269 Stephen M. Walt on "dual loyalty"; Taking Sides, by John Mearsheimer

Stephen M. Walt on "dual loyalty"; Taking Sides, by John Mearsheimer

Lorinna is a hidden valley in Tasmania. I used to live nearby, and visited it many times in the 1970s & 80s.

I'm not a Buddhist, but I did the Buddhist "Preliminary Practices" retreat under two Tibetan lamas, in the Buddhist temple at Lorinna in the late 1970s. The temple is a hexagonal log cabin built of Australian eucalypt (hardwood) logs - which were hauled into place with a bullock team. It's beautiful.

(1) Brisbane 9/11 Street Action Sat 10th April from 1pm
(2) Keith Lampe: I live in a secluded village in the Ecuadorian Andes
(3) Keith Lampe on Marijuana, Porn, sexual Yoga
(4) Please help save Lorinna
(5) Stephen M. Walt on "dual loyalty"
(6) Taking Sides, by John Mearsheimer

(1) Brisbane 9/11 Street Action Sat 10th April from 1pm

From: Bruce Wham <bwham@westnet.com.au> Date: 05.04.2010 08:19 AM

Hi Everyone,

This Saturday the 10th of April,there will be a friendly gathering of civil informationing, in an ongoing effort to inform the public about the True Crimes of 9/11.

Place: outside Central Train Station (cnr. Ann & Edward st.)
Date: Saturday the 10th of April
Time: from 1-PM

Contact: Bruce 0413839606
wearechangebrisbane.org
meetup.com/wearechangebrisbane

(2) Keith Lampe: I live in a secluded village in the Ecuadorian Andes

From: Prez <prez@usa-exile.org> Date: 25.03.2010 07:56 PM
Subject: Re: GREEN YIPPIE!: Climate + DU + 9/11 + Gaza + Water + Pot

Dear Peter,

Thanks for this.

Okay, here's some feedback for some of the issues you raise.

Yes, I'm an old hippie, was a founder of Yippie! and Jocks for Joynts. But also had once been all-too-conventional--e.g., in '57 accredited to NATO as a Paris-based correspondent for Hearst's notorious International News Service (now merely the concluding "I" in UPI).

I live in a somewhat secluded village in the Ecuadorian Andes. I grew up in the US but have lived more than twenty years outside it--including Copenhagen, Paris, an island in the Beaufort Sea, Kyoto, Seoul, Kathmandu, McLeod Ganj, Chiangmai and the Bolivian Andes.

(3) Keith Lampe on Marijuana, Porn, sexual Yoga

From: Prez <Prez@usa-exile.org> Date: 28.03.2010 05:54 AM

SORRY THIS HAS TAKEN SO LONG:

Dear Peter,

Thanks for this.

Okay, here's some feedback for some of the issues you raise.

Yes, I'm an old hippie, was a founder of Yippie! and Jocks for Joynts. But also had once been all-too-conventional--e.g., in '57 accredited to NATO as a Paris-based correspondent for Hearst's notorious International News Service (now merely the concluding "I" in UPI).

I live in a somewhat secluded village in the Ecuadorian Andes. I grew up in the US but have lived more than twenty years outside it--including Copenhagen, Paris, an island in the Beaufort Sea, Kyoto, Seoul, Kathmandu, McLeod Ganj, Chiangmai and the Bolivian Andes.

I don't know anything about the effects of the chemicals used in hydroponic marijuana growing, so all I can say is that on balance organically grown marijuana would lead to less schizophrenia. Please see Tod Mikuriya's MARIJUANA MEDICAL PAPERS: 1839-1972. Of course the legalization of marijuana would lead to much more organic product, much less hydroponic.

For me the most important aspect of marijuana is its mood-enhancing properties. In fact, I think this is why it was rendered illegal. Alcohol is legal because you pay next morning with a hangover, so there's no net mood gain.

Which leads me to your comments on porn. Probably the most swiftly effective path to sustained mood enhancement is the frequent practice of a sexual yoga--and we'd all benefit from video or film footage of the most powerful practitioners. To benefit us maximally, the footage should be frank. Thus it would be technically classified as porn.

You may recall that the mid-20th-century US anthropologist Ruth Benedict made a major point of how guilt-ridden are the sexual values of Occidental "civilization". Within the vast Japanese porn industry one finds here and there presentations of sexual behavior so consummately guiltless that they should be viewed by all Occidentals as a way of becoming aware that such is possible.

I personally feel that a major reason for the recent collapse of Occidental civilization is its sexual values. Occidentals, then, are innocent victims of the Vatican's (and other Western religious institutions) desire to render people ashamed of themselves frequently enough to keep their self-confidence low enough to preclude any threat to its sinister control system. Thus Occidentals are regarded as sexual laughingstocks within healthy sexual cultures.

I like your idea of discontinuing porn-for-profit--but I'd replace it with a volunteer web site maybe called Sexual Exemplars so folks can learn one or more powerful sexual yoga techniques--and also view nonyogic sexual experiences which are purely guiltless and egoless.

Very best,

Keith Lampe aka Pondo

(4) Please help save Lorinna

From: Paul de Burgh-Day <pdeburgh@harboursat.com.au> Date: 29.03.2010 10:22 AM
Subject: Lorinna: Please help us save our community!

The people of Lorinna are fighting to stop a proposed new road into our valley. Lorinna residents are gravely concerned about the local Council proposal (see details below). It has no support within our community. To win this fight we urgently need financial assistance, however large or small.

I am casting a wide net here - but assistance will be welcomed from anywhere on Planet Earth!

Which is where you are all located!

If you can help us - MANY THANKS!

Paul

http://friendsoflorinna.org/

We have launched an appeal to the State planning authority against a decision by our local Council to force a new road into our community

RMPAT (Resource Management Planning Appeals Tribunal) Hearings between Lorinna residents and Kentish Council will begin on 7th April, 2010. There are 21 appellants who are working tirelessly, with the support of the people of Lorinna, to protect our community, our way of life and our unique environment. For the last five months Lorinna residents have been proactively engaging the assistance of lawyers, engineering and planning experts and visual assessors, to provide the best chance of winning this case. All of this is costly, particularly for a small community such as ours. To carry our case we need to raise around $45,000 by 7th April, and we ask for your help to do it.

Please be aware that while nothing is guaranteed in the legal system, our legal counsel advises that we have a 'highly meritorious' case.

While $21,544.75 has been raised to date, we are still $23,500 short of the required funds.

If you can help us, please send your donation to:

Lorinna Works Inc.

BSB 633-000 (Bendigo Bank)

Account Number: 136620200

(Label your deposit "Appeal," with your name as a reference).

We ask that you forward this email far and wide to your networks, work colleagues, family and friends.

Why don't Lorinna residents want this new road?

Kentish Council has completely ignored the environmental costs of the proposed road, the construction of which would result in destruction of native forest and threatened species habitat. It would also impact upon internationally recognised World Heritage Area values as the proposed road would be visible from nearby Cradle Mountain and other areas of significance.

Lorinna residents have serious concerns about the safety of the proposed road, as it is excessively steep, unsuitable for heavy vehicles, geotechnically unstable and exposed to severe winter conditions. Kentish Council's own risk assessment identifies the risk associated with the road as 'high'.

Lorinna residents believe that the environmental costs and associated risks of using the proposed new road are unacceptable, especially given that Lorinna Road could be reopened following repair works, at dramatically lower cost than the construction of any new road. The farmers whose property would be divided are opposed to the proposed route, so Council must force compulsory land acquisition.

Your help is needed!

We are asking you for a donation, however large or small it may be, and for your assistance in spreading the word. Please give generously in support of our small community as we take a stand to protect the quality of its future.

Please make deposits to: Lorinna Works Inc.

BSB 633-000 (Bendigo Bank)

Account Number: 136620200

Please write 'Appeal' and your surname as a reference on your deposit.

If you are living in Australia and would prefer to send a cheque, please make your cheque payable to Lorinna Works Incorporated. Write on the back of the cheque 'For Appeal', and post it to Lorinna Works Incorporated, PO Box 16, Sheffield, Tasmania 7306.

If you would like to speak to someone directly about this appeal, please telephone Bart or Annie on (03) 6363 5070.

Or, as one of my friends, feel free to call Geraldine or me on (03) 6363 5063.

If our Planning Appeal is successful, it is possible that not all the money raised will be expended. Any funds left over would be returned to you pro-rata. Alternatively you would have the option to donate to our incorporated Lorinna Works for community infrastructure work.

Thank you for forwarding this email far and wide to your networks, work colleagues, family and friends.

If you have already contributed to our Appeal, thank you so much for your support. It is greatly appreciated.

Our Heartfelt Thanks,

The Lorinna Appellants

and from Paul and Geraldine personally

Are you familiar with Lorinna?

See us on the 7:30 Report: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2686936.htm

Lorinna is a small community: just over 50 people living in the peace and beauty of Tasmania near world-famous Cradle Mountain. Lorinna lies in a cup-shaped valley, bounded by high plateau all around and bordered by Lake Cethana on the west.

For the past 80 years residents have accessed Lorinna along a hand-built heritage road that gently follows the contours above the lake.

It has been closed by Kentish Council on what we see as fraudulent political grounds.

It is a much loved road. The slow and gentle pace of the journey has always played an intrinsic part in defining the uniqueness of Lorinna, making it a truly extraordinary place. These rare qualities would be significantly compromised if Lorinna Road remains closed - forcing us to use a very steep, inherently dangerous, unstable new road.

Even if you don't live in Tasmania, you can visit Lorinna on Google Maps or Google Earth.

(5) Stephen M. Walt on "dual loyalty"

From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date: 06.04.2010 06:24 PM
Subject: Dual Loyalties, Taking Sides and De-legitimization

On "dual loyalty"

by Stephen M. Walt

Friday, April 2, 2010

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/02/on_dual_loyalty.

Last week, the online journal Politico published a story by reporter Laura Rozen on certain divisions within the Obama administration on Middle East policy. What made the story especially explosive was a quotation from an unnamed administration source describing senior White House aide Dennis Ross as being "far more sensitive to Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests."

As one might expect, this statement raised the old specter of "dual loyalty," and from several directions. Critics of Ross suggested that he was guilty of it, while defenders complained that he was being tarred with a familiar anti-Semitic slur. Indeed, Rozen subsequently updated her story with a statement by NSC chief of staff Denis McDonough defending Ross and underscoring "his commitment to this country and to our vital interests," an obvious attempt by the administration to head off the issue before it gained traction.

How should we think about the "dual loyalty" question, either in this context or in many others? To me this is a tricky issue that ought to be handled with some delicacy, and we ought to employ a different vocabulary to discuss it.

One might start by remembering that the phrase "dual loyalty" has a regrettable and sordid history, given its origins as a nasty anti-Semitic canard in old Europe. Accusing anyone -- and especially someone who is Jewish -- of "dual loyalty" is bound to trigger a heated reaction, and for good reason. Furthermore many people believe patriotism (i.e., love of one's country) is a profoundly important value, so any behavior that seems to be at odds with that principle carries powerful negative connotations. In a world where nationalism remains a potent doctrine, casting doubt on anyone's loyalty is a serious charge.

More recently, however, scholars have used the term "dual loyalty" in more analytical and neutral fashion, based on the obvious fact that all human beings have multiple loyalties or attachments. Most of us feel a strong attachment to our own country, for example, but we also feel a sense of loyalty to family, friends, religion, ethnic groups, sports teams, etc.). Patriotism is only one of these competing loyalties, and does not necessarily trump the others. The novelist E. M. Forster famously remarked that if forced to choose between betraying a friend or betraying his country, he hoped he would have the guts to betray the latter, and a 2006 Pew survey of Christians in thirteen countries found that 42 percent of U.S. respondents saw themselves "as Christians first and Americans second." All this is just to remind us that "loyalty" to a country is just one of the many attachments that we all feel.

Moreover, in a world where members of different national or ethnic groups often live in many different places, tensions inevitably arise between different sorts of national allegiance. Today, therefore, scholars use the term "dual loyalty" to describe the widespread circumstance where individuals feel genuine and legitimate attachments to more than one country. A good example is Israeli political scientist Gabriel Sheffer's book Diaspora Politics, which distinguishes between "total," "dual," and "divided" loyalties, and Sheffer shows that all three responses are bound to occur when members of particular ethnic, national, or religious groups live in different countries.

Needless to say, in a melting-pot society like the United States, it was inevitable that many Americans would also have strong attachments to other countries. These different attachments may reflect ancestry, religious affiliation, personal experience (such as overseas study), or any number of other sources. The key point, however, is that in the United States it is entirely legitimate to manifest such attachments in political life. Americans can hold dual citizenship, for example, or form an interest group whose avowed purpose is to shape U.S. policy towards a specific country. This is how the American system of government works, and there is nothing "disloyal" about such conduct.

But what about getting directly involved as a government official, and in issue-areas where important interests are at stake? Instead of invoking phrases like "dual loyalty," a rhetoric that immediately invokes connotations of betrayal (or even treason), I suggest we frame the issue as one of potential conflicts of interest. Simply put, is it in the best interest of the United States as a whole to place U.S. policy on key issues in the hands of people whose even-handedness is not beyond question, and especially when there is evidence that they feel a strong personal attachment to a foreign country with whom the United States may have important disagreements?

In many walks of life, we routinely expect people to recuse themselves from issues in which their own interests or attachments might affect their judgment. Judges and jurors are excused from cases where they have clear ties to one of the contending parties. University faculty and administrators are often expected to divulge relationships (including outside consulting) that might affect their objectivity or probity. We would also regard it as inappropriate if a financial advisor recommended investing in a company owned by a family member, and all the more so if they failed to divulge the connection. Why? Because there is a conflict of interest.

By the same logic, we have valid reason for concern whenever someone was making policy in an area where they have clear financial interests (which is why public officials are often expected to liquidate certain investments or place them in blind trusts), or if their prior associations made it clear that they felt a strong attachment to one or more interested parties. There are good reasons why a former lobbyist for an oil company might not be the best choice for the Department of Interior or the Environmental Protection Agency (which is not to say that such appointments never happen, of course). Because a public servant's responsibility is to do what is in the best interest of the country as a whole, and not to favor the interests of any specific group, we normally worry when an obvious conflict of interest is discovered. And that same principle ought to apply to the making of foreign policy.

Identifying potential conflicts of interest can be tricky, however, which suggests we ought to proceed carefully. It would be inappropriate, it seems to me, to disqualify anyone from public service in a particular policy area solely on the basis of their ethnic or religious background or even their family ties. It would be wrong to exclude someone from work on South Asia policy simply because they were a Pakistani-American or an Indian-American. Similarly, I would not exclude a Muslim American, Arab-American, or Jewish-American from involvement in U.S. Middle East policy simply because of their background, or exclude someone who happened to be married to a Korean from working on U.S. policy in East Asia.

But when an individual's own activities or statements give independent evidence of strong attachment to a particular foreign country, is it a good idea to give them an influential role in shaping U.S. policy towards that country? If disagreements arise between that country and Washington, won't this place these officials in a difficult position, and raise questions about their ability to conduct policy in a wholly objective manner? And even if they are sincerely attempting to advance the U.S. interest, won't their sense of identity with the foreign country in question incline them towards certain approaches that may or may not be optimal?

To return to where we began: Isn't it obvious that U.S. policy towards the Middle East is likely to be skewed when former employees of WINEP or AIPAC have important policy-making roles, and when their own prior conduct has made it clear that they have a strong attachment to one particular country in the region? The point is not to question their patriotism, which is not the issue. Rather, the question is whether an attachment to Israel shapes how they think about the peace process, Iran, and the extent to which U.S. and Israeli interests are congruent. Their patriotism can be above reproach, but their advice may still be advancing policies that are not in the U.S. interest.

By the way, I'd have the same worries if U.S. Middle East policy were turned over to key figures from the American Task Force on Palestine or the National Iranian-American Council. When there are important national security issues at stake, wouldn't it make more sense to have U.S. policy in the hands of people without strong personal feelings about any of interested parties? Ironically, someone like that might end up pursuing policies that were better for all concerned.

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

(6) Taking Sides, by John Mearsheimer

From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date: 06.04.2010 06:24 PM

Taking Sides

by John Mearsheimer

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/03/17/john-mearsheimer/taking-sides/

In the wake of Vice President Joe Biden's ill-fated trip to Israel last week, many people would agree with the Israeli ambassador Michael Oren's remark that 'Israel's ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975... a crisis of historic proportions.' Like all crises, this one will eventually go away. However, this bitter fight has disturbing implications for Israelis and their American supporters.

First, the events of the past week make it clear in ways that we have not seen in the past that Israel is a strategic liability for the United States, not the strategic asset that the Israel lobby has long claimed it was. Specifically, the Obama administration has unambiguously declared that Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, are doing serious damage to US interests in the region. Indeed, Biden reportedly told the Israeli prime minister, Binyahim Netanyahu, in private:
This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace.

If that message begins to resonate with the American public, unconditional support for the Jewish state is likely to evaporate.

Right after Biden's remarks were reported by the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Mark Perry, a Middle East expert with excellent contacts in the US military, described a briefing that senior officers working directly for General David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, gave on 16 January to Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The central message Petraeus sent to Mullen, according to Perry, was that 'Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardising US standing in the region... and could cost American lives.' Apparently, Mullen took this message to the White House, where it had a significant impact on the president and his chief advisers. Biden's comments to Netanyahu appear to reflect that view.

Israel's supporters in the United States have long defended the special relationship between the two countries on the grounds that their interests are virtually the same and therefore it makes sense to back Israel no matter what policies it adopts. Recent events show that claim to be false, however, which will make it hard to defend the special relationship, especially if it is putting American soldiers at risk.

Second, the Obama administration has gone beyond simply expressing anger over the 1600 housing units that Israel announced it would build in East Jerusalem just after Biden landed at Ben-Gurion Airport. According to press reports that have not been challenged, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has demanded that Netanyahu reverse his government's decision approving that construction. This demand is unprecedented; the United States has often complained about settlement building, and Obama asked Israel to freeze temporarily the construction of new settlements in 2009, but it has never asked Israel to reverse a building plan that the government has already approved.

Israel will surely fight tooth and nail against Clinton's demand, and so will the main groups in the lobby. The Netanyahu government is filled with hard-line opponents of a two-state solution, many of whom also believe that East Jerusalem is an integral part of Israel, and it is hard to see how Netanyahu's coalition could survive if he agreed not to build those 1600 housing units. Yet Obama has powerful incentives to stand his ground as well. After all, he backed down last year when Netanyahu refused his request that Israel completely freeze settlement building in all of the Occupied Territories - including East Jerusalem - and that act of spinelessness has cost him dearly in the Arab and Islamic world. More important, we now know that the president and his lieutenants believe that new construction in East Jerusalem threatens American lives, which makes it even harder to see how he could back down without suffering political damage.

Still, it is hard to imagine the Obama administration engaging in a serious fight with Israel over the fate of those 1600 housing units, given that the lobby wields extraordinary influence inside the Beltway. The president is also not inclined by temperament to engage in public brawls and he has so many other problems on his plate that he surely does not want to get bogged down in a costly fight with Israel and its American supporters. In the end, there is likely to be a rather muted, protracted dispute between the two sides over those housing units and the many others that the Netanyahu government plans to build in East Jerusalem. This ongoing conflict will be a constant reminder to Americans that Israel and the United States have conflicting interests on a very important issue.

The third reason that this crisis is so troublesome for Israel and the lobby is that it forces the latter to choose sides in a public way. There is little doubt that almost all of the mainstream organisations of the lobby will back Israel to the hilt and blame the Obama administration for the crisis. This tendency to defend Israel no matter what it does is reflected in the recent comments of Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League. He issued a press release about the Biden visit in which he said he was 'shocked and stunned at the administration's tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem'. It was, he said, 'a gross overreaction to a point of policy difference among friends'. He will have plenty of company in the weeks ahead from his fellow hard-liners in the lobby, who will not miss an opportunity to defend Israel and lambast Obama and his advisers.

Siding with Israel against the United States was not a great problem a few years ago: one could pretend that the interests of the two countries were the same and there was little knowledge in the broader public about how the Israel lobby operated and how much it influenced the making of US Middle East policy. But those days are gone, probably for ever. It is now commonplace to talk about the lobby in the mainstream media and almost everyone who pays serious attention to American foreign policy understands - thanks mainly to the internet - that the lobby is an especially powerful interest group.

Therefore, it will be difficult to disguise the fact that most pro-Israel groups are siding with Israel against the US president, and defending policies that respected military leaders now openly question. This is an awful situation for the lobby to find itself in, because it raises legitimate questions about whether it has the best interests of the United States at heart or whether it cares more about Israel's interests. Again, this matters more than ever, because key figures in the administration have let it be known that Israel is acting in ways that at best complicate US diplomacy, and at worst could get Americans killed.

The crisis will undoubtedly simmer down over the next few weeks. We are already hearing lots of reassuring rhetoric from the administration and Capitol Hill about 'shared values', 'unbreakable bonds' and the other supposed virtues of the special relationship. And the lobby is hard at work downplaying the importance of the crisis. For example, Congressman Gary Ackerman, a fervent supporter of Israel, described recent events as a 'mini-crisis, if even that'. Michael Oren is now denying - rather late in the game I might add - that he ever said that relations between Israel and the United States are at a 35-year low. He claims to have been 'flagrantly misquoted'. And to show how Orwellian the lobby can be, Israel's supporters are also trying to make the case that Biden too was flagrantly misquoted and indeed, he never told Netanyahu that Israel's policies were putting American troops at risk.

This concerted effort to rewrite history and generate lots of happy talk about the special relationship will surely help ameliorate the present crisis, but that will only be a temporary fix. There will be more crises ahead, because a two-state solution is probably impossible at this point and 'greater Israel' is going to end up an apartheid state. The United States cannot support that outcome, however, partly for the strategic reasons that have been exposed by the present crisis, but also because apartheid is a morally reprehensible system that no decent American could openly embrace. Given its core values, how could the United States sustain a special relationship with an apartheid state? In short, America's remarkably close relationship with Israel is now in trouble and this situation will only get worse.