A Tribute to Martin Luther King: Move over Lone Ranger

Posted on January 18, 2016 by Fred Zilian

About twenty years ago, I attended a conference in California where we discussed the ideas of the famous 17th philosopher-scientist Francis Bacon. I learned much about him, but the greatest insight I gleaned was during a coffee break. I was speaking with a woman from Canada, a professor, who said, “I don’t have any children, but if I did, I would move to the US.” Quite surprised, I ask: “Why?” She replied: “Because in the United States, you still believe in heroes.” Canadians, she explained, seemed bent on cutting down all their heroes, except for some star athletes.

Coming of age in the 1950s and early 1960s, my generation believed in heroes. We watched shows like “The Lone Ranger,” “Superman,” and “Gunsmoke.” Men had their weaknesses; however, they sought to do right, to seek justice, to be driven by moral principles. They spoke a moral vocabulary. They possessed a moral compass. In that age, presidents didn’t lie, at least we did not think they did. They never made statements like President Bill Clinton, “That depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” They had been war heroes who led large invasion fleets to free captive continents from totalitarianism.

One need not be African-American, or even American, to see Martin Luther King, Jr. as a genuine, true-blue, hero. Consider his accomplishments. In 1955, at the age of 26, he earned a Ph.D. from Boston University. He also led the Montgomery bus boycott opposing laws which forced blacks to ride at the back of buses or give up their seats for whites on crowded buses.

At age 29, he published his first book. In 1957 King helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization of black churches and ministers that aimed to challenge racial segregation.

In the 50s and 60s, he organized and led numerous protests against racist laws which sought to keep the races segregated and hinder the progress of African-Americans, activities that led to jail on numerous occasions.

Throughout 1966 and 1967, King increasingly turned the focus of his civil rights activism throughout the country to economic issues. He began to argue for redistribution of the nation’s economic wealth to overcome entrenched black poverty. In 1967 he began planning a Poor People’s Campaign to pressure national lawmakers to address the issue of economic justice.

In the spring of 1968, this focus on economic rights took King to Memphis, Tennessee, to support striking black garbage workers. He was assassinated in there by a sniper on April 4. News of the assassination resulted in an outpouring of shock and anger throughout the nation and the world, prompting riots in more than 100 United States cities.

His most famous speech is the “I Have a Dream Speech.” King and other black leaders organized the 1963 March on Washington, a massive protest in Washington, D.C., for jobs and civil rights. On August 28, 1963, King delivered this stirring address to an audience of more than 200,000 civil rights supporters. His “I Have a Dream” speech expressed the hopes of the civil rights movement in oratory as moving as any in American history:

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’… I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

To me his most poignant speech is not this one but rather the speech he gave on April 3, the night before he was shot.

“Like anybody I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And he’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over and I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the Promised Land. So I’m happy tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

We can draw many things from the life of Martin Luther King. One reminder this holiday brings to me is to envision—as he did— a world of better social justice, better opportunities and freedoms for people who, for one reason or another, have been left behind in the march of history.

I am reminded of a book, popular a few decades ago entitled, “The Education of a WASP.” (WASP: white-Anglo-Saxon Protestant) Towards the end the author, Lois Stalvey, dreams of a world shorn of color boundaries. Perhaps some day in the future we shall not talk of black, white, brown, and yellow. Perhaps one day, she says, we shall all be one beautiful creamy color. I have seen this happen in my own extended family, which now includes African-Americans.

So today, I have asked my own pantheon of heroes—the Lone Ranger, Superman, Mahatma Gandhi, Socrates, Mother Teresa and Abe Lincoln, among others—to move over and make room for Martin Luther King.

Fred Zilian teaches history and politics at Salve Regina University, Newport, RI.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The Causes of Peace, Part VII: Guernica and the Horror of War on Innocents

Posted on January 14, 2016 by Fred Zilian

The horror that war brings to non-combatants or “innocents” can help to restrain the initiation of war and to curb its most destructive tendencies once it has begun. The bombing of the city of Guernica, Spain, in 1937, showed the world the horror of aerial bombing on innocents, a new feature of warfare in the 20th century.

This bombing took place in the initial year of the Spanish Civil War (July 1936 to April 1939). The war began after a declaration of opposition by a group of conservative generals against the government of the Second Spanish Republic.  The rebel coup was supported by a number of conservative groups including the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right , monarchists, and fascists, eventually led by General Francisco Franco and a number of army generals.

Following the partially successful coup, Spain was left militarily and politically divided.  General Franco began a protracted war with the established government, as loyalist supporters of the centre-left Republican Government fought the rebel forces for control of the country. The conservative generals received the support of Nazi Germany and the Kingdom of Italy, as well as neighboring Portugal. The Republican government was supported by the Soviet Union and Mexico.

Although the US never formally took sides, American civilians eventually volunteered. Volunteers from the U.S. made up the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and served in what were called the International Brigades. They fought for Spanish Republican forces against Franco and the Spanish Nationalists.

Revolution in Military Affairs

While the airplane had been used in WWI, it had been used mainly for reconnaissance, that is, for gathering intelligence on enemy positions. There were no genuine bombers in WWI. During the interwar period, this changed. Technologies were developed to make planes bigger and capable of dropping bomb loads, eventually heavy bomb loads. We would see these bombers wreak their havoc in WW II; the Spanish Civil War was a sort of preamble to that conflict.

Guernica

Guernica, a town in the Basque country of Spain, had a population of around five thousand. It was of great symbolic importance to the Basque people and the center of their cultural tradition. The raid took place on a Monday, ordinarily a market day in Guernica. Generally speaking, a market day would have attracted people from the surrounding areas to town to conduct business.

Bombing

The bombing of Guernica on April 26, 1937, was an aerial attack causing widespread destruction and civilian deaths. German and Italian planes of  the German Luftwaffe “Condor Legion” and the Italian Fascist Aviazione Legionaria conducted the raid. There were five waves in the first attack which began at 4:30 pm and lasted until about 6:00 pm. Thirty minutes later three bomber squadrons of Ju-52 Junkers attacked.  At the same time, and continuing for around fifteen minutes after the bombing wave, German attack planes strafed the roads leading out of town, adding to civilian casualties.

The number of victims of the attack is disputed. The Basque government reported 1,654 people killed, but modern speculations suggests between 200 to 400 civilians died. The bombing has often been considered one of the first raids in the history of modern military aviation on a defenseless civilian population, and denounced as a terrorist act, although the capital (Madrid) had been bombed many times previously.

This aerial attack came to have such great significance because it was the first time in history that a town was destroyed by aerial bombing.

Guernica, 2

Just War Principles

The Western military tradition includes what is called the Just War Tradition or Just War principles. One fundamental principle is that military action should not kill innocent civilians or non-combatants, people not directly or indirectly involved in the war. A second principle that applies is that of discrimination: The attacking state must discriminate between soldiers or combatants and those that are not combatants. Applying these principles to what we know about Guernica, it is clear that the Nationalist rebels led by Franco and their international supporters, the German and Italian aviation units, were not justified in conducting these bombing raids on the town of Guernica.

Legacy

Guernica quickly became a world-renowned symbol of civilian suffering resulting from war and inspired Pablo Picasso to adapt one of his existing paintings into Guernica, the image that adorns the banner of this website. The painting went on to become a symbol of Basque nationalism during the Spanish transition to democracy. Today it is located in a museum in Madrid. A tapestry copy of Picasso’s Guernica is displayed on the wall of the United Nations building in New York City, at the entrance to the Security Council room, placed there as a reminder of the horrors of war. On April 26, 2007, Dr. Akiba, Mayor of Hiroshima and President of Mayors for Peace, compared the experience of Guernica to Hiroshima.

Human beings have often sought to give concrete form to our powerful collective longing for peace. After World War I, that longing led to the League of Nations and numerous rules and taboos designed to govern warfare itself. Of these, the most important was the proscription against attacking and killing civilian non-combatants even in times of war. However, the second half of the twentieth century has seen most of those taboos broken. Guernica was the point of departure of aerial bombing on innocents, and Hiroshima is the ultimate symbol. We must find ways to communicate to future generations, especially political leaders who have the power to initiate war, the history of horror that began with Guernica.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

American Exceptionalism on Climate Change

Posted on December 24, 2015 by Fred Zilian

(Note: This essay was originally published as “Fred Zilian: Obama Leads on Climate, but Will U.S. Follow?” by the Providence Journal on December 17, 2015, and as “U.S. Out of Step in Fight Against Climate Change,” by the Newport Daily News on December 22, 2015.)

On December 12, after over 20 years of largely futile attempts to reach a meaningful agreement on climate change, the international community succeeded at the COP (Conference of Parties) 21 meeting in France in taking its first genuine step toward curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States was once again exceptional in its leadership and vision; however, this positive exceptionalism may transform into a negative exceptionalism, given our domestic politics and public complacency.

A near universal international action, 195 states approved the agreement. While there is no legal requirement to cut emissions in the agreement, 186 states have already submitted plans for cutting carbon emissions through 2025 or 2030. There is, however, a legal requirement for states to strengthen progressively their measures on climate change. Beginning in 2020, states will convene every five years, and beginning in 2023, the pressure of world opinion will increase as states reconvene to report publicly their progress in decreasing emissions.

UN General Secretary Ban, Ki-Moon called it “a truly historic moment” and “a truly universal agreement.” President Barak Obama indicated that the agreement “sends a powerful signal that the world is fully committed to a low-carbon future.” German environmental scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber asserted: “This is a turning point in the human enterprise, where the great transformation towards sustainability begins.” On the Eiffel Tower the words “FOR THE PLANET” stood aglow.

Here in Rhode Island, Governor Raimondo jumped on the bandwagon by signing an executive order on December 8, committing the state’s government to be 100% powered by clean energy sources by 2025, an ambitious goal.

The agreement has come none too soon, as CO₂ in the atmosphere has reached levels unprecedented in human history. The global average temperature has risen about .8° Celsius (1.45° F) in the past century. The ten hottest years on record, dating back to 1880, have taken place since 1998. Last year was the hottest on record, and 2015 looks to beat that record. CO₂ levels in the oceans are increasing, boosting acidity, and sea ice is decreasing. Nearly all the world’s 144 glaciers monitored since 1900 have retreated. And in my garden, I find myself in mid-December weeding and admiring my Gazania flowers—uncanny for this time of year.

President Obama and his administration have shown exceptional leadership and management leading up to and at the conference. Last year the president enacted stronger regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants. In November 2014, he and Mr. Xi Jinping, the leader of China, announced jointly plans to slash these emissions. While it is unclear how much of a role the president and Secretary of State John Kerry played, the agreement is not a treaty and therefore will not require approval of the US Senate, as required by our Constitution—very smart politically.

Nonetheless, Congress must still approve any new appropriations to enact the agreement, and this is where the US may again prove exceptional—divided against itself and out of step with most other countries. Shortly after the conference had begun and after President Obama had pledged to be a leader in the global response to climate change, the Republican-dominated Congress passed two resolutions essentially denying this. Also, after the December 12 agreement, Republican leader Mitch McConnell stated: “Before his international partners pop the champagne, they should remember that this is an unattainable deal based on a domestic energy plan that is likely illegal … that Congress has already voted to reject.”

Moreover, Americans are out of step with most of the international community on climate change. Recent polling data (AP NORC Center for Public Affairs Research) indicates that fewer than one in four Americans are extremely or very worried about climate change. In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2013, 40 percent of Americans said that global climate change was a major threat to their country, compared to more than 50 percent of Canadians, Australians, French and Germans; more than 60 percent of Italians and Spaniards; and more than 70 percent of Japanese.

The words of Winston Churchill and Charles De Gaulle seem apt: “England is an island, France the edge of a continent, America another world.”

Fred Zilian (www.zilianblog.com) teaches environmental politics at Salve Regina University, Newport, RI.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Causes of Peace, Part VI, Civil War, The Military Level and Political Will

Posted on December 7, 2015 by Fred Zilian

The Military Level

First, The South had some notable advantages, including what are called “interior lines.” Defending its own territory from an external threat, it had shorter “lines of communication,” had greater familiarity with the terrain, and could count on the support of the local population.

However, the North had many more advantages. The battle force ratios favored the North, generally outnumbering the South in every battle except Chickamauga (September 1863). The North had the larger population base from which to draw recruits.

Second, after the Emancipation Proclamation took effect in January 1863, the North enlisted and employed blacks, the South did not. About 180,000 blacks served in the Union Army; 37,000 were killed and killed at a rate 40% higher than whites. Twenty-one distinguished themselves and won the nation’s highest military honor, the Medal of Honor.

Third, the competence of the North’s military leaders eventually equaled the South’s. At the outset of the war, the South clearly had the advantage of superior leaders in men like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet. However, as the war continued, the North’s officer corps developed and improved in competence. Also, Lincoln eventually found the right generals who could prosecute the war to win battle victories: Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, and Philip Sheridan. General Grant became commander of all Union forces in the West in October 1863, and General-in Chief of the Army in March 1864

Fourth, the South’s tactics could be quite reckless at times. Grady McWhiney and Perry Jamieson contend:

“that the Confederates bled themselves nearly to death in the first three years of the war by making costly attacks more often than did the Federals. Offensive tactics, which had been used so successfully by Americans in the Mexican War, were much less effective in the 1860s because an improved weapon—the rifle—had vastly increased the strength of defenders. … The Confederates favored offensive warfare because the Celtic charge was an integral part of their heritage.” (Attack and Die, p. xv)

New technology had given the advantage to the defense rather than the offense. In the 1840s the French had developed the minié ball.  This, with the rifle (not musket), meant that the killing zone increased from 50 yards to 150 or more yards. The South aggressive offensive tactics often proved costly, and especially as manpower ran short, they simply could not afford the losses that such tactics brought.

Political Will

The final, crucial dimension which always matters in war is political will: the determination and resolve of a political actor to continue to prosecute a war.

In the early stages of the war, because of the Southern victories and the indecisiveness of the Northern generals, such as George McClellan, the South had swagger and confidence.  But this changed as the war progressed.

Southerners quite early lost their desire to volunteer, forcing the South to implement its First Conscription Act in April 1862. The early elation of Southerners evolved into dogged determination. Militarily, the summer of 1863 was a turning point. In the largest land battle in the history of North America, the South led by Robert E. Lee, invincible  to that point, was soundly defeated at Gettysburg by the North. Vicksburg, the final Southern bastion on the Mississippi River, fell shortly afterward.

As the war persisted, the Confederacy could not hold together under the strain of war as well as the North. By 1865 the South seemed to be full of wounded men, and women and children who were war refugees. Its will simply crumbled faster than the North’s.

After the victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the North’s will and determination continued to grow. In early 1864 Grant so impressed Lincoln with his victories in the West that Lincoln brought him east and made him commander of all Union forces. Lincoln’s own determination was reinforced now after finally finding the right commander. His will and the will of the North were decisively reinforced with the fall of Atlanta in September 1864, and Lincoln’s subsequent re-election in November.

Conclusion: Not only in the military sphere, but in the political, economic, and social spheres, the North possessed at the outset, or gained as the war progressed, a number of distinct advantages over the South. These advantages, coupled with its better decision making in these spheres, eventually caused the South’s will to falter faster than the North’s and for peace to break out in the spring of 1865. (Please see Part VII.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Causes of Peace, Part V: The American Civil War, Section I

Posted on December 5, 2015 by Fred Zilian

Let us now apply the Multi-Dimensional War Model to the American Civil War.

Political Level

On the domestic political level, the South faced a dilemma, a contradiction. In the name of defending Southern rights, the Confederate government had to infringe of those very rights: on individual freedom by conscription when it ran short of manpower, on property rights by impressing slaves (property owned by Southerners) into service, and on civil rights by the suspension of habeas corpus. This contradiction proved to be very painful for Southerners to swallow.

Second, in Abraham Lincoln, the North had the better leader and commander in chief. It also had a stable two-party political system while the South did not. The Confederates looked down on political parties. This meant that Jefferson Davis lacked a secure political base, and the South never really had the benefit of an opposition to propose alternatives.

Third, on January 1, 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation took effect. Not all Northerners supported this; however, it still gave the North a sense of unity and a greater sense of purpose. It also helped to prevent Great Britain and France from endorsing the South.

On the international Level, the South was never able to get international recognition and the support it needed, especially from Great Britain and France.

Social-Demographic Level

The superior population base in the North allowed it to field more men without the strain on the society and the economy which took place in the South. The North had a population of about 22 million against the nine million of the South, including 3.5 million slaves.

In January, 1862, Lincoln clearly recognized the North’s advantage in this dimension and realized that it must take advantage of this in its strategy.

I state my general idea of this war to be that we have the greater numbers, and the enemy has the greater facility of concentrating forces . . . ; that we must fail, unless we find some way of making our advantage an over-match for his; and that this can only be done by menacing him with superior forces at different points, at the same time; and if he weakens one to strengthen the other, forbear to attack the strengthened one, but seize, and hold the weakened . . . .” (Peter J. Parish, The American Civil War, p. 158)

Economic Level

First, the South made the misassumption that its cotton would give it decisive influence. This proved false.

Second, the North clearly had economic superiority in many areas. It had more resources to draw from and used them more effectively. For example, the North’s iron and coal production was vastly greater than the South’s.

Third, the North’s railway net was much more extensive than the South’s. Because of this, the North was able to maintain a steady flow of supplies to its armies fighting in the south. By the end of the war, it was operating over 2,000 miles of track, with over 400 locomotives and 6,000 cars.

Fourth, the North’s financial system was much sounder that the South’s. The South failed to secure foreign loans and by the end of the war its inflation totaled 9,000%. By contrast, the North imposed taxes early and often to finance the war. Its inflation during the war was 80%.

Lastly, the North’s naval blockade was implemented early and over the long term had a great effect, especially after the seizure of Vicksburg in July 1863.

Having considered the political, social, and economic levels of the war, we shall take up in the next post the final two dimensions: the military level and political will. (Please see Part VI.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Causes of Peace, Part IV, Paradigm #2: Zilian’s Multi-Dimensional War Model

Posted on December 4, 2015 by Fred Zilian

Paradigm #2 views war not as uni-dimensional but rather as multi-dimensional. War is more than warfare. Call this Zilian’s Multi-Dimensional War Model. To truly understand why one side won and the other lost, we cannot simply look at the military dimension of any war. Rather we must consider all the possible dimensions—such as, political, economic, social-demographic, cultural—of a state (or other political actor) to understand the outcome of a war, why “peace broke out” and war ended.

In analyzing past wars, Zilian’s Multi-Dimensional War Model forces our analysis to be more sophisticated, complex, and comprehensive. In examining the Peloponnesian War in the 5th century BC, this model helps us to understand the role of the decline in political leadership within Athens and the Delian League, not just the invincibility of the Spartans as warriors. In addressing the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars of France in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it helps us to appreciate the role of the nation in arms and the lack of cooperation among the allies in understanding the many early victories of France. In analyzing the victory of the Allies in World War II, it forces us to think about the role political-military relations within the U.S. and among the Allies as factors in their success. In evaluating the Vietnam War, it demonstrates the importance of considering political will on both sides.

For the American Civil War, overall, peace broke out in the spring of 1865 because, not only in the military sphere, but also in the political and economic spheres, the North possessed at the outset or gained a number of distinct advantages over the South as the war progressed. These advantages, coupled with its better decision making in these spheres, eventually caused the South’s will to crumble faster than the North’s. (Please Part V.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Causes of Peace, Part III, Thinking About War, Paradigm #1

Posted on December 3, 2015 by Fred Zilian

In order truly to understand war & peace, we must delve into some military theory. A theory lays out the principal concepts of a given field of study and their relationships, and it must also explain the “why” of things: causality. In doing this it should help us predict behavior: what will take place in that field of study under a given set of circumstances.

There are at least two ways of looking at war—two theories, “paradigms,” or frames of reference. The first paradigm can be summed up by the expression: “In war, God is on the side of the heaviest battalions,” that is, the side with the strongest military forces wins.

In Paradigm #1, war is about military stuff. War is uni-dimensional. However, if we look at military history, this clearly is not always the case. The Thebans defeated the supposedly invincible Spartans at Leuctra in 371 B.C. despite an almost two-to-one inferiority. At Cannae in 216 B.C. Hannibal destroyed over 90% of a numerically superior Roman force. In 1757, Frederick the Great outmaneuvered an army over twice his number, losing 500 men while the enemy lost close to 8,000. Napoleon repeatedly achieved battle victories with inferior numbers. And in this century, the French lost against the Algerians in the 50s and 60s and the United States lost in Vietnam, despite having superiority in military forces.

Let’s consider the analysis of the Civil War historian Peter Parish. In his book, The American Civil War, he states:

[The battles of] Gettysburg and Vicksburg are commonly regarded as the decisive engagements of the Civil War; they both took place in July, 1863, but the war did not end until April 1865. What had happened in the field of battle had become more than ever the tip of the military iceberg. The great submerged mass was a matter of equipment, supply, transport, commo, of industrial power, and technical skill, and also of public opinion, civilian morale, and sheer will to resist. (p. 159.)

It is clear that victory in battle or in war does not always go to the side with military superiority. This is because war since the time of the French Revolution (1789) has not been fought by armies but by nations. States have mobilized and employed any and all of their dimensions to wage war. For example, in August 1793 the Committee of Public Safety, during the height of the Revolution, decreed a universal mobilization:

“Young men will fight, young men are called to conquer. Married men will forge arms, transport military baggage and guns and will prepare food supplies. Women . . . will forget their futile tasks: their delicate hands will work at making clothes [and tents and they shall attend the wounded]. Children will make lint of old cloth. . . . And old men, . . . , will be guided to the public squares . . . where they will kindle the courage of young warriors and preach the doctrines of hate for kings and the unity of the Republic.”

Since then, war has become multi-dimensional. If we wish a truly comprehensive explanation of any modern war, we must look at various dimensions of the states waging war, not just the military forces. Any comprehensive analysis of the American Civil War must be multi-dimensional. In order to understand “why peace broke out” in the spring of 1865 after four long years of war, one must look at more than military things. One way of expressing this succinctly is that: “War is more than warfare.” (Please see Part IV)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Causes of Peace, Part II

Posted on December 1, 2015 by Fred Zilian

The authoritative, London-based, weekly magazine, The Economist, has just issued its annual look into the next year: The World in 2016. It contains an essay written by John Andrews entitled, “More War than Peace.” He notes International Peace Day, September 21, established by the United Nations in 1981, and predicts that this day in the coming year will be anything but peaceful. “…swathes of Syria, Iraq, and Africa will be racked by violence; murderous drug cartels will threaten the stability of Latin America; and “frozen conflicts”, from the Korean peninsula to the Caucasus, will risk thawing into renewed wars.”

He continues by indicating the “(relatively) good news is that the casualties will be trifling compared with the horrors of the past.” He then provides summary statistics for the world wars of the 20th century, followed by statistics showing the drop in war-related deaths in the decades, 1960-2010.

Unfortunately, he indicates, this trend will reverse itself in the future. He predicts an increase in such deaths because of religious, ideological or ethnic insurgencies, and also civil wars.

He thus contradicts Steven Pinker in his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, discussed in my earlier essay on the causes of peace. Such quantitative analysis and prediction is certainly interesting but built on a very precarious foundation. Historically, war and peace are very hard to predict. We can hope that world wars are a thing of the past; however, Plato was correct in saying, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” War will remain a recognized, legitimate instrument of international politics to resolve clashes of interests. We must do our best to push it as far as possible to the bottom of the options available to a political actor pursuing its interests. (Please see Part III.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Unified Germany at 25: More Normal, More Independent

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Fred Zilian

(This essay, abridged, was originally published as “Germany’s Unification a Huge Success,” in the Providence Journal on October 3, 2015. For more analysis, please see my book:  From Confrontation to Cooperation: The Takeover of the East German Army by the Bundeswehr.)

Twenty-five years ago, eleven months after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany was unified for the second time in modern history. The first time in 1871 it took three wars and was achieved over the objections of its neighbors. This time it was without bloodshed and with the support of its neighbors, including Soviet Union.

Shortly after the fall, Gerhard Herder, the East German ambassador to the US, said of the possibility of unification: “In my dreams, yes, but being a politician and standing with both my feet on the earth, I don’t see a possibility in the foreseeable future.” He was wrong.

On the international level, the Soviet Union’s position evolved over the months after the Wall fell, not only to endorse unification, but also to a withdrawal of its 546,000 troops and dependents in East Germany. The United States gave early and unwavering support for unification, eventually convincing Great Britain and France to follow. The six countries began the 2+4 Talks in May, 1990, concluding and signing the Final Settlement on September 12.

In 1989 within East Germany, das Volk (the people) had chanted “No Violence!” and then “We Are the People.” But soon after the Wall fell, the chant changed to “We are One People” and “Germany, Fatherland.”

Within the space of five months, the East German Communist Party had lost its legitimacy, clearly shown in the March 1990 elections, in which it received only 16% of the vote. Economic union followed in July, and at midnight October 2, 1990, East Germany was joined to the Federal Republic of Germany, making the new Germany the most populated country in Europe with 82 million people.

Today, despite the huge amount of money that had to be invested in the new eastern federal states, the postwar German Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) continues. It has the fourth largest economy (GDP) in the world, expected to grow 1.8% this year. Relying on its small and middle-size manufacturing companies, it is clearly the most powerful economy in Europe, described as an “economic juggernaut,” and the “economic powerhouse of Europe.” Its unemployment rate remains stable at 4.7%, the lowest in the Eurozone. By 2011 it had become the world’s second largest exporter (after China) and now has the world’s largest current-account surplus.

On the domestic political level, there is no question this united Germany has continued its course, set after WW II by the allies, as a Western liberal democracy, its authoritarian past buried. Since Unification, it has peacefully and democratically installed several governments of various political hues. In 2005 Angela Merkel became its first female chief executive (chancellor) and the first from the former east. In addition to its three traditional parties, it has had a Greens Party for decades and since 2013 a new party on the right, Alternative for Germany. The political system has shown resilience: the CDU/CSU conservative parties are now in coalition with the Social Democrats, the former opposition. Finally, Roger Karapin has argued that citizen activism has become a major force in domestic politics—German citizens are more prepared to be disobedient and assertive, belying the earlier passive, obedient stereotype.

Its foreign policy, however, is in flux. The “German Question” has returned, at least in part. In its original form, this Question related to the 19th century debate over the proper means and ends for the envisioned unification of the many Germanic states in the heart of Europe at the time. In its post-WWII version, the Question has had at least two parts: What borders for Germany? Second, what role for Germany? With German Unification in 1990, the first was answered categorically; the second has not.

Though accused by its NATO allies of foot-dragging at times, it has moved from a country militarily hand-cuffed—restricted by its Constitution, its national culture, and its past—to a more confident, “normal” country that is prepared to assert itself and even send its soldiers abroad. In 1999 it committed its military forces to combat for the first time since WW II as part of a NATO force to protect Kosovo. Beyond the Balkans it has also sent military forces to the Middle East, Africa, and Afghanistan. Recently its top political leaders approved the delivery of thousands of machine guns, grenades, and antitank missiles to Kurdish forces battling Islamic militants in Iraq.

Germany’s foreign policy actions during the past five years suggest a role, grounded in Western values and interests, committed to human rights, mindful not to repeat the mistakes of its past—including reliance on military force—and more prepared to lead Europe, commensurate with its power. The United States can expect a more independent and less docile Germany—perhaps cold water for the US, but something good for Europe and for the world.

As I stood in Bonn’s central market place on Unification Day twenty-five years ago—oompah music playing, balloons rising, flocks of pigeons darting, the crowd swaying—I was hopeful that the Germans would succeed in their unification. Today the Germans can be proud of their achievements, and Americans can be proud of the role they played in ending the Cold War and supporting the Unification. Shortly after Unification, I spoke to a former East German sergeant who indicated how it might have been had the Soviets won the Cold War. He told me that “Germany would have been one big concentration camp.”

An educator at Salve Regina University, Newport, RI, Mr. Zilian was a US Army liaison officer to the German Army during Unification. Contact: www.zilianblog.com

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Civil War Changed U.S. Forever

Posted on June 27, 2015 by Fred Zilian

(This essay was originally published by the Newport Daily News on June 24, 2015.)

This year our country concludes its sesquicentennial celebration of the Civil War, fought 1861-1865, in which Americans fought, wounded, and killed each other in astounding numbers. For many years, the conventional number of soldiers killed was 620,000. In recent years, sources have raised the figure to over 700,000.

Over 2.2 million men served under arms in the Union military and perhaps 1.5 million served in the Confederate military. One in 65 died in combat, one in 13 died of disease, one in 10 was wounded. The last Civil War veteran died in 1959.

The average Civil War soldier was 25 years old, five feet eight inches tall, and weighed 143 pounds. Though the minimum legal age for enlistment was 18, an estimated 100,000 soldiers in the Union Army were under 15, some drummer boys being as young as nine.

While many Americans consider Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, to be the end of the war, this is not true. Other Confederate units continued to exist and remained at large for the next few months. Confederate President Jefferson Davis was captured on May 10.

The final engagement in which there were casualties took place at the Battle of Palmito Ranch, May 12-13, on the banks of the Rio Grande, east of Brownesville, Texas.  Union Private John J. Williams of the 34th Indiana Regiment, who died in this battle, was the final soldier to die in the war.

John_J__Williams, Civilwar-online

Private John J. Williams, the final soldier killed in the Civil War

(www.civilwar-online.com)

The final Confederate surrender took place on November 6, 1865, when the Confederate warship CSS Shenandoah surrendered at Liverpool, England.

The Civil War forced our country to face four key issues. Were we a federation of states in which the central government has higher authority than the individual states, or were we a confederation of states in which the individual states had more power than the central government? One of these powers was, of course, the right to secede from the Union. The answer: a federation

Second, if one of our first principles was that all men are created equal, how did we reconcile this with the existence of slavery in our country?  The Atlantic slave trade had been banned since 1808; however, slavery was still lawful. Eighteen states had passed laws banning slavery; fifteen states did not. The war eliminated this contradiction, even if true social equality in our country has, to this day, still proven elusive.

Third, in a national crisis, what civil liberties could justifiably be restricted and too what extent in order to quell the crisis? While President Lincoln believed that he could do just about anything to quell the insurrection, the war provided no definitive answer to this question. The civil liberties and rights curbed after the 9/11 terrorist attack continue to be a source of debate.

Finally, could a democracy sustain itself through such a crisis? Not only did it endure the storm, it had a national election in the midst of it, reelected its leader, and saw the crisis through to its conclusion.

The war took the life of President Abraham Lincoln who, in most surveys, is rated our greatest president. On April 14, 1865, he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, a southern sympathizer who believed that slavery was one of God’s greatest gifts to humankind.

At the outset of the war, people referred to the country as “the United States are,” while afterward people said “the United States is.” At first the conflict was about the existence of the Union and about states’ rights, but it eventually rose to a higher plane. The subtext of slavery surfaced and recast the war into one fought about a new birth of freedom for our country and about dictating that the Southern way of life based on slavery must be gone with the wind.

The Civil War is a cornerstone in America’s national identity. Civil War writer Shelby Foote stated that any understanding of our nation must be based on an understanding of the Civil War. “The Civil War defined us as what we are and opened us to what we became ….” It was an “enormous catastrophe” and the “crossroads of our being.” Civil War historian James McPherson has stated that: “From the war sprang the great flood that caused the stream of American history to surge into a new channel ….”

This brings to an end my series of essays on the Civil War. I hope in the past three years I have educated and enlightened, and perhaps inspired you to renew your civic commitment to our country. My thanks to all of you who have given me such kind feedback.

A retired Army officer, Fred Zilian teaches history and political science at Salve Regina University and is a member of the Rhode Island Civil War Sesquicentennial Commemoration Commission Advisory Council. Send him email at zilianf@aol.com or check out his blog at www.zilianblog.com and his Abe Lincoln website at www.honestaberi.com.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment