A Few Words About Walls

"People have been building walls all through history.  Why do you assume walls don't work?"  This is a question I've seen asked recently on Facebook (I'd provide a link, but I can't find the post).  Here is my answer.

First and foremost, walls in history have usually been built primarily for military purposes - to stop military invasions.  One very famous wall that sometimes gets mentioned is the Great Wall of China.  This is what China Travellers website has to say about the purpose of that wall:

The Great Wall of China was built to protect China from its enemies and invaders from the North, especially the Mongols. The Mongols were a tribal group that would regularly conduct raids into China. Despite the wall, the Mongols eventually conquered China. The Wall also kept Chinese citizens from leaving China.

I would draw your attention to the fact that "Despite the wall, the Mongols eventually conquered China." It was big, and beautify, and ultimately didn't work.

Another example of a wall built for military purposes is the Maginot Line between France and Germany.  Built after WWI, this wall was supposed to deter another German invasion of France.  And while the wall itself was well made and strong, it obviously didn't stop the Germans from invading in WWII.  In fact, it was so unsuccessful in producing its ultimate goal that it has become synonymous with a false sense of security.  In fact, Merriam-Webster defines Maginot Line as follows:

1 : a line of defensive fortifications built before World War II to protect the eastern border of France but easily outflanked by German invaders

2 : a defensive barrier or strategy that inspires a false sense of security

These walls were built primarily for defensive, military purposes and they ultimately failed.  So let's look at a wall that was built primarily for immigration purposes - the Berlin Wall.  The Berlin Wall was built in 1961 to stop people from leaving East Berlin for West Berlin.  According to Wikipedia:

Before the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin; from there they could then travel to West Germany and to other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989 the Wall prevented almost all such emigration.^[7]

Ah ha!  A successful wall you say.  Yes, it was a successful wall, but it was also a very well guarded wall. Again from wikipedia:

The barrier included guard towers placed along large concrete walls,^[4] accompanied by a wide area (later known as the "death strip") that contained anti-vehicle trenches, "fakir beds" and other defenses.

It was also only approximately 87 miles long.  Trump is asking for a much longer wall to be built - anywhere from 234 miles to 1000 miles according to a report from cnbc.com. And even the very effective Berlin Wall was not perfect.  Going back to the Wikipedia article:

During this period over 100,000^[6] people attempted to escape and over 5,000 people succeeded in escaping over the Wall, with an estimated death toll ranging from 136^[8] to more than 200^[9][6] in and around Berlin.

And let us not forget who wanted that wall torn down.  I believe it was the much revered (in some circles) Ronald Reagan who famously said "Tear Down This Wall."   In the late 1980s, a wall built for retarding illegal immigration was seen as a threat to freedom and liberty.  So why is one such a good idea now?

These are some examples of why I assume walls don't work and are a bad idea.  Where there is a will, there's a way.  People will always find a way around, over, through, or under a wall.  Building a wall doesn't get to the root of the problem, it just spends a lot of time, money and effort to reroute the problem. 

Let us remember also that walls in the past have not just been built to keep people out, but also to keep people in.  I'm reminded of "Mending Wall" by Robert Frost, in which he says:

Before I built a wall I'd ask to know

What I was walling in or walling out,

And to whom I was like to give offence.

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,

That wants it down.

And, as Reinette (aka Madame De Pompadour) reminds us in "The Girl in the Fireplace" episode of Doctor Who:

A door once opened may be stepped through in either direction.

A wall, once built, blocks passage from both directions. Think about it.

Who said what to whom?

My sister told me this evening that she had heard some new info on the story about the Canadian leak that an Obama aide had supposedly told Canadian diplomats not to take his stance on NAFTA seriously. She had heard that it was actually a Clinton aide that had made the statement originally. I decided to see what I could find about it on the internet and I came across this article from Canada.com: Canada's NAFTA leak is regrettable: U.S. envoy. From what I can tell, this would seem to back up that position, if I'm reading it correctly.

Canadian media reports said on Thursday that the furor was triggered by private remarks that Ian Brodie, Harper's chief of staff, made to the CTV Television network last week about Clinton's criticism of NAFTA.

They said Brodie revealed someone from the Clinton campaign was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt." CTV investigated the remarks and then ran a story focusing on Obama, saying his adviser had privately told Canadian diplomats that a promise to reopen NAFTA was solely aimed at winning votes in the Ohio primary.

I'm not sure if that is saying that both campaigns have supposedly said the same thing or that it was actually an act by the Clinton campaign that got attributed to the Obama campaign. If it is true that the real story is the reverse of what voters were told, I would think that any momentum Hillary gained from Tuesday's primaries would instantly evaporate.

Fidel Castro will not accept another term

Via WaPo - Fidel Castro retires

Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro said on Tuesday that he will not return to lead the communist country, retiring as president 49 years after he seized power in a revolution and became a central figure of the Cold War.

Castro, 81, who has not appeared in public since undergoing stomach surgery almost 19 months ago, said he would not seek a new term as president or leader of Cuba's armed forces when the National Assembly meets on Sunday.

"To my dear compatriots, who gave me the immense honor in recent days of electing me a member of parliament ... I communicate to you that I will not aspire to or accept -- I repeat not aspire to or accept -- the positions of president of the Council of State and commander-in-chief," Castro said in a statement published in the Communist Party's Granma newspaper.

This is an interesting development I guess. Of course on the one hand it can't be too surprising given his obvious failing health and the fact that Raul has been de facto president for over a year now. But on the other hand I really expected him to die in office. Who knows, maybe he already is dead and they just aren't telling anyone yet.

What I find most interesting in the story is the seeming lack of a reaction, or at least lack of a visible reaction, from the Cuban people. The story notes:

In a deserted Revolution Square, the site of many hours-long speeches by Castro to massive crowds, a lone soldier stood guard at government headquarters. The city was calm.

It would seem that the transition has been gradual enough for the people to be able to accept it. I will be curious to see what Raul does once Fidel dies and is totally out of the picture.

Averting danger or testing a new weapon?

Via the BBC - US spy satellite plan 'a cover'

The US said last week that it would use a missile to destroy the satellite, to stop it from crash landing.

Officials say the satellite contains hazardous fuel which could kill humans.

But Russia's defence ministry said the US planned to test its "anti-missile defence system's capability to destroy other countries' satellites".

You can hardly blame the Russians for distrusting US motives. If roles were reversed we certainly wouldn't trust them. Plus, considering Bush's history with pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and all, it is quite understandable that they would feel the way that they do. And while it may not have been a setup from the beginning, I'm sure it is at best a convenient excuse.

What an odd choice

Via Reuters - FACTBOX: Vladimir Putin - man of the year

Russian President Vladimir Putin was named Time magazine's "Person of the Year" for 2007 on Wednesday for bringing stability and renewed status to his country.

And for the record, it would seem that the authors of the Reuters article find it an odd choice as well. The majority of the article actually talks about all the things that Putin has done while in office as President, none of which seems particularly good from a Western view point. What was Time magazine thinking?

Six things to remember

On the last day of my world politics class, I told my class that there were some things that I hoped I would remember and take with them from the class (because I knew they wouldn't remember the specifics of the class). I thought they were some good things to keep in mind when dealing with politics in general and with world politics in particular. So here they are, for what it's worth:

1. Be willing to doubt - that includes the things that your government tells you, other governments say about themselves and others, and especially the things that we are so willing to believe with little or no proof. The things that we want to believe are often the things we should analyze the most closely.

2. Don't let emotion rule your mind - human beings are always going to have emotional responses to stimuli, but we do not always have to act on those emotions. Especially in the realm of politics, it is best if we can take a step back and look at the possible ramifications of our actions before we proceed. In particular, a state has certain responsibilities and core objectives that have to be considered, and emotional responses can often be work against these objectives.

3. There are few absolutes in life - most things in life and all the people you will encounter, either personally or in the political arena, are neither all good nor all bad. Sometimes good people do bad things and sometimes bad people do good things. We can't always disregard something just because it doesn't fit our ready made mold and not everything fits neatly into our preconceived categories.

4. The whole world is not just like your home town (or home country) - it is so easy to develop a provincial attitude. We must always consider that other people in other countries are not always going to see things the way that we do, and that does not necessarily make them wrong, stupid or backwards.

5. It's easy to criticize from an easy chair - an armchair warrior is no different from an armchair quarterback. It's easy to second guess the actions of other people when you are not in their position. I know that it is cliche at this point, but it is still true: you shouldn't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. And, it is much easier to tell someone what to do than to do it yourself.

6. Justice does not equal revenge - so often when we say we want justice what we really want is revenge, but they are not the same thing.

Now if nobody has any questions, class is dismissed.

I'm a bit surprised

I don't really have time to read the article in full or blog about it right now, but I was surprised when I saw this headline on my homepage this morning: CNN - Musharraf steps down as army chief

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf stepped down as the country's military leader Wednesday, the day before he was to be sworn in for a third presidential term -- as a civilian.

I knew he said he was going to, but I'm a little surprised he actually did it. However, I would be even more surprised if his stepping down actual changes his relationship with the army in any significant way.

President of France or Lounge Singer, you decide

Today I was grading news journals that my students turned in Monday. One student had written about this article from the BBC. When I saw the picture in the article the first thing that came to mind was that Sarkozy looked like a lounge singer and it looked like he and Bush were performing some kind of dance routine when the picture was taken.


What do you think?

I like this cartoon

Cartoon via WaPo

This is bothersome on so many levels

Via the BBC - Germany 'drops CIA extradition'

Germany has dropped a request to the US to extradite 13 suspected CIA agents accused of abducting a German citizen, officials and media reports say.
A justice ministry official reportedly confirmed an article in the German weekly Der Spiegel that said the US had refused the extradition request.

[. . .]

A spokeswoman for the justice ministry in Berlin told the Associated Press news agency Germany had decided against passing on to US authorities the extradition demand of the prosecutors in Munich.

[. . .]

"Mr Masri has pursued litigation for civil damages here in the US and this litigation is ongoing," he said.

"To date, US courts have barred his suit based on the US government's assertion of state secrecy concerns."

[. . .]

Mr Masri says he was kidnapped in Macedonia in 2003, flown to a secret jail in Afghanistan and tortured there.

He says he was detained for five months before being released in Albania after the Americans realised they had got the wrong man.

Okay, where to begin? The US sends CIA agents to kidnap a foreign national, take him to another country, and torture him. I have a problem with that right off.

Next, the man doesn't seem to have any legal recourse in his own country or in ours. This too seems wrong. The German are apparently afraid of pissing off the US, which seems a little odd at this point, but that's how they are telling it. And the US seems to have very little sense of justice anymore because everything has become a matter of national security. Where (or when) will it all end?

Melting Ice - Heating Debate

Via the BBC - Ice loss opens Northwest Passage

The Northwest Passage is one of the most fabled sea routes in the world - a short cut from Europe to Asia through the high Arctic.

Recent years have seen a marked shrinkage in its ice cover, but this year it was extreme, Esa says.

It says this made the passage "fully navigable" for the first time since monitoring began in 1978.

[. . .]

Scientists have linked the changes to global warming which may be progressing faster than expected.

Whether global warming is due to human activity or just natural cycles, it would seem that the Northwest Passage opening up is a big deal. It seems clear that we going to have to learn to deal with the repercussions of these climate associated changes whether we like it or not. I find it interesting that it is already causing some international debate and disagreement.

The opening of the sea routes are already leading to international disputes.

Canada says it has full rights over those parts of the Northwest Passage that pass though its territory and that it can bar transit there.

But this has been disputed by the US and the European Union.

They argue new route should be an international strait that any vessel can use.

And I'm sure there will be more unforeseen circumstances that arise from these global climate changes that will require international attention and negotiation as time goes on.

The EU makes a request

Via the BBC - EU urges Texas to end executions

The European Union has urged the governor of Texas to stop all executions as the state prepares to carry out its 400th death penalty.

[. . .]

The statement from the Portuguese presidency of the 27-nation bloc said: "The European Union strongly urges Governor Rick Perry to exercise all powers vested in his office to halt all upcoming executions and to consider the introduction of a moratorium in the State of Texas."

It continued: "There is no evidence to suggest that the use of the death penalty serves as a deterrent against violent crime and the irreversibility of the punishment means that miscarriages of justice, which are inevitable in all legal systems, cannot be redressed."

And it is a request that I am sure will not be granted, or at least I would be utterly amazed if it were.

I agree that the death penalty is not really a deterrent. According to what I have read on the matter, studies seem to indicate that both the death penalty and murder are evidence of a society's belief that killing someone is the answer to a problem, whether it be the problem of the individual or the problem of the society. Therefore, the two will continue to go hand-in-hand.

I find it interesting how often the US is finding itself on the receiving end of calls for ending inhumane activities. It is, however, nothing new that the EU would like to see an end to the death penalty.