One more thing



And one more thing:

Quisquis huc accedes
Quod tibi horrendum videtur
Mihi amoenum est
Si dilectat maneas
Si taedat abeas
Utrumque gratum


You who come here
Whoever you are
What may seem horrible to you
Is fine for me
If you like it stay
If it bores you go
I couldn’t care less.


(From the inscription that appears in Latin on a marble plaque at the entrance to Cardinal Chigi’s 17th century Villa Cetinale, at Sovicelli in Tuscany, discovered and translated by John Julius Norwich in “Still More Christmas Crackers – 1990-1999,” [Viking, Penguin Group UK]).




Friday, December 16, 2016

Absurd, you say? What isn't absurd these days?




Annexation blowback

Donald Trump loves people who love annexation. One is Vladimir Putin who -- whether or not Trump noticed -- invaded and annexed Crimea. Others include the far-right of Israel, including most of the governing coalition, who believe they are entitled to annex the West Bank and the Golan Heights, captured from Jordan and Syria respectively in 1967 and illegally colonized in the last half-century by Israelis in large, modern communities called “settlements” as if they were some sort of frontier outposts. In that half century, every U. S. administration -- Republican and Democrat -- has held along with the rest of the international community, that the “settlements” are illegal under international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Trump’s acceptance of the Israeli hardline view on the settlement issue is manifest in his nomination yesterday of his friend, bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman, to be his ambassador to Israel. Friedman has been a forceful supporter of Israel’s right to settle and even annex the West Bank . He has compared Jews who challenge that position to “kapos,” as Jews who collaborated with the Nazis in concentration camps were called.

As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (adamantly not related to David) told CNN Friday morning, the Iranians must be popping champagne corks on Trump’s selection of David Friedman, hugely offensive as it will be to Iran’s bitter rivals, Saudi Arabia and Egypt whom Washington views as important allies.

But here’s a question:

Given Trump’s precedent-setting endorsement of annexation, what would his response be to an announcement by Chinese President Xi jinping that China now will annex Taiwan which after all was a part of China at least as far back as the Qing dynasty more than three centuries ago? And that he would take it back by force if necessary, just as Putin did in Crimea.

Or, how might Trump respond to Xi’s saying to him, “Look, it’s not the South U.S. Sea; it’s not the South Philippines Sea or the South Vietnam Sea. It’s the South CHINA Sea and we’re gonna do whatever we want there. See?!”

What, for that matter, might he say to his friend  Vladimir Putin if the Russian dictator were to demand the removal of all NATO troops from all countries near Russia that Moscow has historically claimed to be in its exclusive sphere of influence: such as the Baltic states and Poland. If we can put troops on the Russian border, why, then, would it not be reasonable for the Russians to put troops on our border with Mexico if Mexico decides it needs protection from Trump’s agents trying to collect on the cost of the wall?

Absurd, you say? Of course, but what isn’t absurd these days?

No comments:

Post a Comment