Syrian Refugees in the U.S.

Quick someone read the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocols.  Look at the list of signatory states---who is there?  Yes, you read the list correctly, the United States is a signatory.   Our country has agreed to accept people meeting the strict definitions of refugee who apply for refugee and asylum status in this country.  I have written earlier in my blog about the appropriateness of considering those fleeing Syria as refugees (read it here).  Today I am writing to address a different issue--not whether we should accept refugees, but the absolutely idiotic idea that we should limit this to only Christian refugees.

Quick, grab a seat ladies and gentlemen.  I do not want you to fall over while I make a simple statement to you.  The United States is not, has never been, a Christian country.  Our population has never been limited only to people passing a litmus test of religious belief.  Indeed our Constitution as amended flatly denies the right of the government to create or limit the practice of religion (never says Christianity, it says religion--period).  In my humble opinion, we would be quite hypocritical to only accept Christian refugees into this country. 

Note, I did not say anything about not vetting the refugees to attempt to ensure that militant extremists (of any belief system) are not included in those allowed into the country.  Militant religious extremists represent less than one percent of all people professing any faith.  To blame all of the Islamic population in the world for the actions of some Islamic extremists is the same as blaming all of the Christian population of the world for the actions of Timothy McVeigh (who was, according to some reports, a supporter of the World Church of the Creator--an extremist, Christian sect).  Nonetheless, the U.S. government can and does do background checks on those applying for asylum and refugee status in the United States.  Potentially, some extremists might slip through the vetting process--life is tough that way some days.

I do not hide from the fact I am a Christian.  After careful consideration of my faith, I am confronted by the fact that believers are to model Christ-like behavior.  And, we are to model that behavior not just to other believers, but to non-believers.  I will not deny access to me to the non-believers of the world.  Should this position put me at risk of life and limb, I will defend my physical self as needed.  Should this position cost me my life, let the living know that as one of the redeemed I have gone to a better future.

For my two cents, the knee-jerk reaction to terrorist attacks in Paris by people associated with Daesh of saying do not let in any non-Christian Syrian refugees in the U.S. is based on fear.  Ladies and Gentlemen, you can live your life in fear, or you can live your life.  As for me, I will live my life.  Prudence dictates being prepared, being prepared does not always equal a winning outcome.  But living in fear will always lead to a losing outcome.

Is the Cold War Back? Did it Ever Go Away?

I read blog posts from my mentors and former professors regularly.  Particularly I still read Dr. Saideman's Blog (Saideman's Semi-Spew) on a routine basis.  Usually some good stuff to think about and much that I find humorous in the presentation.  Yesterday he posted about a presentation he gave at a NATO Association of Canada conference.  Apparently the Russian representatives in the room were not thrilled with Steve's presentation. 

One line caught my attention.  "Anyhow, I realized that the Russians do a fine job of making me take hardline stances--that the cold war is back and we might as well remember the old playbook of tripwires and credible commitments."  So, I asked myself is the Cold War back?  For my two cents, I am not sure, particularly as I have been stressing to students for about 15 years the need to remove ourselves from Cold War mentality in determining security threats, security needs, and strategic planning.  Then I thought about my critique of U.S. foreign policy and strategic decision-making in the last 20+ years and realized that indeed most of the decision makers are Cold War bred.  So I ask now, did the Cold War ever end?

German Spying

Guess what ladies and gentlemen, the German BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) spied on governments and non-governmental organizations (read about it here).  Wow, what a revelation.  I am shocked.  Can you believe it, one of the allies of the U.S. engaged in espionage that included looking into some of our own diplomatic communications. 

For my two cents, so what?  Really, this information is news?  In the words of my favorite tennis player of all time--you cannot be serious.  The International Business Tribune headline calls it "Germany Surveillance Scandal 2015."  Really, what is the scandal, a spy agency representing the interests of its government spied on other governments and organizations?  Shocked I tell you, shocked I am.

Myanmar's Elections: Real Democracy?

Anyone who has ever listened to me for very long knows that I am not a big fan of many forms of government, as I feel as Churchill did that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."  Recognizing this fact, I favor the expansion of democratic values and institutions throughout the world as the best alternative to having no government (see JS I am not an anarchist).  I do not, however, believe that simply having elections is the hallmark democracy.  Having elections in many places is actually dangerous (see Paul Collier's work for an explanation).  As I have followed Myanmar for years in the study of ethnic conflict and the general mix of Southeast Asian international relations, I have watched with interest the lead up to and events of this week in Myanmar.  Hey, they went and did it finally, they had elections.  Now the tough part, will elections in Myanmar improve the quality of the practice and institutions of democracy in Myanmar.  For my two cents, to quote a Saturday morning favorite, "not so fast my friends".

First, I see nothing in any of the electoral behavior or in even the rhetoric of either the existing government/military power brokers to indicate that the military will relax its grip on the country.  While the military has given its blessing to the elections, it did so after creating its own political party stocked with retired senior officers and after rewriting the constitution of Myanmar to give the military party 25% of the seats (guaranteed) and giving the power to assume state powers if the military determines a state of emergency exists.  Also, the constitution was rewritten to specifically bar some opposition party members--read Aung San Suu Kyi--from holding the office of president (in her case the law states that no family member of a presidential candidate can hold foreign citizenship, which her sons do hold).

Second, I am not certain that Aung San Suu Kyi is really interested in democracy.  Ok, right now I hear the gnashing of teeth and the gasping of many people.  But, Aung San Suu Kyi may not view democracy as such an open ideology and set of institutions as those of us in settled democracy view democracy.  For instance, Aung San Suu Kyi said last week that it does not matter if she can be president, she will be the real power above the president.  As read in Robin McDowell's article in the AP wire line on Nov. 5th, "I'll be above the president...I'll run the government".  This statement does not make me feel most comfortable with the future of democracy in Myanmar.

Finally, I see nothing in the behavior of the majority Buddhist National League for Democracy party led by Aung San Suu Kyi recognizing the rights of ethnic minority populations in Myanmar.  Given the number of problems involving ethnic minorities highlighted in the past year's news from Myanmar, I would expect democratic proponents to be more favorably disposed toward respecting the will of the majority while recognizing the rights of the minority.  And I just do not see this right now in Myanmar.

Maybe I am too pessimistic. Maybe not.

Boots or Sneakers on the Ground in Syria--Does it Change the Game?

The big news of the past few days is that the U.S. will be sending Special Forces troops (U.S. Army contingent in U.S. Special Operations Command) to Syria to work with rebels there who are anti-ISIS, anti-Al-Nusra, anti-Assad.  What does this activity represent? 

I do not believe it represents an intent to escalate U.S. activity in the area.  We will continue to provide air strikes, limited ammunition to some allies, some intelligence support and other logistic support.  I also do not believe that it represents a caving-in to the "we have to do something/we have to do more" crowd.  In fact, I am not really sure that this action has any immediate impact on Assad, Al-Nusra, or ISIS.

For my two cents, it is a means of sending a message to the Russians.  By embedding U.S. Special Forces with some anti-Assad rebels, we make it difficult for the Russians to continue air strikes and support for Syrian Government ground attacks.  While the Russians are willing to negotiate (as long as Assad remains in power (for now) and Iran is involved) they had not backed down from their activities which were designed to carve out a coastal zone of control for the Assad government.  Now the Russians have to slow down and determine if the "terrorists" they are attacking on behalf of the Syrian government are "good terrorists" or "bad terrorists".  After all, according to the Russians all Syrian rebels are terrorists and all terrorists are bad terrorists.  Laissez les bon temps rouler

Congrats K.C.

Congratulations to the Kansas City Royals, World Series Champions 2015.  The Royals are the one team in professional baseball that I follow each year.  My family lived in the Kansas City metro area while my father was in seminary in the mid 1970s and I became a fan in the age of George Brett, Freddie Patek, Frank White, John Mayberry, John Wathan, Buck Martinez, Amos Otis, Willie Wilson, Al Cowens, Hal McRae, Al Fitzmorrs, Paul Splittorff, Dennis Leaonard, Doug Bird, and Mark Littell.  I watched in great angst as Buddy Biancalana became an unlikely post season hero in 1985 after batting under the Mendoza line for the regular season and Saberhagen, Black, Gubicza, Leibrandt and Quisenberry provided the pitching.  Wilson, Motley and Sheridan patrolled the outfield while Wathan and Sundberg did the catching.  Brett and White remained, joined by Steve Balboni and Concepcion platooning with Biancalana at shortstop.  I can probably name about five or six of this year's roster, but congrats guys.