REFLECTIONS ON "THE RISE AND REIGN OF VLADIMIR PUTIN

“The New Czar:  The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin” by Steven Lee Myers

This was a deeply informing and mind-opening book for me.  The perspectives I take away from it are many:

1.     It becomes even clearer to me that Putin’s ascendency and with it his frame of mind changed event-by-event, yet inexorably over the course of his life and especially over the 15 years, 2000-2015 during which he has held power.

So much of his history grew from his earliest background, as it does for all of us.  Having been born into a war-ravaged country, with his father at one point left for dead and two of his siblings dying during World War II, having seen a movie in his teens that led him to want to join the KGB and become a “spy,” having been bullied as a kid, and later pursuing martial arts, learning that one has to fight for oneself, seeing the West as a historic potential threat (witness the Cold War), with a life driven by a pragmatic, “put your nose to the grindstone” commitment, while loyally serving those in power (e.g. Sobchak) and being ready to make the most of what comes next (I can relate to that).

In that regard, nothing could have surprised him more looking back than Yeltsin’s asking him in 1999 to take his place as President.

2.     I believe Putin truly started out with one overwhelming goal – to restore Russia’s stability and return it to greatness.  He had experienced the ravages not only of the war but of the 1990s as the economy disintegrated. 

Just before he assumed the Presidency entering the year 2000, Putin spoke at the Kremlin on New Year’s Eve saying, “unfortunately, not everyone in Western nations understood this, but we will not tolerate any humiliation to the national pride of Russia or any threat to the integrity of the country.”

Those fears were to build incident by incident during the coming 15 years.

Still, he began his Presidency wanting to become part of the West.  This was reflected in his being the first leader to reach out to President Bush right after the 9-11 terrorist attack.  This manifested not only his desire to reach out to the West but, above all, his fear of terrorism, of unrest, of chaos, which he had experienced in many forms.

There is no mistaking Putin’s passion or genuineness as he reacted to the news of the 9/11 bombing.  He went on television and expressed his condolences to the victims of what he called “an unprecedented act of aggression..the event that occurred in the United States today goes beyond national borders.  It is a brazen challenge to the whole of humanity, at least to civilized humanity.”  As Myers says in his book, Putin made it clear that the tragedy was an opportunity to refashion into national relations--to fight, in Putin’s words ‘the plague of the 21^st century..Russia knows first-hand what terrorism is, so we understand as well as anyone the feelings of the American people.  Addressing the people of the United States on behalf of Russia,” Putin continued.  “I would like to say that we are with you, we entirely and fully share and experience your pain.”

In a later conversation with President Bush, Putin said it simply, “Good will triumph over evil.  I want you to know that in this struggle, we will stand together.”  Words like these were not contrived.

There is no overestimating in my view the impact on Putin of the multiple terrorist attacks in Moscow, Beslan, Volgograd and other cities of Russia and then the brutal Chechnya war.  Maintaining the strength of the state, including fighting off terrorism, in all its forms, became Putin’s principal goal and that goal continues to this very day in Syria. 

Putin’s view of the importance of having a strong state, ensuring order over chaos, was manifested clearly in a statement he made in 2003 referring to democracy:  “If by Democracy, one means the dissolution of the state, then we do not need such democracy.  Why is democracy needed?  To make people’s lives better, to make them free.  I don’t think there are people in the world who want democracy that can lead to chaos.”

Clearly this line of thinking was to find affirmation, as Putin saw in it, the tragic results growing from the move toward what was hoped to be “democratization” in Iraq, Egypt, Iraq and Libya.

Putin’s desire to work constructively with the West had other manifestations.  Myers writes in his book that Putin invested heavily in developing a personal relationship with Bush.  Already the first Russian or Soviet leader since Lenin to speak a foreign language, he took lessons in English for an hour a day, learning the language of American diplomacy and commerce, and he used his rudimentary skill to speak privately with Bush to break the ice.  In private, he felt he could be candid with Bush about their differences, Myers writes, trying to make him understand the difficulties that Russia—that he—faced in the transition from the Soviet ruins.  He sought some kind of accommodation with the United States, even with NATO, Myers continues.

Against this background, it is easy to understand how frustrated and disappointed Putin was in Bush’s abandonment of the anti-missile defense treaty.

3.     Putin’s disenchantment with the West and his increasing view that the U.S. and the West were “out to humble” Russia and exercise a unilateral commitment to hegemony progressed through several stages.  And so did the importance he attached to the “nation state” and his deep abhorrence of what he saw as the unilateral moves by the United States and the West to overthrow national leaders.

The expansion of NATO into Central Europe, including the Balkans, and then to the Baltic states, was not vigorously opposed, but it certainly was resented and came despite the understanding (disputed by many in the West) that there had been an understanding reached at the time of the unification of Germany that NATO would not extend in the borders of what had been the German Democratic Republic.  What tipped the scales far more was the consideration given in 2007-08 to bring Georgia and Ukraine into the European Union and, following that, even NATO.

The conflict in Georgia precipitated by Georgia’s move into South Ossetia in 2008 was another point of demarcation.  Putin clearly saw the U.S. having encouraged this initiative.  And if it could happen in Georgia, it could happen in Ukraine and maybe even Moscow.  Another nail had been put in the mindset he was building.

Prior to that, at the close of 2004, we had what became known as the “orange revolution” in Ukraine.  It was treated in Russia as a humiliating defeat and as an ominous warning.  Putin was convinced then, eight years before the Ukraine crisis of 2013, that Western leaders had encouraged the mass protests in the streets of Kiev.  “We must not make it an international practice to resolve disputes of this kind from street riots.”

The first runoff of the Presidential election in Ukraine had given the victory to Yanukowych, a leader clearly committed to Russia.  Marked by a high degree of fraud, Ukraine’s highest court ordered a runoff and Yushenko, strongly supportive of the West, won the election.

This coincided with President Bush’s now advancing what he described as “the freedom agenda” as he cheered the popular uprisings in Georgia and Ukraine.  To recent elections in Iraq, Bush said, “we are part of the inevitable march of democracy that had begun with the Velvet Revolution in the then unified Czechoslovakia in 1989.”  Without mentioning Russia, Bush declared that “eventually the call of liberty comes to every mind and every soul.  And one day, freedom’s promise will reach every people in every nation.”  Without intending to, I’m sure, Bush’s words led Putin to believe that similar efforts might even be undertaken in Russia.

Ukraine’s election came the week of terrorist attacks in Russia and, in Myers view, “proved to be a turning point for Putin and for Russia.”  Putin’s initial instinct to bring Russia into closer cooperation with the West, if not an actual alliance, had faded as steadily as his political and economic power had grown.

In 2007, at Davos, he spoke without, as he said, “excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms.  Today, we are witnessing in a most uncontained, hyper use of force—military force—into international relations, a force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.”  He singled out the United States which had “overstepped its national borders in every way.  This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational politics it imposes on other nations.  Well, who likes this?”  The dye had been cast.

And then you had the Ukraine crisis itself which I needn’t go through here.  Putin viewed the riots which led to Yanukovych’s departure and the entry of the new provisional government as having been advanced by the U.S. and the West and indeed it had been.  By now, Putin’s review of the history of the past decade had become a fixation, and in many ways a paranoia.

4.     Syria—Russia’s position on Syria and what is happening right now was totally predictable.  Here again Putin saw the U.S. and the West setting out to overthrow a national leader.  As Myers writes, “Putin had little personal sympathy for Assad; what he vehemently opposed was another American-led attack in the Middle East.  He was convinced that from the beginning the United States had been waiting for any pretext to attack and topple Assad.”

By now, Putin had the evidence that he could point to as confirming his belief.  I refer to the actions taken to intervene in Serbia (Milosevic), Iraq (overturning Hussein), Egypt (Mubarak), Libya (Khadafi) and Tunisia.  Each had unleashed sectarian violence.

Adding to his motivation in Syria, perhaps the most important element was Putin’s deep concern about ISIS terrorism that could flow over into Russia.  Here, in Syria, Putin had the melding of all that was needed to undertake a righteous mission:  the maintenance of the rule of law, national sovereignty and a fight against terrorism of a kind he had fought against almost non-stop and with the very integrity of Russia at stake as he looked back for over 15 years.  Increasingly, President Putin saw himself upholding a value system being compromised by the West. 

In 2013, fresh from his diplomatic triumph in reaching an agreement to remove Syria’s chemical weapons without warfare, Putin described the “Euro-Atlantic countries” as dangerously adrift from their Christian roots.  “They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities:  national, cultural, religious and even sexual.  Worse, he said, these nations want to export these dangerous ideas.”  It was “a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.”

5.     Stepping back, there is no question that for Russia to have a healthy, growing economy, and for the entire world to be safe, Russia needs constructive, non-adversarial relationships with the U.S. and the West. 

At a minimum, we need to:

·      Avoid a further breakdown the relationships between Russia and the U.S.  This means that we must work together to resolve what are the open wounds now in Ukraine and Syria; both require a political settlement which requires Russia and the U.S. (and others) to be at the table, and the defeat of ISIS.

·      Come together to identify what are the common interests which Russia and the U.S. and others must work to achieve.  Interests so important and so requiring Russia and the U.S. to work together that we must form a common goal and plan.  Those for me are two-fold:

o   Avoiding the risk of nuclear proliferation and disaster.

o   Combatting terrorism, starting with but not exclusively combatting ISIS

We are going to need to accept the fact that values as they relate to the mode of democracy and cultural issues such as same-sex marriage will be different in Russia than the U.S., just as they are different in parts of our own country and have differed over time.  We must avoid seeming to or actually working to impose our values on Russia.  We must acknowledge Russia as a major global power, with a history and status that deserve and demand respect.  We must dial down the rhetoric which vilifies the other party when what they are doing is essentially expressing their own national interest and pride as we do.  Such rhetoric runs the grave risk of creating “self-fulfilling” negative outcomes—“mythical enemies”—distracting us from the real enemies in front of us.  

At the same time, we should make it clear that we will not stand by and allow Russia or any country to infringe upon the integrity of another national state like Ukraine.  Indeed, that position on our part mirrors that which has been driving Putin and Russia as they express it.

We should be under no illusion that Putin’s mindset and deeply entrenched attitudes will change quickly.  They are the product of decades of experience.  To the degree they change—and I for one believe they can--they will change based on actions and behaviors on both our parts as we work together on objectives of common interest.  Most importantly, at this moment, combatting ISIS and reaching political settlement that brings greater stability and peace to Ukraine and Syria and other countries of the Middle East.

Yes, Putin’s mindset had evolved, slowly but surely, block on block.  As Myers writes, “each step against Russia, he now believed to be a cynical, calculated attack against him.  His actions belied a deep sense of grievance and betrayal, sharpened by the crisis that unfolded (in Ukraine) at the very moment Russia had achieved its Olympic dream (referring to the Sochi Olympics).  It was as if a political upheaval in Ukraine affected Putin deeply and personally, like a taunt on the schoolyard that forced him to lash out.  For 14 years, Myers continues, Putin had focused on restoring Russia to its place among the world’s powers by integrating into a globalized economy (and), profiting from…the financial institutions of the free market.  Now, Myers continues, “he would reassert Russia’s power with or without the recognition of the West, shunning its ‘universal’ values, its democracy and rule of law, as something alien to Russia, something intended not to include Russia but to subjugate it.”

As he winds to his conclusion, Myers greatly simplifies and overstates matters and, most importantly, I believe, misconstrues Putin’s pragmatic mindset and willingness to be flexible in order to achieve what in the end is his main goal:  a successful, economically thriving, respected Russian state, looked at and treated as a partner in critical world matters.

I believe Putin understands that it will only be through a coalition of forces, prominently including the United States, that terrorism can be beaten, nuclear proliferation avoided and economic progress optimized.

I am convinced that if we were able to bring leaders together, to undertake specific goals, including combatting terrorism and taking steps to control the threat of nuclear annihilation, we can progress.  It has always been human nature that we come together best when we face a common enemy.  Unlike the past, we do not have ideological differences with Russia (as we do with ISIS) that should lead to war or that by their very nature lead to competing commitments to global expansion.

                                                                                    J. E. Pepper

EVERYONE COUNTS

“EVERYONE COUNTS”

If I were asked to boil down all my thoughts on what should guide our relationships with each other into just two words, they would be:  “Everyone counts.”

SOME ADVICE ON A PAPER NAPKIN

Some Advice on a Paper Napkin

*****

THE FOLLOWING IS A TALK I GAVE TO THE GRADUATIING CLASS OF HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS AT SEVEN HILLS SCHOOL IN CINCINNATI IN JUNE 2015

 What is this I’m holding in my hand?  A paper napkin.  What could it have to do with what I’d like to share with you this evening?

Just this.  I was in Romania last month talking to a group of students.  One of them asked me this question:

“Mr. Pepper, what advice would you leave for your grandchildren if you only had the space to write it on a small paper napkin?”

In the brief moment I had to reflect on that unexpected question, I was pulling from a lifetime of experience.

Here was my answer:

·      Believe in yourself

·      Do what you believe is right

·      Love People

Why did I choose these three points?  Why do I think it makes sense to share them with you tonight?  I hope what I say in the next few minutes will explain why.

“Believe in yourself”

I don’t know you young men and women who are proudly graduating today.  I do know that, when I was where you are, I was carrying doubts from the past—doubts which led me to take stock and push hard to believe in myself.

You see, growing up as a youngster, I was not that popular.  I was a poor athlete.  But I found reasons to believe in myself, just as you will—in my academic performance, in being the business manager of my school newspaper and even making a downfield tackle in a football game.  I recalled the victories, some small and some not so small; and I drew strength from the love of my parents and my faith in God.

Don’t let anyone ever tell you that you can’t do something.  Even more, don’t tell yourself you can’t do something.

If you are going to honor that mandate, you’ll find that you need to step out of your comfort zone.  What I remember as much as anything from high school, 60 years ago, was the decision to step out of my comfort zone to go out for the football team.  I didn’t become a starter, but I made the team.  I have drawn on this small victory as I approached many challenges:  applying to work at P&G, or even making a major speech.

You already know this.  Challenges are part of life.  The ones from which you learn the most will be those that stretch you most.

In believing in yourself, never be afraid to let your strengths shine bright.  I am reminded of these immortal words of Nelson Mandela:  “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.  Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.  It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.  We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?  Actually, who are you not to be?  Your playing small does not serve the world.  We are all meant to shine, as children do.”

And remember this.  If you believe something is really important, don’t give up.  Almost nothing truly important happens on the first try.  I will always recall the shortest speech Winston Churchill ever gave.  Just six words:  “Never, never, never, never give up.”  He then sat down.

Remember this, too:  Believing in yourself requires being yourself.  Never feel you need to act a part.  I love to hear it said of someone:  “what you see is what you get.”  Let your authenticity flow from you.  That is what you owe yourself.  That is what you owe others.  People will love and respect you in part for that--because it is so rare.

One other point.  As I remind myself to be myself—I add “be my best self.”

Let’s face it:  none of us are at our best every day.  I’ve often gone to bed discouraged and grumpy.  I’ve had a setback, a disappointment.  But there is one thing I know:  I’m going to wake up in the morning and face a choice.  I’m either going to tackle the issue at hand positively, reminding myself of my blessings and strengths, or I’m going to continue to feel down or sorry for myself.  It is our choice; my choice:  Am I going to be the best version of myself?

That choice is never more important than when it comes to the second point on my napkin.

“Do what you think is right.”

Who could argue with that you ask?  No one.  But I have found nothing more important than consistently doing what I believe is right.  Your self-esteem will rest on how you judge yourself in doing that and your reputation, your most precious asset, will rest on how others see you honoring—or not honoring—what you believe is right.  Personal integrity is the non-negotiable in every relationship. 

Years ago, a fellow P&Ger told me a story about her indoctrination on her first job out of school.  Her manager asked her to sit down.  His message was short and crystal-clear:  

 

We have a lot of rules and policies around here.  You will hear about many of them, but there is one that is more important than all the others—so important I want you to paste in on the inside of your eyelids and if you’re ever in doubt, shut your eyes and look at it.  The rule:  “Do what you believe is right.”

 

The one thing I’ve always asked of those who worked for me:  “Tell me what you think and act on what you believe to be true.”

*****

I risk making this sound too easy.  It isn’t.  It can be hard to resist the pressure from a group of friends doing something which we don’t feel is right.  We hear a racist or sexist remark.  What do we do?  Speak up?  Remain silent and let it pass?  Yes, there are pressures and sometimes we are not sure what is the right thing to do.

That’s why my final prayer in church is to ask for the wisdom to know the right thing to do and the courage and perseverance to do it.  We will never be perfect, but consistency matters.

I often return to the words of this short poem: 

“Watch your thoughts; they become words.

                        Watch your words; they become actions.

                        Watch your actions; they become habits.

                        Watch your habits; they become character.

                        Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.”

                                                                        Frank Outlaw

Now, can anyone remember the third point on my napkin?

Love People! 

I don’t mean that we will love everyone to the same degree.  But I do mean to suggest that we meet everyone with an open mind and an open heart.

If there is one thing I’ve learned in life, it is that life is all about relationships, not only with people who are like me, but people who are different from me.  I’ve learned more from people who are different from me than in any other way.

It is easy to be put off by stereotypes.  We draw conclusions from superficial observations. 

Let me give you this piece of advice.  As you meet another person, try to see yourself in them and see them in yourself.  Please, try to think about that. 

Appreciate the differences but also appreciate the commonalities--of our challenges and our fears; our hopes and desires and dreams. 

Think about your fellow classmates sitting right alongside you.  You have learned from one another.  You have drawn confidence from one another.  You have taken joy from each other’s company.  I hope many of you will stay together for the rest of your lives.  I wish I had done more of that.  Borrowing on the words of a Josh Groban song, “we can raise each other up.” 

Countless people have lifted me up through their confidence and their love.  Above all my family.  But my best friends have done it as well.

Years ago I wrote a paper titled “If It Weren’t For Them.”  I named the people without whom I would not have become who I am.  The list included one of my high school teachers and a classmate named Buck Leary.  Buck was the all-start halfback on our team.  He helped me learn how to tackle; and I believe I helped him in math.

Yes, love people.  The simplest way I express it is that “everyone counts.”  

How do you show other people they count?  It is really pretty simple.  Greet them by name and with a smile!  Listen to them!  Hear what they say and sometimes what they don’t say.  Ask them a question!

I’ll never forget a visit I made to a P&G plant in South Africa which we had acquired a few years earlier.  I was on a tour with a black African.  I asked him how he liked being with P&G.  He said he loved it.  I sensed his enthusiasm.  I looked at him and asked him, “Why?”  His answer hit me between the eyes:  “Before P&G,” he said, “nobody would have asked me a question like that.” 

 

Imagine the gift we give someone by simply asking for their point of view.  That’s how we learn and convey honest respect.

Yes, love people.  Love people as they are…realizing that everyone has something to offer to you and you to them.

Well, there you have it.  My advice on a paper napkin—

·      Believe in yourself.

·      Do what you believe is right.

·      Love people.

In closing, let me offer one final thought.

You are graduating from one of the finest schools, not only in this city, but in the nation.

You are about to go on to outstanding universities.

99% of the youth in this country would give their eye-teeth to be where you are tonight.

With this comes great opportunity—and great responsibility.

As you go ahead on your journey of life, I urge you to share your time and talent with those who have not had the same opportunities.

Regrettably, my generation is leaving you with challenges on which I wish we had done better.

To have over 50% of the children in Cincinnati living in poverty today, many only a few miles from where we are right now, is a disgrace.  It need not be that way.

Lack of quality education is one of the root causes of this poverty.  We can change this.  Indeed we must.

The culture of Seven Hills has always focused on helping those around us.  Never lose that focus. The future of our community and our Nation depends on it.  And if my life and that of my wife Francie are any examples, so will the satisfaction you take from your own life.

So, “On you go,” drawing strength from your great accomplishments.

Keep learning!

Aim high!

Have fun!

Godspeed!

WHAT NELSON MANDELA'S LIFE TEACHES US ON HOW TO DEAL WITH RUSSIA AND PRESIDENT PUTIN

I am posting a poignant analysis addressed to me by a P&G colleague of mine, Lindsay Schmauss, on how the lessons and values of Nelson Mandela's life offer counsel for us and our Nation on how to negotiate with and relate to Russia and President Putin. Indeed, these lessons apply broadly to how we interact with anyone. I found myself identifying so closely with Lindsay's views I decided to post her analysis in its entirety and without further comment.

She relates her thoughts through the lens of the leadership attributes identified by journalist, Richard Stengel, who worked closely what Nelson Mandela for many years.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Richard Stengel recognizes as one of Nelson Mandela’s greatest
strengths, his sense for “when and how to transition between his roles as
warrior, martyr, diplomat and statesman”.  In approaching Putin, the West needs
to be clear on the appropriate role that is called for right now.  Stengel goes
on to enumerate 8 associated “Lessons of Leadership” that build out an
understanding of how (and why) NM transitioned between these roles, and to what
effect.  I think each and every lesson is relevant at this time.

No. 1:
Courage is not the absence of fear – it’s inspiring others to move beyond it
I
have already shared my perspective that the apparent “fear” of Putin is
extremely counterproductive.  Too much is being said by too many significant
leaders and influencers about the threat that Russia and Putin poses to the
West.  Much is based on assumption and hearsay, and the tone is too volatile and
defensive.  The dialogue about Russia needs to calm down.  We need cool heads
that articulate the principle, the goal, and focus the discourse forward on
this, rather than harping back to old “Cold War” themes.  This will reverse the
current effect of spreading fear and distrust among “the people” that in turn
fuels calls for rash intervention.  I sense that Americans can be a bit too
quick to reach for the gun when they feel threatened.  That goes for the actions
of private individuals, cops as well as the military!  We need calm voices that
give courage to approach problems in a rational way.

No. 2: Lead from the
front – but don’t leave your base behind
I consider Obama an extremely wise and
enlightened leader, but often he goes out on a limb, requiring tremendous effort
to shore up support for his efforts (health care, Iran nuclear deal…), usually
after the fact.  This is why he makes no headway on the gun control issue.  It’s
also why there are continual issues with members of his own administration
speaking out on issues from points of view directly contradicting the aligned
position.  In approaching Russia, enough needs to be done in advance on the
“homefront” to secure support, to hold a coherent position together.  A clear
vision of what is to be achieved would be a good place to start.

Stengel also
recalls NM’s reflection that “an issue was not a question of principle; it was a
question of tactics”.  I like this a lot!  It fits together with the comment of
Cyril Ramaphosa that NM was “a historical man – he was thinking way ahead of
us”.  NM “always played for the long run” – “Things will be better in the long
run,” he liked to say.  So how does this relate to Russia and Putin?  Recently,
Western diplomacy has been thrown back to the “tit for tat” short game of the
Cold War.  We need to step back and take a much longer term view.  We need to
define The Principle.  For NM his “unwavering principle” was to overthrow
apartheid.  What is the principle with Russia?  Is it peace and cooperation?  Is
it alliance?  With Iran it was very specific nuclear disarmament requirements
and that absolutely focused the discussion, also by clearly defining where there
would be the space to negotiate and compromise, the space for “tactics”. 
Similarly, once we know the real objective of engaging Moscow – the “prize” – we
also by default define the “less important” areas where we might compromise. 
The areas that today we may consider “matters of principle”, but at the
negotiation table, can become tactics.

No. 3: Lead from the back – and let
others believe they are in front
The principle learnt from herding cattle ☺ “It
is wise,” NM said “to persuade people to do things and make them think it was
their own idea.”  I think this is a relevant meditation both in thinking about
how to enroll upfront support in America as well as approach Russia.  Whether
one would agree or not, Russia sees itself as the equal of America.  There is
Putin’s famous “Munich speech” – in many ways, the “Manifesto” of his subsequent
political framework and belief – where he described American world domination
and declared that if no other nation or alliance would stand up to counter
balance this, Russia would.  With all respect, personally I sense that America
has a tendency to arrogance.  When I hear the “average American” speaking about
their country, admirable national pride often gets borderline offensive with the
implication of American superiority.  Likewise the American tendency to pile on
to every issue with a very loud (and often bellicose) point of view, often
characterized here in Europe as “America policing the world” (which considering
American incarceration rates vs. other countries, comes across as extremely
biased to punitive action and not something Europeans and many others see as a
good thing!).  America needs to approach Russia with a dose of humility and
respect for the pride of the Russian people too.  Putin will not stand for being
seen as the pawn of the West.  He will not bend to pressure.  He must be
approached on a very level playing field.

No. 4: Know your enemy – and learn
his favorite sport
The fact that NM not only studied Afrikaans language,
history and culture, but was seen to embrace it, is something I find marvelous. 
It is also a brilliant exhibit of “tactics”.  You and I have mused before on the
value of understanding Russia, Russian people etc.  There is this, and then
there is another angle that builds on the previous point: as much as we need to
get clear on our objective in engaging Putin, we also need to spend quality
timing thinking about where he is coming from and what he wants.  Evidently he
wants to be reassured of Global equilibrium (is that not what we want too?). 
Russian strengths are different to America’s, as are Russian aspirations – we
need to deeply understand this and let this direct the choices we make in
negotiation to enable the “win-win”.

Stengel also captures that NM “realized
that even the worst and crudest could be negotiated with”.  This is important
too.  We must see past our judgement of “the other” and find a way to connect. 
This goes for Assad to, by the way.  With the way things have evolved in Syria,
a resolution without Assad seems unlikely, but in the interest of peace, we can
even negotiate with a butcher.

No. 5: Keep your friends close – and your
rivals even closer
This one is self-explanatory! “Mandela believed that
embracing his rivals was a way of controlling them: they were more dangerous on
their own than within his circle of influence.”  Enough said: THIS is why we
need to engage Putin.  Never mind collaboration on common issues etc. etc., the
key factor is that either he is with us or against us.  Sanctions won’t change
that – it will only make matters worse.

No. 6: Appearances matter – and
remember to smile
It’s a small and obvious point, but it does matter.  How this
all is presented in the media is crucial.  What is the “media strategy” and how
do we influence it into being?  I sense that there is a very incendiary element
in American journalism that needs if not toning down, then “integrating” in the
strategy to work for, not against, peace.

No. 7: Nothing is black or
white
CRUCIAL POINT!  NM “suggested that Americans tend to see things in black
and white and he would upbraid me for my lack of nuance”.  “Life is never
either/or. Decisions are complex, and there are always competing
factors”…”Mandela [was] comfortable with contradiction”.  Yes, we condemned what
we saw as Russia invading Ukraine.  Yes, we condemned Assad and committed to
help kick him out of power.  But things moved on, became even more complex (and
they certainly were not as simple as we might have painted them at the
beginning).  Take a longer view, take ego out of the equation, and remember the
next point:

No. 8: Quitting is leading too
Being willing to acknowledge when
one is wrong or out-voted, being open to change one’s mind, both are absolutely
crucial to succeed in negotiation and leadership.  I don’t think it is in the
schema of Putin – he would probably see this as weakness, or maybe not – maybe
his innate pragmatism would chalk it up as tactics, but regardless of that, if
the West is going to reach out, we need to be willing to concede some
points.

So those are my reflections. Doubtless you are well aware of them all
as the document originated with you, but I thought I would capture my
reflections anyway because the relevance of these lessons right now was just too
great to not comment on it.

THE GUT-WRENCHING REFUGGEE CRISIS-WHAT DO WE DO?

The Refugee Crisis – “You Haven’t Seen This Play Before” – Or Have We – What Do We Do?

The refugee crisis which we are witnessing and experiencing -- the crowded train stations in Hungary; the young 3-year-old boy lying dead, face down on the beach, having drowned with his brother and mother after their boat capsized; the stories of beheadings of children who refused to recant their faith to ISIS terrorists; all of this and more drives a feeling of horror (how can people do this to each other?) and helplessness.

I am hit with these reflections:

Now, sadly, I better understand how, in reality, people could know about the threatened and then the actual annihilation of the Jews and not done much about it.  It is so very easy, almost natural, to feel genuine compassion but then return to our normal busy and, yes, often challenging, times. 

I am reminded of the ship S.S. St. Louis that came to Cuba and then to the United States in summer 1939 carrying 937 Jewish refugees seeking asylum from Nazi persecution and they were denied entry, first to Cuba and then to the United States, and had to return to Europe.  Perhaps as many as half those passengers were sent to death camps.  I am reminded how long it took for us to take action to halt the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia as that country split apart in the 1980s. 

Yet, positively, based on reports in recent days, I am reminded that there is goodness in people, for example, as Germany has agreed to take 600,000-800,000 refugees and the Head of the European Commission is demanding that all members of the Union accept quotas to accept refugees.

I am reminded by how we in the United States have benefitted from and sought the refuge in the privileged position which we have because great oceans separate us from the continent of Europe and the Middle East.  This was true in World War I and World War II and it’s true now in terms of refugee immigration.  Most recently, the President has called for admitting 10,000 refugees from Syria during the coming year, less than Australia, not to mention Germany and other Western European countries.

Some say we are “threatened” by our own “immigration problem.”  The fact is that the flow of people between Mexico and the United States right now nets to zero. 

Some have said, including Ohio’s Governor Kasich, that, while we should do something, the Syrian refugee problem is a “European problem.”  Why would we say that?  We had our hands in the creation of the conditions that helped lead to the genocide and ethnic cleansing which is driving this refugee crisis today.  Even more, we are part of the world community that needs to deal with conditions that threaten the lives of innocent people.

I was deeply troubled by Thomas Friedman’s column on Wednesday, September 9:  “You Haven’t Seen This Play Before.”  Without minimizing the extraordinary challenge of the situation we face, in fact, “we have seen this play before.”

We saw it as Yugoslavia broke up.  We’ve seen it in countries of Africa: Darfur, Nigeria, Sudan, and the Congo.  Decades ago, we saw it in Eastern Europe after the Nazis came in and eliminated effective government.  As Timothy Snyder in his new book so cogently describes, that provided a fulcrum in which the Holocaust had even a deadlier effect.

Friedman says, “If we’re honest, we have only two ways to halt this refugee flood and we don’t want to choose either:  build a wall and isolate these regions of disorder, or occupy them with boots on the ground, crush the bad guys and build a new order based on real citizenship, a vast project that would take two generations.”  He goes on to say that, “We fool ourselves that there is a sustainable, easy third way:  just keep taking more refugees or create ‘no-fly zones’ here or there.”

What terribly disappoints me in this column is that Friedman does not go on to describe what, even if difficult and uncertain, are the paths to make the most of this situation.  Fortunately, Nick Kristof did that in his column of 9/10 (see link):    

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/opinion/nicholas-kristof-compassion-for-refugees-isnt-enough.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad

What these paths are is pretty clear:

·      We must do everything we can to provide haven to those refugees whose lives are threatened, especially those whose lives are threatened because of a minority religious belief or ethnicity.

·      As part of this, we must significantly strengthen the humanitarian support in those neighboring countries (e.g., Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey) which already have received hundreds of thousands of refugees.

·      We need to do everything possible to re-establish a stable environment in the countries involved so people can return safely and those still there can safely remain.

On the first point, remember there were 60 million refugees after World War II.  The world didn’t throw up its hands and say that is an impossible number to accommodate.  No, with great difficulty leaders dealt with the situation, including with the Marshall Plan.  Yes, the number of refugees is enormous, but if all major countries get into the act, it probably can be handled. 

No doubt, the root solution has to involve the creation of at least minimally stable conditions in Syria that will allow people to stay/return to their homes.  To do this, the right leaders must come to the table to resolve how to do this.  The task is incredibly complex as we have learned in the Balkans.

Take Syria:  Clearly, Russia, Europe, the United States, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia (and perhaps China and others) need to meet with Syrian leadership and devise and implement a plan to restore civil order and deal with the ISIS epidemic.  Much as the Dayton Peace Talks did, this will require singular leadership.  If this doesn’t happen, the tragedy risks worsening.

In my view, it is unrealistic for the United States to start out with the position that this solution cannot involve Assad.  Yes, he is a brutal dictator, just as Hussein and Khadafi were.  But at a cost to human life far lower than today, they kept their countries together.  Most importantly, we will not achieve a practical solution if the principal countries, including Western Europe, the United States, Russia and Iran, are not at the table.

Somebody needs to make that happen and, if the United States isn’t leaning forward to lead, I fear it won’t happen.  The time for decisive action by the world community is now.

RefugeeCrisis091015

"HUMANITY BEYOND OUR DIFFERENCES"

“THE UNDIVIDED PAST:  HUMANITY BEYOND OUR DIFFERENCES”

BY DAVID CANNADINE

It this deeply researched book, David Cannadine takes on the task of undercutting the view that people can be singularly identified by a number of individual factors, including (as he presents them) Religion, Nation, Class, Gender, Race and Civilization. 

He sets out to make the point, and does so effectively, that there have been many instances of collaboration and working together among people who belong to different religions (e.g., Muslim and Christian), or have been in two Nations, or of different “Civilizations.”  In other words, the borders are not inextricably bound.  He very effectively identified the mistaken historical views that have identified one or more of these elements as singularly the most important in identifying collective groups.  He rakes Marx and many historians who followed him over the coals with regard to class and many historians who, in later years, have seen “Civilization” as the all-defining collective entity.

In a way, Cannadine has taken on a “red herring.”  After all, it’s inarguable that people define themselves by more than one category.  One could be a feminist and also devoted to her country.  Certainly there has been a tremendous intersection of Religion and Nation.  In fact, I would emphasize that the commitment to “Nation” itself has become something of a secular Religion.  That has been true in many ways in the United States and Russia or, before it, the U.S.S.R.

Cannadine’s discussion of “Nation” is especially insightful for me in how it makes clear that so many Nations created artificially after World War I were really not Nations at all.  They were devoid any shared sense of national unity or historic or collective identity.  Take Iraq.  It was a Nation in which Arabs and Kurds, Sunni and Shia had been summarily bundled together.  King Faisal, the first ruler of Iraq, was well aware of the problem as Cannadine notes:  “There is still (Faisal wrote) no Iraqi people, but unimaginable masses of human beings devoid of any patriotic idea, and viewed with religious traditions and absurdities, connected by no common tie, giving ear to evil, prone to anarchy, and perpetually ready to rise against any government whatsoever.”

Sadly, this typified many other countries (e.g., Syria, Lebanon) with which we are now dealing since their autocratic rulers (like Saddam Hussein) have been overthrown or are on the ropes (Assad).  There is really no end to the mischief which Western powers have perpetrated, first in creating these artificial entities, and then, under the leadership, particularly of George W. Bush, coming in and peremptorily throwing out the autocratic leaders who had held them together without any decent awareness of what would be unleashed or plans to cope with it.

This same basic problem affected Africa as post-1945 the colonies too often became Nations, lacking any shared sense of history, language or identity beyond that which had been briefly superimposed by the departing colonial power, then taken up by the nationalists themselves.  Not surprisingly, providing order in these circumstances has been extremely difficult.  No countries are evidencing this more than Sudan and Nigeria.

Still, today, I believe “Nation” is that characteristic which most binds people together.  In essence, Nation is an extension of family, which is where identity is deepest.  A Frenchman, Ernest Renan, in the late 19^th century did a fine job of defining what a Nation is.  He insisted that it “was, above all, a state of mind and the expression of the collective will:  drawing from the past a shared ‘store of memories,’ especially of ‘the sacrifices that have been made,’ displaying in the present ‘the agreement, the desire to continue a life in common,’ and in looking to the future, accepting and recognizing ‘the sacrifices the nation is prepared to make’ again as it has done before.”

That says it.  This defines what brings our Nation’s citizens to identify with it.  It’s what leads the citizens of Russia to do the same.  And it is what leads the members of a great organization to identify with it.

There aren’t a lot of Nations or organizations that actually have the history or the sense of purpose or worth to be a “Nation” in that respect.

*****

Let me briefly examine two questions:

1.     What are the circumstances that have led people from different Races, Religions or Nations which have been diametrically opposed to cooperate during at least parts of their history? 

I believe it has been when people different in Race, Nationality or Religion come to work together personally against some common purpose; a common purpose not principally connected with that identity.  I’ve always argued that diversity becomes real and operational when people of different races or ethnicities come together to work on an important project and see that, by working together, they are more successful.

As Cannadine writes in describing what characterized Christians and Muslims working together, it was as:  “They encountered and engaged with each other at levels that were more usually individual (and accommodating) than collective (and conflictual), and on many matters that often had little of anything to do with faith.”

This is why I’ve always felt it important to have groups of people come from one country to another and interact with people in that country on something that will be of value to them, e.g., learning how to do business, have a more effective government, etc.

2.     The second question is:  What has been the reason for people who have learned to work together across differences breaking apart and combatting one another again, with a “we/they” frame of mind?

The answer in my experience is when the group feels threatened by the other (collectively) on its principle identity, with the risk of this being tremendously expanded when a leader is present who elevates the threat to an existential level.

A classic example which I experienced was in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Muslims and Christians had worked, lived and married together there for many years.  But, Milosevic fired up the antagonism between Muslim and Christian and what had been cooperation and collaboration became murder and genocide.

Or take more recently, the relationship between Russia and the United States.  A few years ago, 70-80% of Russians viewed the United States favorably.  Now it’s 20-25%.  Why?  Russians have been led to believe that the United States is, bluntly, out to get Russia, to punish it, to surround it.  There was evidence in the expansion of NATO to support this and other things about which I won’t get into detail here.  And all this was escalated by all-too-paranoid rhetoric by President Putin mirrored by many in the United States.  We didn’t understand each other’s situation.  And yet, even now, there are common things that we’re working on, such as the Iran nuclear treaty.

Finally, I’d simply say that Cannadine’s book does not (nor do I suggest it tries to) deny the reality that a deeply imbedded trait of human nature is to compare ourselves to others in a search for elevating our own sense of self-worth.  And that this has and will continue to result in animosity between groups defined by different Religions, Nations, Nationalities, and Race.

Our task, as I’ve often said, is to see the other person in ourselves and ourselves in them.  To understand that, while our interests and beliefs will never be totally the same, we have far more to gain by working together with respect, knowing that our commonalities (e.g., the desire for security for our family, safety, a decent level of living) are greater than our differences.