Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Thoughts on the Middle East - continued

Some updating is required on the Middle East situation, given events since yesterday. A meeting of key Middle East players has taken place in Rome. Participants included Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United States, the European Union, Russia, and others. Fine. But it remains unclear just who all must be included to get resolution. Hezbollah and Hamas, of course, and Israel. And Lebanon. Also Syria? And Iran?
Then to go beyond this, why would anyone think that any agreement can be reached, and, were it to be reached, that it would be honored? The past suggests that it would not be. But it could be noted that, arguably, the populations affected might want peace and live-and-let-live, while it is those in power who are more likely to want war, for various reasons, most having to do with power and legacy questions. And money. Anyone who has been watching might have observed that in the war in Bosnia, for example, and in Jerusalem, ordinary people were/are trying to get on with their daily affairs, and it's noteworthy to an observer like myself that they seem to do pretty well. In the US too, people are coming out for peace. We have to keep looking for ways to communicate this to the leaders and to make it important to them.
I admit to a great deal of naivete here. In all of this. But to continue, doing the best I can, I think a theory of human nature is involved here. I think humans are born with an urge to construct, to build, to achieve. Sure, humans find a certain satisfaction too in tearing things down. It can be fun, for a little while anyway. But I think the former urge is stronger. It's also harder. And it demonstrably leads to a better life. This notion is not what prevails in some circles. But I think we have to keep demonstrating it, whenever and wherever possible.
This philosophy is what has made me approve of what the Israelis have tried to do: to make the desert bloom like a rose, to set up schools, and all the rest. The Palestinians have not demonstrated such a mindset, at least in recent years. But they once had a powerful civilization, their days of glory. I would venture that the same human nature is there, it just hasn't had a chance to flourish for quite some time.
The immediate question seems to be whether an immediate cease-fire should be mandated, and how it would be achieved. We don't know the answer.
Moral: we just have to keep trying, by both deed and example. And to keep trying to understand more.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

The Current Middle East Crisis

In this time of polarization in the US, when discussion seems to have diasppeared in favor of just choosing up sides, I offer my thoughts on the current Middle East crisis in the interest of keeping dialogue alive on the part of ordinary citizens.
Although it is impossible to consider here the millennia of strife in the region, we do have to look at a bit of history. Just looking at events since 1948, when the UN suggested that Israel and Palestime could become states in that area, it becomes clear that just getting Israel to stop attacking or being more restrained will accomplish nothing. Israel, as we know, decided to become a state, while Palestine decided not to become a state but to drive Israel into the sea, in other words to see that Israel did not survive. This goal remains unchanged, apparently for all of the Arab countries except Egypt. Accordingly, starting with 1948, the Arabs have attacked again and again, even after Israel has made concessions and drawn back from lands it had won in battle. Although I can't presume to know their rationale, it may be that Arabs see concessions as suggesting weakness rather than an effort to solve the problem, and therefore this may encourage further attacks.
In any case, it seems clear that conditions for Palestinians in the area have become scarcely short of intolerable, with lack of jobs and water, restrictions on movement, and what might be racism or discrimination against Arabs, even though Israel has been generous in offering democracy in many ways. Conditions are such that Palestinians cannot be expected to continue to live this way. Nor should they.
It appears that nothing will do short of another major effort to come to some kind of agreement, unlikely as that may seem. It just seems essential to try. What else is there?
Then what entity could take on such a task? The US would be the obvious choice except that it has earned such contempt in the world. It might be possible anyway for the US to take the lead in negotiations, given a credible statement about what course it might take. Or perhaps the United Nations? Or NATO or the Group of Eight?
Once some convener agrees to try to broker an agreement, it remains to find individuals who could engender enough trust to carry on negotiations. Some names come to mind. Someone from Egypt. Also George Mitchell, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Madeleine Albright would be good candidates. Also Hannah Ashrawi. Of course there are others.
Beyond this, something might be said about what could be offered to the aggrieved parties, Israel and Palestine. The security of Israel must be assured; this must be made clear. And reasonable boundaries for Palestine must be arrived at, irrespective of past arrangements. A buffer zone between Israel and Palestine would seem necessary, as would a buffer zone between Lebanon and Israel, both fortified as needed. Additionally, Palestine could be offered aid--from the UN, the World Bank, the US, other Arab nations--in the form of creation of infrastructure, prehaps irrigation systems, perhaps help for education.
This is enough dialogue for one day.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

More on Richard Parker's bio of JKG

I want to correct a wrong turn I took, or one I took too soon, in my first message about the book on Galbraith. Toward the end I was suggesting that Parker could write the book on current economics that the discipline lacks--be a new Adam Smith, so to speak. What I intended to do first was to say that I had long wished that Galbraith would undertake such a task. He was gifted, original, insightful, extremely well informed, and diligent about what was going on in the US during the 20th century, and that was just great. But we are yearning for something more--something that puts forth the big picture of what economics is really about. Robert Gordon is referred to by Parker as having said something like what I have in mind. Economics needs a totally new agenda, including the study of workers, firms, institutional arrangements, power, the distribution of wealth, tax structure, government regs. Anyway, I thought for years that Galbraith should sit down and rewrite economics. I still think he could have done it.
Now I think Richard Parker might be capable of such a task.
But againI must add, having just read what Parker says about him, that Nobel laureate Amartya Sen might be the one who should tackle it. Sen clearly has a very different vision of what economics is about than do those currently in charge of the discipline. He talks about "social choice" as an issue not just for economics but also one with which the the public must engage to secure the enlargement of "positive human freedom" and the capacity to enjoy it. The intrinsic capacity, he goes on, may be there, but without the right set of skills, individually and collectively, to negotiate its acquisition, maintenance, and expansion, they will never achieve it. Sen insists on making larger moral and cultural concerns preconditions for answering economic questions. This is what I feel the discipline of economics should do.
Clearly I'm not ready to write about this, and an apology from me is due. But maybe I can use this digression to say that Parker's book about Galbraith was such a formidable achievement, such an inspiration, that I'm just bursting with ideas about the promise of economics, should some gifted practitioners sit down to write about it realistically.