2009 WAIS Conference

Globalities and Localities

Stanford University, California

10-12 October, 2009

PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING POSTED

• re: Varia:

  WAIS Debate,

  Chinese

  Execution Vans,

  Russia,

  and

  Global Warming

  (Istvan Simon, US)

  Posted on April 7th, 2009 JE

  In a true “omnibus” post, Istvan Simon responds to Alain de Benoist about the value of WAISly debate, to several WAISers about Chinese execution vans, and combines a postscript to his trip to Russia with some thoughts on Global Warming:

  I am following the precedent set by A.J. Cave to combine a number of issues in one post. This will make it inevitably somewhat disjointed and also perhaps too long, but I will attempt to keep it within reasonable limits.

  On WAISly debate: I must start by thanking Alain de Benoist (6 April) for mentioning my name most often than any other WAISer’s in his essay on the value of WAISly debate. This is I presume, perhaps presumptuously, a kind of a compliment.

  It is not a secret to anyone reading these pages that Alain and I rarely agree on anything. We agree on some things–Darwin and science for example. But in terms of contemporary International Affairs we mostly disagree. We disagree on the United States and its role in the world. We disagree on Israel and the right of Israel to exist in peace without being bombarded by Hamas and Hezbollah, and we disagree on Israel’s right to wage war on Hamas and Hezbollah, should they choose, as they have, to wage war on Israel. We disagree on Darfur which does not seem to bother Alain much, while it profoundly bothers me. We disagree on Iran, a country that Alain never criticizes, and a country whose government (as opposed to its people) I often criticize.

  On this last topic I must thank A. J. Cave for forwarding the Rick Stevens video of his visit to Iran, which was most illuminating to me. I found it not only profoundly interesting, but even moving. I was moved by the evident eagerness with which Rick Stevens, an American, was welcomed by the Iranian people, a sign that they do not agree with the policies of their government. The United States government must acknowledge this difference and adjust our policies towards Iran accordingly.

  Now back to Alain and WAISly debate… Alain and I disagree on Venezuela, whose government I despise, and whose government Alain seems to appreciate, perhaps because he perceives it as being anti-American. So the list of issues on which we disagree vehemently is extensive, and therefore in view of his essay on WAISly debate I appreciated being mentioned so often. This emboldens me to ask Alain a direct question. He says that on occasion he has changed his mind on something as a result of opponents arguments, so I ask him if he ever changed his mind on anything due to the arguments that I have made in this Forum. If so, please state specifically what it was. It is only fair that I state likewise if Alain’s arguments made me change my mind. The answer in my case is mostly no, but in one instance he has slightly changed my views. The issue in question was one of Israel’s founders Jabotinsky. Alain pointed out that Jabotinsky appreciated Mussolini’s fascist Italy by training his men in Italy. I do not think that Jabotinsky was a fascist, nor that this fact made him an admirer of fascism. In fact, Jabotinsky did not admire fascism, and his writings clearly seem to show that he was an admirer of British-style democracy, not fascism. This is truly remarkable, particularly because Jabotinsky was mistreated by the British authorities. So, while not a fascist at all himself, he may have appreciated the ruthless efficiency of early Italian fascism, hence his contacts that Alain referred to.

  I am not a follower of Jabotinsky nor have I studied his particular views in great detail. But when people on this Forum attacked him as a fascist, I had to defend him, because in fact clearly he was not a fascist, independently of the fact that he had trained his men in fascist Italy. Jabotinsky clearly stated in his views towards the Arab minorities in Israel, for example, that they were to enjoy full rights as Israeli citizens, and indeed they do. Jabotinsky was not admired universally in Israel. Jabotinsky died of a heart attack in New York, and he was buried there, according to Jabotinsky’s own instructions. But his followers wanted eventually to have him re-buried in Israel, and petitioned the Israeli government to allow his body to be reinterred in Israel. David Ben Gurion famously refused to give permission, saying that Israel did not need any more dead Jews. Later Jabotinsky’s followers once again insisted, and were given permission, so Jabotinsky and his wife were reinterred in Israel.

  Now, on Chinese execution vans: I agree with Tim Brown and Alain Levine on this issue. First, to Tim Brown, the execution vans exist and are in use. Their use is shocking, exactly for the reasons that Alain Levine mentioned. They remind one of Nazi Germany, and there is something wrong with using them, as they clearly seem to have been designed to hide the executions from public view and scrutiny. To the argument that the prisoners end up dead whether executed in mobile vans, or in fixed facilities, as in the United States, one must consider the arguments made by Tim Brown to which I add the following considerations. There is a big difference between the fixed facilities and the execution vans. The fixed facilities are made so that witnesses may accompany the execution. As Tim Brown pointed out, an execution in the United States follows a lengthy and expensive process, in which the accused is given every right to appeal his sentence, an appeal process that typically costs millions of dollars to the government, and lasts decades. The prisoner is executed only after this process denies him relief. There is only one crime for which the death penalty is applied in the United States–murder, and usually with special circumstances. Though there is the possibility of judicial error, which would execute an innocent man, or woman, a powerful argument against the death penalty, undoubtedly such judicial errors are exceedingly rare. In China the death penalty is applied to many crimes, including economic crimes, and the Chinese judiciary unfortunately is not an independent branch of the government. Thus who is and who is not executed in China, unfortunately depends a great deal on what the political authorities think of the accused. China executes far more people than the United States, even taking into account the per capita ratio, and is surpassed only by the Islamic Republic of Iran in this macabre statistic.

  Now on Global Warming combined with my Russian trip postscript. I embarked on my return flight to the United States at 2:40 pm on April 1. It was a long but remarkable flight on a clear day. We flew over Greenland for hours, and because it was a sunny and clear day, we were treated to spectacular views that I captured on my cell phone’s little camera. What I saw is related to the issue of Global Warming, for I saw Global Warming from my airplane window.

  At latitude 73 degrees North, Greenland is a spectacular land of spectacular mountains covered in ice. We flew over Greenland flying southwest. About an hour later, the effects of Global Warming can be seen from our plane. A plane travels at about 600 miles per hour, so an hour later means that we were at most at about latitude 64 to 65 degrees North. Big cracks appear in the thick ice–the ice is melting and breaking up. Global warming will create the largest and most spectacular lake in Greenland. We flew over this future lake for hours. If I were to invest in Greenland, I would invest in Tourism, for this lake will inevitably mean a spectacular tourist destination in a few years’ time.

  There are possibly cheap solutions to Global Warming, that do not require the immediate stopping of burning fossil fuels. It is a wonderful idea of a friend of mine. Global Warming is essentially a question of energy equilibrium. Thus if large enough parts of the Earth were covered with reflective paint or material, Global Warming would be solved. The reflective material would reflect solar radiation back into space, and thus the energy equilibrium necessary to avoid global warming could be reverted at relatively low cost, and without changing the way energy is used currently. The eventual solution is of course to switch to solar power, on which I am working myself, but that will take many decades to accomplish, and will cost trillions of dollars in capital investment. Once made, this will completely eliminate global warming, by decreasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to that of historical levels. But in the meantime, my friend’s imaginative solution could be put into practice more or less immediately, and it would be very cheap to do so in comparison.

  JE comments: “Cover the earth” is the age-old Sherwin Williams slogan…perhaps S-W was prophetic! But some find the image of a behemoth can of paint dumped over our home planet rather disturbing:

  http://www.charlesandhudson.com/archives/2008/08/cover-the-earth-outdated.htm

  Interesting observations from Istvan Simon on Global Warming and Greenland. Has any WAISer traveled there in recent years?

  –

  For information about the World Association of International Studies (WAIS), and its online publication, the World Affairs Report, read its homepage by simply double-clicking on: http://wais.stanford.edu/