As 2010 fades into the distance, I would like to offer my thoughts concerning three recent events from last year, which at first seem inconsistent with past historical decisions or which appear to contradict the goals of the actors involved. Upon closer examination it becomes evident that the complicated natures of these events are what make them so thought−provoking.
The first event speaks of an invitation to the Russian Federation to attend the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit meeting in November 2010. This unexpected overture happened while many of our lawmakers, particularly Republicans, were still unsure about which way to vote for the second Strategic Arms Reduction (START) Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation. The treaty, which was signed by President Barack Obama and the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (remember, the first START Treaty was signed by former President George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev, president of the Soviet Union in 1991), has been ratified on Capitol Hill and is also expected to pass in the Russian State Duma (Russia's lower house of parliament). Some have interpreted the invitation to Russia as an unofficial invitation to join NATO. As a matter of fact, advocates of a closer cooperation with Russia believe that the passage of START II may pave the way for the Russian Federation to join NATO in the foreseeable future. While some sources even speculated that the American government would welcome such a turn of events, the U.S. NATO Ambassador, Ivo Daalder, went even further to lend credence to such speculations by reiterating his assertion that all European countries, including Russia, have the right to become NATO members.
The second event refers to the anti−Semitic, anti−United States speeches of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In an article I recently read, these speeches were described as having done a great service to the State of Israel, rather than a disservice, as many would expect. At first my reaction to this piece of news was one of puzzlement — but not for long. Iran's president had been and continues to be ostracized by many world leaders for his blatant anti−Israel, anti−Semitic rhetoric and his incessant threats against the West for opposing Iran's nuclear ambitions. Contrary to his and his handlers' expectations, all the angry words he uttered so far, whether directed at the West or at Israel, have indeed backfired. Ahmadinejad's obviously unscripted verbal assaults calling for the annihilation of Israel not only caused many countries, including Arab states, to shudder at the spectacle of someone openly advocating genocide, but also conjured up images of the genocide against the Jews planned and carried out by former German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his Nazi patsies which led to a great loss of life. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and threats not only widen the fissure between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, but also convinced many Arab and Muslim states that Iran is more of a threat to their security and stability than the State of Israel is.
The third event involved WikiLeaks' mastermind Julian Assange being brought to justice, not because of his unleashing of an avalanche of classified and potentially damaging material, but because he was accused of having sex that, without the consent of his partner, was unprotected. What is mystifying to me is that this man became well−known to countless intelligence agencies that were eager to prosecute him for spilling the beans, particularly regarding their top−secret operations and reports, and yet all they could come up with was his engagement in allegedly consensual, yet unprotected, sex with two women — who now just want to make sure that he did not transmit any sexually transmitted diseases to either of them. This intelligent and dedicated man clearly knew full−well the ramifications of disclosing sensitive and obviously intriguing information and surely had taken the necessary precautions in anticipation of a backlash, yet he couldn't take a few minutes from his busy schedule to make sure that he would be protected sexually. Mr. Assange, of all people taking up residence in Sweden, should have known that Swedish law can treat certain cases of consensual sex in which one of the partners opts out of using protection at the detriment of the other as rape, plain and simple. So you see, Mr. Assange, high intelligence should be complemented with common sense.
These three events in particular struck me because of the apparent contradiction between what people expected to happen and what actually occurred. The Russian/NATO rapprochement is particularly difficult to grapple with due to the nature of the foundation of NATO and its long history as a balancing organization to Russia. The Ahmadinejad speeches stand out as a rare bit of justice, as hate−filled words end up helping those at which they were aimed. Lastly, Assange's arrest is confusing as it points out some of the strengths and weaknesses of the reaches of the legal system. Things are not always what they seem or are purported to be. Accordingly, there are times when veracity, along with curiosity, are needed to make sense of otherwise seemingly unrelated assumptions or conclusions.
--
