Blackcap Blog

Published at 23:26 on 23 February 2024

Frankly, that’s what this sounds like. And I doubt it will be significantly more effective than the original sanctions.

Sanctions have their limits, particularly when the world is addicted to the fossil fuels that are the sanctionee’s main export.

Published at 08:09 on 16 February 2024

Of course Putin did it. If Putin didn’t order it directly, he did so indirectly by having Navalny jailed and sent to a penal colony in Siberia famed for its harsh conditions. And why wouldn’t Putin order it directly? An astounding number of his opponents have suddenly, mysteriously, and prematurely dropped dead. The odds of all those deaths simply being coincidence are so small as to be safely disregarded.

The West, particularly the USA, is being hypocritical about it. There has recently been a little bit of daylight allowed to show between US and Israeli foreign policy, but the USA is still shovelling military aid Israel’s way as it ruthlessly pummels the troublesome Palestinians in Gaza. Plus the USA is now dropping bombs on Iraq with the stated aim of offing more enemies (and no doubt some innocent civilians as well). Plenty of disrespect for human life there, yet not a whole lot of concern about it. So spare me the excess sanctimony.

Trump, and many of his followers, dream of being able to do this. Because of course they do. They, and only they, are in their eyes the only “real” Americans; everyone who dissents from their politics is a threat to the nation. Trump and his followers openly admire Putin, and they do so not in spite of his tactics, but because of them. Trump already regularly uses words like “vermin” to refer to his adversaries. What does one do to vermin? What does one do to rats or roaches if one finds them in one’s house?

Published at 15:19 on 12 February 2024

This is what a win on Palestine looks like at this point.

You didn’t think the decades-long policy of backing Israel no matter what would suddenly end completely, did you? Because longstanding policies locked in by iron triangles just do not vanish in one fell swoop.

That there is any daylight now publicly showing between US and Israeli foreign policy is nothing short of amazing. That it is happening via a joint message from a US president and an Arab leader adds to the significance.

That accelerating decline in the State of Israel’s reputation of which I mentioned earlier, plus growing public sympathy for the Palestinian cause, is starting to work its changes.

Published at 20:22 on 11 February 2024

I think they might have.

One of Biden’s big weak points the last time was his age. That problem has only grown worse, since none of us are getting any younger. The Special Counsel’s report certainly didn’t help in that regard.

Biden’s candidacy was defensible last time in part because he strongly suggested he would voluntarily choose to be a one-term president, and let someone new have a chance at it this time ’round. Whether it’s love of power, or a belief that he is special and the normal aging process doesn’t affect him, he changed his mind.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the Democrats didn’t cede the narrative-framing to the other party. But they do, so here we are.

None of this proves Trump is going to win this time. It just makes this outcome far more likely than it should be.

Published at 07:26 on 8 February 2024

After thinking about it a bit more, that is my conclusion.

First, it was inevitable that the Supreme Court would take this case, and expedite it. Not taking it would result in fifty different states with fifty different processes for disqualifying Trump. Some states would end up striking him from the ballot, some would not. Yes, there would be partisan bias at play here, but the important thing is a leading candidate that does not appear on all ballots.

Second, it would then build. Right-leaning states would retaliate by cooking up some justification for striking Biden from the ballot while leaving Trump on it. Now we have a situation where both leading candidates do not appear on all ballots.

The Court remaining silent would, in other words, be a recipe for nationwide chaos due to a profound constitutional crisis. So the Court has to rule.

Now the question is how the Court will rule. And here we get to a simple issue of expediency: it will be easier for the Court to compel all states to leave Trump on the ballot than it will for it to compel them to all strike him from the ballot. Moreover, by setting the bar really high, such a ruling will nip such chaos in the bud generally.

This is likely to result in standards that make it effectively impossible to bar an insurrectionist president from the ballot. This will of course continue the slow rot in the Republic that has turned the presidency into in an increasingly imperial position. That rot, however, is something that has been ongoing for decades, and liberals as well as conservatives have been willing co-participants in it. It is also something to easily remain in denial of due to an attitude of American exceptionalism (“that sort of thing can never happen here”). Again, both liberals and conservatives harbour this attitude, which is widespread to the point of ubiquity in the USA.

So the decision will not only come out in favour of Trump, but it will be possible for such a decision to be easily rationalized by the Court’s more liberal justices. As such, it would not surprise me in the least to see more than six votes in favour of Trump, and even a 9–0 decision is within the realm of plausibility. In fact, I would have to say that the odds favour at least one liberal pro-Trump vote, because this will be perceived as increasing the Court’s legitimacy. Chief Justice Roberts is likely to push hard for a ruling that will attract at least one liberal vote.

Note that this does not mean that all justices would issue the same decision. It is entirely possible for there to be multiple explanations issued for a pro-Trump vote, with the moderates and liberals signing onto one and the conservatives onto another.

The main point is that a decision in favour of Trump is way more likely than one against him.

Published at 13:04 on 5 February 2024

Update: She resigned, probably because she was told that she could either resign or be fired.

If she doesn’t resign, she should be fired.

Free speech is a thing, and as such she had the right to say what she did. If she had been a member of the US Republican Party, her words would have helped her reputation within her party. But she is not a member of a proto-fascist right-wing party. She is a member of a social-democratic government. Social democracy has generally been critical of imperialism.

As a minister in such a government, she had to watch her words, as should any minister in any government. If she didn’t like that, she shouldn’t have gone into politics.

Her apology said almost all of the right words. It’s just that two critically important words — “I resign” — are missing. If she was really as concerned about her previously unquestioned beliefs as she claims to be, she would want to step back from power for a while to reexamine those beliefs.

But she did not do so. As such, the so-called “apology” comes across as just that: the insincere words of someone desperately trying to cling to her position of political power.

It is a general principle of politics, going back to the time of Plato, that they who most desire power for power’s sake are those least worthy of holding it.

To reiterate: Selena Robinson should resign. If she doesn’t resign, she should be fired.

Published at 16:54 on 1 February 2024

That is to say, how will the United States Supreme Court rule on whether or not the 14th Amendement bars Trump from running for president?

Anyone claiming that the Court’s conservatives “have to” rule against Trump because of the doctrine of originalism is a rank idiot who does not know even the most elementary basics about politics. Would it be hypocritical to suddenly forget about originalism the instant it becomes politically inconvenient? Of course it would! But so what?

To reiterate, anyone arguing that hypocrisy makes taking a position impossible is an idiot. Such an individual knows nothing about politics in general and right-wing politics in particular. If hypocrisy played no role in politics, politics would be so radically different as to be virtually incomprehensible.

The right-wing justices could rule in Trump’s favour with the greatest of ease, and without the slightest of hesitation, and the political right would loudly celebrate the ruling as a great blow for the cause of justice. Any attempts to point out the hypocrisy of it all would go exactly nowhere with the right. As Upton Sinclair once observed: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

The question is not whether they “have to” in the name of some imaginary principle against hypocrisy, but whether or not they will rule against Trump as a virtue of some other principle (which, given human nature, will most likely be one grounded in self-interest). And this is far more difficult to say.

On the one hand, ruling in Trump’s favour helps their political team win. And make no mistake: that would be the calculus behind the ruling. There would of course be a lot of verbiage about higher principles, but that would be a mere pretext cooked up to justify the desired action, nothing more.

If they do rule for Trump, a ruling based on the pretext of due process is most likely. That is, it will be argued that the 14th Amendment is co-equal with the 5th Amendment, and that as such the guarantees of due process in the latter still apply. Trump has not been found guilty of any seditious crimes, and therefore he will be ruled an eligible candidate.

On the other hand, Trump is acting more and more like an aspiring dictator, and dictators are never friendly to the idea of an independent judiciary. And here we have another team to consider: the judiciary in general. Government bureaucracies are many and varied, but they all have a common thread: they want to preserve themselves and their power. Those right-wing justices may be on the right, but they are also part of the judiciary branch, and want to see that branch continue to be powerful and relevant in national politics.

That this incentive exists, and could act to frustrate the evolution of tyranny, is no accident. From Federalist 51 (emphasis added):

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

If the Court’s conservatives rule against Trump, this, not originalism, is likely to be the most powerful motivator. Oh, sure, originalism will dovetail nicely with such a ruling, and that will make the conservative justices ruling so pleased with it. I am sure they will wax eloquent about originalism in that ruling, and they will do this while remaining silent about sticking up for their own power. Professed motives should never be confused with actual ones.

So this, then, is the real question: how will the justices perceive the butter on their toast? If they perceive it to be buttered on the side of a second Trump presidency advancing their interests, they will rule for Trump. If they perceive the opposite, they will rule oppositely. And there is no easy way to say ahead of time which it will be.

Published at 15:55 on 30 January 2024

The title of this post is what an Israeli cabinet minister said in response to news of the recent International Court of Justice genocide ruling.

And the minister is correct: If, as Israel is, one is the best friend of a superpower, the Court is fundamentally meaningless. It has no means of enforcing its decisions, and courts without power to enforce their rulings might as well not exist. International law is for lesser nations (i.e. non-superpowers and best friends of same). Anyone with any doubt of this should research The Republic of Nicaragua vs. The United States of America (1986).

The key problem is, most of the world doesn’t really give a shit about Palestine. Oh, favourable noises might get made on that issue from time to time, but when it comes to anyone with any sort of power making a significant effort to actualize anything, it almost never happens. And before you say “Houthis,” please watch this.

Basically, unless China and Russia decide their toast is buttered on the side of weighing in hard on the side of Palestine (and so far they have not), the Palestinians don’t really have much grounds for hope anytime soon. Nothing motivates like self-interest, and if China and/or Russia would decide to exploit this conflict to undermine US authority, the USA might be motivated (by the desire to not lose further prestige) to act in more humanitarian interests. But since the precondition for the latter is absent, it is unlikely to happen. So the near term is bleak.

In the longer term, the bloodshed in Gaza is likely to exacerbate and continue the long decline in the State of Israel’s reputation that began with its decision to colonize lands occupied in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War. Pair that with the growing trend towards right-wing authoritarianism in Israel, and you have a long-term vulnerability.

Those who care about Palestine would be wise to continue pushing on those vulnerabilities. Israel has done much to tarnish its own reputation, and that tarnish should be pointed out at every opportunity. The recent ICJ ruling, and Israel’s contemptuous dismissal of it, is part of that tarnish. That, and only that, is the significance of the ruling.

I was, for much of the 1990’s, involved in activism on the subject of East Timor, which was then considered to be the canonical lost cause. Indonesia, a US client state, had occupied the former Portuguese territory in flagrant violation of international law in 1975, and had waged a genocidal war in an attempt to subdue its population into accepting Indonesian rule. Attempts to resolve the issue went nowhere because Indonesia was a US client state. But, over time, the small group I was involved with managed to point out how tarnished Indonesia was as a result of its atrocities in East Timor, and Indonesia’s reputation began slipping in Congress.

Then the whole house of cards suddenly collapsed. Indonesia experienced a sudden economic crisis that revealed just how thoroughly corrupt the authoritarian government there was. Suharto, Indonesia’s dictator, went cap in hand to his superpower benefactor, but thanks to reputation damage, a prompt bailout was not forthcoming. The economic crisis then provoked widespread popular unrest that drove Suharto from power. The new government agreed to allow East Timor to become independent if it wanted, in return for much-needed economic aid.

The latter was only possible because of slow, patient, seemingly futile work for years prior. Reputation is just touchy-feely stuff that doesn’t much matter… until, suddenly, it does.

Published at 17:54 on 29 January 2024

Reporter-hero who helped document one genocide and stop another. Apparently, he had his flaws, but so do we all.

Published at 13:17 on 29 January 2024

It has long been a protest chant that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Then the “genocide” rhetoric began leaking out of rallies in the streets. Early last month, Canadian MP Don Davies attracted a fair bit of attention when he tweeted:

You will note that I have posted that as a screen shot of a tweet, to which I have not linked. There is a reason for this.

Unfortunately for Davies, he really didn’t have much evidence to go on for those rather shocking assertions of his. He initially tried to pull a bait-and-switch by repeatedly posting excerpts from an (unreferenced) article talking about how “The [Israel Defence Force] Military Intelligence Directorate is using artificial intelligence and automated tools to ‘produce reliable targets quickly and accurately….'”

Sorry, no. So the Israeli military is selecting targets. Big surprise there. There is a war going on. In war, belligerents target each other, i.e. they select what to attack. The quotes merely support the claim that the IDF is engaged in target selection and that they are using artificial intelligence software in doing so. Nowhere are the criteria for target selection mentioned.

Jews were, of course, one of the main the victims of one of the worst (and certainly the most famous) genocides in history: the Holocaust unleashed by the Nazis. Part of the reason Zionism succeeded in its goal of creating a Jewish state was how this genocide showed the validity of the Zionist argument that Jews needed a state of their own to serve as a refuge during times of persecution. Plus, false allegations of Jewish atrocities against non-Jews served as pretexts for the Holocaust. As such, false claims of genocide really strike a nerve with many Jews.

Not surprisingly, Davies’ responses flew about as well as the original claim did. He then deleted the original tweet, and made a fresh tweet with claims better supported by available evidence.

As the most famous genocide in history, the Holocaust colours the popular conception of what a genocide is. As such, that conception goes something like: “collecting as many members of an ethnic group as you can in ghettos and concentration camps, and then systematically murdering them.” If this is the definition of genocide, then clearly Israel is not committing genocide. Yes, Israel is reducing Gaza to rubble. The Allies reduced Germany and Japan to rubble in World War II, yet the Allies are not generally considered to be guilty of genocide as a result.

But that is a mere popular conception and popular conceptions have no legal standing. That is important, as the accusations of genocide have now made their way into the International Court of Justice. There, the case depends on how “genocide” is defined under international law. The relevant document here is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, commonly referred to simply as the “genocide convention.” That document defines the term thusly (all emphasis added):

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It seems clear to me that what Israel is doing falls afoul of the first three clauses of the definition. Don’t blame me, I didn’t come up with the above definition. I am merely reporting its existence.

And this is why South Africa has been able to plausibly make its case in front of the ICJ.

Of course, what the Allies did to Japan and Germany would also easily qualify. And now we are back to popular conceptions again. Such conceptions may not have any legal standing, yet they still matter, as ultimately it will be public pressure that plays a key role in stopping the bloodshed currently going on in Gaza.

But then, we have this:

The New York-based CPJ said at least 68 journalists and other media workers had been killed in Gaza, Israel and southern Lebanon since the Hamas cross-border attack on 7 October and subsequent Israeli assault.

“More journalists have been killed in the first 10 weeks of the Israel-Gaza war than have ever been killed in a single country over an entire year,” it said.

“CPJ is particularly concerned about an apparent pattern of targeting of journalists and their families by the Israeli military. In at least one case, a journalist was killed while clearly wearing press insignia in a location where no fighting was taking place. In at least two other cases, journalists reported receiving threats from Israeli officials and Israel Defense Forces officers before their family members were killed.”

Note that the CPJ is a pretty middle of the road press freedom organization that doesn’t generally take much of a side (besides that of protecting journalists) in any cultural or ideological struggles. So if they are willing to go out and accuse Israel of something like that, they must believe it has actually happened. What Israel is accused of is certainly pretty war-crimey, but is it genocide? Probably not, but it is finally some support for part of what Davies was alleging in his now-deleted tweet.

In contrast, this sounds a whole lot closer to both popular and legalistic definitions of genocide:

Aid organizations say all of Gaza’s universities have been partially or completely destroyed by the Israeli offensive, including the Islamic, Open Arab, and Al-Azhar universities.

Most recently, the Israeli military carried out the demolition of Al Israa University in southern Gaza with explosives Jan. 17. It was videotaped by the Israel Defense Forces and distributed to Israeli media, prompting the Biden administration to ask Israel for clarification for the reasons for its destruction.

The IDF said in a press statement this week that it was investigating the approval process for the demolition.

Going after the cultural institutions of a people like this is, after all, something the Nazis did to their victims. They burned synagogues, torched Jewish libraries, and levelled Jewish cemeteries. In Poland (the Nazis were anti-Slavic as well), the Nazi occupiers deliberately targeted Polish culture, dissolving universities and prohibiting Poles, under penalty of death, from acquiring more than the most basic of educations.

So yes, there probably is genocide going on in Gaza, and South Africa’s case has merit.

How likely any International Court of Justice ruling is to actually change anything will be the subject of a future post.