Category: Daniel Serwer
Stevenson’s army, August 14
One reason for historians to revisit topics already covered by others is that later generations have new questions and new perspectives about the subject matter. Robert P. Watson, writing about the yellow fever epidemic that struck Philadelphia in 1793, tells a story we can resonate with because of our own experiences with Covid-19.
His book, America’s First Plague: The Deadly 1793 Epidemic that crippled a young nation, begins with the irony that one of the most likely vectors was a British ship Hankey that was sent to found a colony of free blacks and whites off the coast of Guinea but was driven away, with sick and dying passengers, to the Caribbean and Philadelphia. The venture was funded by British abolitionists.
The strange disease was first noticed at the Philadelphia wharf, where the Hankey and other ships from yellow fever hotspots in the Caribbean had docked. Although Philadelphia, then the capital of the new country, was the leading site for medical and scientific research, doctors were puzzled by the illness and unable to agree on a proper treatment.
Watson highlights the bitter disagreements between Benjamin Rush,the most prominent American physician of the age, and some other local doctors. Rush believed that most epidemics were caused by miasmas, bad air, and were best treated by bloodletting and purgatives. Some of the other doctors favored fluids and rest. Only in the late 19th century did doctors conclude that yellow fever was caused by mosquitoes.
After about ten weeks of high casualties, the first frost led to a quick dropoff of the disease. During and after the worst period, the Philadelphia media clashed with political messages. Jeffersonian Republicans like Rush opposed quarantines and blamed the Federalists for mishandling the plague. Federalist politicians and doctors countered that Rush and the Republicans had made things worse.
Other American cities banned entry of people and ships from Philadelphia or imposed quarantines of new arrivals.
The U.S. Government collapsed. About half the people of Philadelphia left the city during late August and September. President George Washington had long planned to go to Mount Vernon in mid-September, but most of his cabinet and other government employees were already leaving on their own. He finally returned and convened a cabinet meeting in early November and decided Congress could return as scheduled in December.
A happier story is about Philadelphians, who already had a system of almshouses and care for the poor and sick as part of their Quaker tradition. A large suburban house was seized and turned into a hospital for fever victims; doctors and caregivers were recruited and paid; and major improvements in hygiene undertaken. While the news media maintained their partisan passions, they also gave valuable and timely information during the crisis.
This was the first time, but not the last, that Americans grew scared and angry about a medical emergency, vollied political points as they tried to figure out what to do, and learned how better to prepare for future problems. Read the book.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 12
– WSJ says Iran has slowed its uranium buildup
-New Zealand reports Chinese political interference
– CNAS analysts assess executive order on investment in China
– FP sees problems in Northern Ireland.
– FP also says Sisi ruined Egypt.
History lessons: Rich Lowry compares Trump to Huey Long.
Atlantic writer notes early US gun control laws.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Travel is getting riskier
On the plus side is the release of five Americans. That is good, but what is to prevent Tehran from taking five more hostages? Thousands of Americans visit Iran every year, despite State Department warnings. Many are dual citizens with family there. Tehran isn’t likely to scoop more up right away, but eventually it may return to lucrative hostage-taking. The slippery slope is real.
The US will release some Iranians, so far unidentified, from US prisons. Exchange for them is not a fair deal, as they have all been tried and convicted in a court system that guarantees a lot more rights than the Americans arrested in Iran. But the exchange is understandable and even laudable. If Iran wants a drug dealer or sanctions breaker back, he will only add marginally to the miscreants already there. And the exchange will save the US taxpayer a few dollars.
The problem is the money
$6 billion is a lot of money. The agreement allowing the dollars to go to Iran may require Tehran to use it for humanitarian purposes (food and medicine), but cash is fungible. It is easy enough to shift the money you might have spent on food (but no longer need) to purchase weapons. You can be pretty sure the ultimate beneficiary will be something the United States doesn’t like: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or a drone factory whose main customer is Russia.
The money is not American. It is Iranian, frozen in South Korea at Washington’s behest. It derives from South Korean payments for Iranian oil. So the American taxpayer is not footing the bill, but the cash will relieve Iran of some financial pressure. If that leads to other agreements–in the nuclear talks, for example–it may be worthwhile. But that factor is hard to weigh before it materializes.
It’s not only Iran
Iran is not the only hostage-taker. Russia, China, Venezuela, Syria, and others also indulge. Each will now hope for a billion or so in addition to the prisoner exchange in negotiations on American hostages. We likely have sufficient frozen funds from some of the hostage takers. It will not be good if today’s deal whets hostage-taker appetities.
There is already an International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (New York, 17 December 1979), but it foresees individuals as the perpetrators, not states. It has 176 state parties, including the United States. While it has been argued that Iran’s use of arbitrary detention constitutes hostage taking, holding individuals responsible is unlikely to prove much of a deterrent when it is a state that decides to detain someone. The existing convention is inadequate to deal with a situation where a state is the hostage-taker. Something more is needed.
Easily said, hard to do
What is needed is a policy that will prevent states from resorting to arbitrary detention/hostage taking. Easy to say, but difficult to institute. A convention requiring multilateral sanctions against states that detain foreigners arbitrarily might be an attractive proposition in theory, but in practice it will prove difficult to get agreement on which detentions are arbitrary. And in many instances the miscreant states will already be subjected to extensive sanctions.
In the absence of more effective measures, international travel has already become more hazardous. There are today more countries where I would hesitate to travel due to the threat of arbitrary detention than ever before in my lifetime. This latest agreement is going to make it even more risky. That may be no real loss to the hostage takers, who don’t really want nosy foreigners observing the way they treat their own citizens. But it is definitely a loss for those of us anxious to see and experience the world beyond our own shores.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 11
– WaPo details data on support to Ukraine.
– Politico has data on supplemental request.
– NYT details Musk’s Starlink
– NYT notes changes in views of GOP voters
– NYT analyzes latest deal with Iran, despite many missing details
– WaPo doubts Sen. Tuberville lives in Alabama
– WSJ says US intelligence will share more with private companies
– WaPo reports problems in F16 training for Ukraine
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Another Belgrade view on whether Serbia is moving West
The Belgrade Media Center has kindly given me permission to republish in English this interview with Dušan Janjić, the founder of the Forum for Ethnic Relations:
The “Serbia against violence” protest will probably crystallize into a network of political parties, civil movements and interest groups with a pro-reform political offer. The inappropriate attitude of the government towards the needs of citizens and the demands of protests of various kinds, strikes and other outpourings of dissatisfaction, as well as frequent manifestations of the incompetence and irresponsibility of the government create conditions for the spread of protests.”
In his opinion, the government is one of the important generators of violence.
“Violence is one of the instruments of staying in power, but also of defending the economic and other monopolies of those who support it. In that alliance, there was a wide spread of power, money and organized crime, especially the drug business. This makes it impossible to realize the necessary deviation from violence”, Janjić states.
Janjić believes that the summer months are important for the spread of protests throughout Serbia, as well as for the preparation of wide promotion in Serbia and for the international promotion of the goals and demands of the protest.
“Apparently, in the fall, the protest mantra becomes: ‘Stop the mafia.’ This protest will be more massive and united by its political message in its stance against the government and the mantra: “Leave”! Then there will be decisive support for the transition of power,” Janjić points out.
The interlocutor of the Media Center states as the main challenge and responsibility for the “coordinators” of the protest: whether they will manage to build a flexible and effective network of associated actors, as well as to train themselves for joint action in which the key actors, in addition to common messages, by preserving their special identities, attract as wide a range as possible in the circle of supporters and future voters; whether they will manage to build and present to the public an alternative political vision, program and political propaganda and marketing communication with citizens.
He adds that this is a condition to maintain and strengthen the motivations and action of the initial protest, as well as to participate in the “Stop Mafia” movement. Otherwise, the emergence of the “Stop Mafia” movement will involve a much wider circle of opposition parties and other entities. But it would be dangerous for the transition if that movement is imposed and the widespread dissatisfaction of citizens is reduced only to a decision against,” Janjić believes.
Janjić notes that it should be borne in mind that in the fall the ruling old women, their coalitions and movements will be activated.
“Also, influential “patriotic”, “sovereigntist” movements such as the Serbian Right and parapolitical organizations and other anti-reformist, anti-NATO players linked to their “pro-Kremlin” ties and interests will be activated on the stage in the fight for voters’ votes in the upcoming elections. On this wave, there could be a repetition of the “betrayal of citizens’ expectations” as well as the real needs of society,” says our interlocutor.
By ignoring all the demands of the protesting citizens, the government has the following messages: That the government does not have the will, readiness, or ability to properly solve the problems that the protests point to; that every new incident, especially a security one, every affair or involvement of the authorities in connection with organized crime is evidence of the corruption of the authorities and increases the concern for the safety of a wide range of citizens, even members of the army and the police; that he does not respect the voice and dignity of citizens; that the ruling elite and its top itself put their own interests and survival in power first; that it has no vision of improving the situation in the country and that it is wandering in search of Serbia’s place in the world. This, in turn, encourages memories of the experiences of poverty and suffering from the era of sanctions and wars in the 90s; That behind the ignoring,
“All in all, the uncertain government and many unfulfilled promises encourage distrust in the government. And one who cannot be trusted cannot be a guarantor of security. This, in turn, further expands the fears, apprehensions, insecurities and sense of threat of the citizens”, concludes Janjić.
Anti-Western and pro-Putin propaganda and admonition of the authorities for European integration
“Since 2012, when SNS came to power, we have been swearing by “European integration” and very little work has been done on the reforms that are a prerequisite for membership.
From 2015 until today, the government is characterized by disorientation regarding the goals and means of running society. In its operation, there is a noticeable increase in the influence of interest groups that are anti-reform and anti-EU and NATO. This is expected and represents “bad news”. The “good news” is that such regimes, from Trump in the USA, Putin’s Russia and even in the EU itself, such as Orban’s, are collapsing. It shows that populist dictatorships are not a sustainable answer to the challenges of decades of economic and political crisis. Just as the EU is working on the “New Green Deal”, Serbia also needs a “New Deal”, ie a strategy and policy for sustainable reforms of the economy, institutions and society”, believes Janjić.
NATO membership is a necessary stage on the way to full EU membership
“That’s the rule. Through its unilateral internal political decision (Resolution of the National Assembly), Serbia declared itself “militarily neutral” and an exception to the rule. This neutrality has nothing in common with the military neutrality of Austria, Finland and Sweden. With the recent accession of Finland and (soon) Sweden to NATO membership, everything has come down to the exception of Austria, which is a member of the EU, but is not a member of NATO,” says the interlocutor of the Media Center.
According to his opinion, tolerance of Serbia’s self-proclaimed neutrality was the result of geostrategic security “balancing” of EU and US interests towards Russia.
“After all, in the example of Serbia, the source of the idea of ”military neutrality” is Putin’s Moscow from the phase of “Euro-Asian integration”. Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, in February 2022, marked the end of this policy of Moscow, and of tolerance by the EU, USA and NATO. A new distribution of spheres of interest is underway. This exacerbates the issue of Serbia’s membership in NATO. This, on the other hand, is contrary to the current ideological and political commitment of the majority of political and economic, as well as civil society, especially the SPC,” Janjić states.
The normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo is a necessary evil for the authorities in Belgrade and Pristina
“The authorities of Kosovo and Serbia have similar views and ways of dealing with crises. The opening of new crises serves them to create a “new reality”, and this one is interpreted with the leading goal of staying in power. Agreement and normalization of their societies and relations between Serbia and Kosovo is only a necessary evil for these authorities. In that kind of politics, the “final agreement” can only be the “final solution” or the elimination of the Other. This creates circumstances in which the Third Party (Quinte Group) is forced to take the initiative in reducing the damage, which gives rise to the obligation to create a framework for the actions of the authorities of Kosovo and Serbia.
Because of all this, it should be expected that the spiral of the crisis will rise to a higher level and include more and more problems and involved actors. For now, it seems that the Serbian government, with the attacks of Serbian demonstrators on KFOR – NATO soldiers, as well as with the announcement that they will return to the UN Security Council, has reached the limit where they recognize the intention of further militarizing the crisis and bringing Russia and China into the game. This would jeopardize the interests of the Quint Group and the citizens of the Western Balkans themselves in maintaining the current state of “unfinished peace”.
The likely answer will be to increase capacity and cooperation to prevent or control possible armed conflicts. In a political sense, this encourages a re-examination of the overall scope and format of the current “Brussels Dialogue”. There are more and more voices in favor of ending this phase of the “dialogue” by means of the International Conference on the Normalization of Relations (that is, on the stabilization of peace and development) between Kosovo and Serbia. The convener or “facilitator” of the conference would be the European Commission, and the guarantors of the implementation of the agreed solution would be the EU, the USA, Great Britain, NATO and Kosovo and Serbia,” explains Janjić.
A new challenge for Europe, NATO and Russia
“With the last summit held in Lithuania, NATO entered the final stage of its “rounding up” in Europe. The end of the war in Ukraine is coming, the enlargement to the Western Balkans, ie Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Moldova and Georgia. Moscow will, without a doubt, continue with various measures to prevent the unification of Europe in NATO and to “push” NATO as far as possible from the borders of Russia. Certainly, it is a challenge for Europe and NATO as well as for Russia.Although , Russia has an even bigger challenge on its territory east of the Urals, and especially on its Central Asian borders.
Also, the USA, the European Union as well as NATO, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, have to face the challenges of the growing power and influence of China and India. In other words, there is the same challenge before all countries, both for the “Great Powers” and for small countries, such as Serbia: How to adapt to globalization and at the same time ensure their own development”, concluded Janjić.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 10
– WSJ report on emerging US-ISraeli-Saudi deal is disparaged by NSC’s Kirby.
– NYT explains Biden order on investing in China. Here’s the order.
– Intercept says US urged removal of Pakistan’s Khan.
– AIPAC strikes back, Jewish Insider reports.
– Poland sends more troops to Belarus border.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
