would be anathema to our long-standing policy of promoting a peaceful and free reunification of the Koreas. North Korea is proposing a non-aggression pact, but that appears to be merely a negotiating position that they would bargain away. In return they would want some kind of oral reassurance that the US will not attack.

Kim Jong Il is a skittish, growly bear. To our eyes, he appears to act irrationally. His moves all make sense, however, in the context of the preservation of himself and his regime. Reassure the bear, don’t put him in a corner, and feed him, and he will not swipe at you with his nuclear stockpile and will let you dismantle it.

Here’s a bare bones suggestion for such an approach. “We won’t attack North Korea because of its nuclear program unless North Korea continues its nuclear program. We also offer certain economic incentives to North Korea. . . . ” Etc, etc.

James Laney and Jason T. Shaplen argue in favor of talking. (†)

Niall Ferguson has an insightful Foreign Affairs article discussing whether America presides over an empire of or merely enjoys hegemony over much of the world today. (*) Useful and informative comparisons with the British Empire are made.

Too much attention is paid, however, on how to classify America. In considering governments, it is worthwhile to describe them as democracies or monarchies or otherwise. In considering international systems, however, there is no compelling reason to think that global systems will naturally fall into certain patterns, and thus can be categorized. It may be best to just describe an international system without putting a label on it.

Of course, if the goal were to affix the stinging word “empire” on the USA, I’m sure many of the establishment Left will put their blindfolds on and come running at the first such opportunity.

The President of the United States has just ended his one month of vacation, two weeks more than the average American is allowed. Taking his Labor Day holiday somewhere, Mr. Bush will be distressed to learn that North Korea has broken off from the 6–nation nuclear disarmament talks. (*) The Times thinks Kim Jong Il thinks Bush is distracted by Iraq. I think Bush is not really paying attention to anything beyond his jogging routine and his 2004 campaign coffers.

If North Korea tests a nuclear device, the seismic shock wave will be picked up around the world. The President says such a test will result in an economic quarantine. North Korea has long said that economic sanctions would be perceived as an act of war.

If it comes to war, James Woolsey and Thomas McInerney have recently opined that the US and South Korea can crush North Korea. (†) No matter how it would go, it wouldn’t be a pretty picture.

Let’s hope a grown up somewhere comes to his senses. Between Kim Jong Il and George W. Bush, I’m not so sure war can be avoided. Will they rise above expectations?

Colin Powell, where are you? Maybe you can force Bush to swallow his pride and accept bilateral talks.

One last thought: maybe Bush thinks Kim is bluffing.

Does the United States or any another country have the right to invade a country like Cuba or Myanmar purely for the sake of protecting human rights? Should a tyrannical nation-state ever lose its sovereignty because of its tyrannical nature? These are key questions of the day. To answer them, the Canadian government commissioned a report, released in December of 2001. This report, the Responsibility to Protect has only increased in importance over time. (*)
(more…)

This is a joint statement, not authored by me, that will be sent to the Cuban mission to the United Nations and several publications.

We are women and men of the democratic left, united by our commitment to human rights, democratic government and social justice, in our own nations and around the world. In solidarity with the people of Cuba, we condemn the Cuban state’s current repression of independent thinkers and writers, human rights activists and democrats. For “crimes” such as the authorship of essays critical of the government and meeting with delegations of foreign political leaders, some 80 non-violent political dissidents have been arrested, summarily tried in a closed court, without adequate notice or counsel, convicted, and given cruel, harsh sentences of decades of imprisonment. These are violations of the most elementary norms of due process of law, reminiscent of the Moscow trials of the Soviet Union under the rule of Stalin.

The democratic left worldwide has opposed the US embargo on Cuba as counterproductive, more harmful to the interests of the Cuban people than helpful to political democratization. The Cuban state’s current repression of political dissidents amounts to collaboration with the most reactionary elements of the US administration in their efforts to maintain sanctions and to institute even more punitive measures against Cuba.

The only conclusion that we can draw from this brute repression is that Cuban government does not trust the Cuban people to distinguish truth from falsehood, fact from disinformation. A government of the left must have the support of the people: it must guarantee human rights and champion the widest possible democracy, including the right to dissent, as well as promote social justice. By its actions, the Cuban state declares that it is not a government of the left, despite its claims of social progress in education and health care, but just one more dictatorship, concerned with maintaining its monopoly of power above all else.

To add your name to the list, send e-mail to Leo Casey. Current signatures are below.
(more…)

Robert Kagan’s thesis that Americans are from Mars, and Europeans, Venus, is receiving far too much attention. (*) Kagan’s big idea is that Europeans are trying to construct a Kantian world, based on rules, and Americans are acting as if the world is nasty, brutish, and short.

Two quick, decisive criticisms are in order. The first is that this explanation is oversimplifying. If Americans were from Mars, and that explained US foreign policy, then tell me when the invasion of Cuba begins. The second is that Kagan’s notion that neither Americans nor Europeans are acting on the basis of their perceived interests is utter fallacy. Kagan is too much interested in developing a rationale that seems to explain a complex world in a nutshell, and not enough interested in attempting to fully grasp the world’s complexity.