At this time of the year it is customary to look back at the past to get an inkling of what might transpire in the future. Although the past is not an infallible guide to the future the latter is to a considerably extent predicated by it, as has been shown in a number of previous issues on this site. There are also some key years in human history which set events in motion which then reverberate for decades and even centuries. For Americans it was 1776 but Europeans have memories which go back considerably further. One could arbitrarily start at 1618 which means nothing here but was the onset of one of the most disastrous European wars. It lasted for 30 years, resulted in the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire into numerous principalities and thereby allowed the French, British and Russians to dominate European events. The first two, joined by the Dutch, were also put into the position of creating overseas empires thereby challenging Spain and Portugal. The re-creation of a German empire, but without Austria, in 1871 was clearly too late for being welcomed by the existing powers because they only saw a rival whose ambitions needed to be curbed.

          I picked 1618 as the start of this little excursion into history because it was Austrian policies which had started this war, just as Austrian policies gave rise to the next disaster in 1914 and what is hardly known: one of the fatal strikes which killed the monarchy in 1918 was a revenge of the Czechs for 1618. History is not some impersonal force, as Marxists would have it, but also consists of grievances and hatreds which are nourished over a period of decades and sometimes centuries as was the case in the situation that is discussed here. Picking on Austrian examples of bad decisions is not due to some animosity against the country of my birth but simply because I am most familiar with its history. The cause of the 30

Years War, which actually consisted of a series of four campaigns interrupted by some brief armistices, was ostensibly a battle over religion; just as our current “War on Terrorism” is regarded as such. Yet in both instances religion also served as a screen to hide naked power politics. What September 11, 2001 was for the U.S., May 23, 1618 was for Austria.

          In 1609 Emperor Rudolf II had granted religious freedom to the Bohemian Estates (Stände) but this edict was gradually undermined by his successor Matthias II (1557-1619) who prior to his death forbade the Protestant religion altogether. A protest note by the Bohemian nobility in March of 1618 was answered with an edict which not only disallowed a meeting of the Bohemian Estates to debate this question, but threatened military reprisals if it were to take place. On the mentioned day in May an armed multitude appeared before the Castle (Hradschin) in Prague and some members of the Bohemian nobility then confronted the imperial administrative officials with their grievances. The discussions became an argument and when it became fruitless a member of the Bohemian group supposedly yelled, “What’s the use. Throw them out the window in good-old Bohemian fashion.” This advice was followed and the Prager Fenstersturz entered history. Reprisals started promptly and in the subsequent war the Czechs were soundly defeated at the Battle of the White Mountain in 1620. But it was not just the loss of a battle; the estates of the nobility were confiscated, given to loyal Catholics, and all vestiges of Bohemian independence were gone for the next 300 years.

          The Czechs, however, neither forgot nor forgave, and the drama continued into the 20^th century. Tomáš Masaryk (1850-1937) a Moravian politician had served intermittently in the Austro-Hungarian Reichsrat (Parliament) but concluded in 1914 that independence for Czechs (who included Bohemians and Moravians) as well as Slovaks could best be achieved by joining the Allied cause. He left the country and his peregrinations took him from Switzerland through France, England and Russia to the United States. Throughout his travels he advocated the formation of an independent Czechoslovakia, and he is credited with having been instrumental with the formation of the Czechoslovak legions from Austrian POW’s who then fought on the Russian side. Masaryk reached America in the spring of 1918 and was given a hero’s welcome in Chicago where he had previously (1902, 1907) lectured at the University. Since his wife was American and had influential friends, among whom was Charles R. Crane, he obtained access to President Wilson who lent a more than willing ear. I have previously mentioned Mr. Crane (January 1, 2007. The Year of the Middle East) as a member of the King-Crane Commission which had been dispatched by Wilson in 1919 to determine as to what role the United States should play in the dispute over Palestine by the Zionists vs. the newly sovereign Arab states in the region. His advice was “hands off” and it was heeded until 1948 when President Truman, within a matter of a few hours, recognized the new State of Israel. This remarkable speed resulted from his being told that he could not win the November election without the Jewish vote which would surely turn against him unless he promptly acted in the recommended manner.

At the Versailles Peace conference Czechoslovakia was established as an independent country and Masaryk became its first president. This was done, of course, under Wilson’s guise of independence for the oppressed people of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Yet, it cobbled together a nation which consisted of Bohemians, Moravians, Slovaks, Germans, Poles as well as some other smaller nationalities. If ethnic uniformity had been the goal it was clearly wanting and this had its brief revenge in March 1939 with the separation of the Slovaks from the Czechs. Hitler is usually regarded as having broken the Munich Accord by annexing rump Czechoslovakia. But what tends to be ignored is that the Slovaks had seceded under Jozef Tiso, and Hitler then took the opportunity to declare Bohemia and Moravia (their ancient names) a Reichsprotektorat. The fact that in so doing he gave the Poles another piece of the defunct Czechoslovak state also tends to be ignored by contemporary historians.

In 1945 Czechoslovakia was resurrected and Jan Masaryk, son of Tomáš, became its first president. Yet on March 10, 1948 history came full circle because he was found dead below the bathroom window of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Prague. The official cause of death was “suicide” but persistent rumor has it that this was another instance of the “good-old Bohemian custom,” defenestration. This time it wasn’t Protestants who were responsible but communists and the people lingered under their rule, which was considerably more oppressive than anything they had to endure under the Habsburgs, for another 40 years until the Velvet Revolution in December of 1949. But the Slovaks were not happy and again demanded their independence. It is to the credit of Vaclav Havel that he let them go peacefully in 1993. In contrast to the crop of politicians we currently have, Havel, although by profession a playwright, was a statesman who knew right from wrong and always had human rights and needs, rather than affairs of state and the nation, in the forefront of his thoughts. He died last month and his memory will be revered by “all people of good will,” which is another reason why I have started this essay with the 30 Years War. Havel put a final end to all the animosities which had started in 1618, then erupted again in 1918, 1939 and 1945 accompanied by untold human suffering.    

I have used this “ancient history” as another example to show the continuity in human affairs and that any arbitrary starting point will always do violence to the truth. This brings me to the current political scene and the question whether or not 2012 will be another year for pivotal events. In last month’s installment I mentioned that one of our Republican aspirants for the presidency is the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. He is of interest in this context because by profession he is a Professor of History which should qualify him as having a broad outlook on world affairs. But what did we hear from him on the campaign trail? Last month he had this to say to a Jewish audience “Remember, there was no Palestine as a state, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places."

          This is remarkable for the mindset it portrays: Say anything that might get you votes! Hitler could say with the same right: “there are no Czechoslovaks; they are an invented people by the Versailles dictate.” But I guess Professor Gingrich would object to that. Furthermore, Jews are to a considerable extent urban as well as mobile. They can, therefore, pack up their belongings and leave for greener pastures whenever the need arises. This is what Gingrich suggests to the Palestinians without taking into consideration that they are, or at least were, largely rural and that they can’t pack up their olive trees. In addition Professor Gingrich surely knows that Palestinian history did not start in the 20th century. What was the official name for The Holy Land the Crusaders went to? To what land did the Jews emigrate in the late 19^th century and up to 1948? They didn’t go to the Ottoman Empire or Arabia, they went to Palestine! The land, of course, regained official recognition after WWI when it was declared a British Mandate. The people living there or coming to it were Palestinians regardless whether their religion was Muslim, Jewish or Christian. Again, this is all so elementary that one is actually ashamed of having to bring it up but this is the level of information upon which the next American President will be chosen and this should give us ample reason for concern. 

          Last month the presidential campaign shifted into high gear and currently the TV news channels saturate the airwaves with the impending Iowa caucus on the upcoming Tuesday as if the fate of the Republic was hanging on it. But let us remember that this is not even a primary where all the voters of a given party and in some states even Independents can cast their votes for a given candidate. No, this is a “Coffee Klatsch” where the various proponents of the candidates meet some citizens and try to convince them to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice. At the last election about 120,000 Republican Iowans cast their votes in this manner which amounted to about 20 percent of registered Republican voters. The winner at that time was Mike Huckabee and we know how he fared subsequently. The arcane process of how America elects its presidents was discussed in more detail in the March 1, 2008 installment (Voting in America).

          The reason why 2012 may well become another year for the history books does not necessarily reside in the end of the Mayan Calendar, Nostradamus’ quatrains, which are continuously milked for doomsday scenarios, or the celestial alignment of December 21, as we are informed about on the “History” channel on our TV sets. It tends to be considerably more mundane and consists of the numerous tensions which have been building up here and abroad. The kettles are boiling and any one of them may explode at any moment.

          Let us start with the fact that the leadership of the U.S., Israel, Russia, Egypt and possibly a number of other nations faces elections in this year. These are not routine because in the current economic climate the issue of war and peace hangs in the balance. The biggest danger continues to emanate, of course, from the Middle East and it is in regard to that part of the world where the decisions by the leaderships of the countries mentioned above, in addition to China, will have the greatest impact. Elections in times like these are fraught with danger because the leadership of any given party, regardless in which part of the world, is intent on retaining its power and will do so even if it were to provoke a war. There are enough examples from past history which could be cited but let it suffice to refer to Niall Ferguson’s Virtual History – What Could Have Been, where he showed that England’s entry into WWI, which turned a continental European war into a global war, was not necessarily foreordained. Party politics, Liberals vs. Tories, had also played a role. This is the point which will be crucial this year.

          At present the Republican Party in our country has come to be dominated by its extreme right wing elements. With one exception all the candidates for the nomination drape themselves in Christian virtues, although some Evangelicals feel that Romney and Huntsman don’t really qualify as Christians because Mormonism is, in their eyes, a cult whose members need to be shunned. Christian charity, one of the hallmarks of the religion, is woefully lacking. In the attempt to win the slogan: all is fair in love and war, seems to be the rule and the candidates outdo each other not only in promises how to set the country on the right course but in attacking each other and obviously, Obama. In ordinary times this would be par for the course but when in these dangerous times promises are made in regard to foreign affairs and specifically towards Israel they cannot be taken lightly.

          In the previous installment I have mentioned that from all of the Republican candidates only Jon Huntsman represents centrist views the country could rally around. Unfortunately even he has succumbed to the seeming necessity to flatter Jewish voters. In the New Hampshire debate with Newt Gingrich he declared last month that we have to stand with our friends and allies and that Israel is “our anchor in the Middle East.” If he truly believes this we have a serious problem because we thereby have “outsourced” our freedom of action to another country. This is precisely the situation George Washington had warned us about in his Farewell Address to the new nation.

          When it comes to U.S. foreign policy one can detect two strands. One is the continuation of the 19^th century “Great Game” between England and Russia over the riches of Central Asia which is now pursued by the U.S. as heir to the British Empire. It is explained by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security advisor, in The Grand Chessboard-American Supremacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. The book is important because of the author’s stature as well as candor and most of all because it was written prior to 9/11. Brzezinski made it quite clear that for America to maintain its dominance in the world it has to have a prominent role in what he called the “Eurasian Balkans.” These consist of: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; all of which, apart from Afghanistan, are successor states of the defunct Soviet Union.

          While Brzezinski did not advocate American hegemony in the region, especially one based on military might, he did stress its economic importance and a balancing of the interests of Russia, China, Iran and Turkey with those of America. He made it clear that continued antagonism to Iran is not in America’s best interest and neither is a resurgent Russian influence in the region. “It is this consideration that has made the pipeline issue so central to the future of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia.” Russia needs to be bypassed and “if another pipeline crosses the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and thence to Turkey and if one more goes to the Arabian Sea [bypassing the Strait of Hormuz] through Afghanistan, no single power will have monopoly over access.” Thus it is clear that 9/11 was a welcome excuse for the Afghanistan invasion which obviously also served ulterior motives on the “chessboard.” It explains in addition why we have no interest in leaving the country and the current date of 2014 is likely to be postponed if the Afghans allow it. The pipeline “pipedream” has been discussed here on previous occasions especially in the October 1, 2002 (One Year Later) and August 11, 2011 (Misguided Arrogant Incompetence) essays.

          Brzezinski’s book was published in 1997 and Iraq is already treated essentially as an American protectorate while Israel is mentioned only in the context of the Palestinian problem which might lead to a radicalization of the Muslim world. On the whole the book was optimistic in its outlook as to how America might retain its global predominance in the 21^st century. But the actual policies pursued after 9/11 brought a rude awakening and led to another book in 2007: Second Chance-Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. President Bush 41 was criticized for having failed to grasp the moment after the dissolution of the Soviet Empire to enunciate a global vision for America and for not having moved decisively on the Palestinian issue. Nevertheless, Professor Brzezinski rated his overall performance as deserving a “Solid: B.” President Clinton got only an “Uneven: C,” while Bush 43 was a catastrophe and received a “Failing: F.” The reason for the F was, “A simplistic dogmatic worldview prompts self-destructive unilateralism.” Brzezinski concluded the book with these words, “It is essential that America’s second chance after 2008 be more successful than the first for there will be no third chance [italics in the original]. America urgently needs to fashion a truly post-Cold War globalist foreign policy. It still can do so, provided the next president, aware that the ‘strength of a great power is diminished if it ceases to serve an idea,’ tangibly relates American power to the aspirations of politically awakened humanity.”

          Three years into the Obama administration it is obvious that this has not happened. The second chance is gone and the outlook for a third one is indeed bleak when one considers the current state of American domestic politics. This interaction between foreign and domestic issues is the second strand, which has been alluded to above, and has received only scant attention by Brzezinski. In our country the president does not really have the power popular imagination ascribes to him because as leader of his party he is restrained by its wishes and the need to keep the administration in office. There is, therefore, an inherent conflict and Bush 41 became its victim. He could not have achieved the breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Brzezinski chides him for because domestic Jewish interests trumped his foreign policy goals. The same applied to Clinton who could not make major concessions to Arafat while his wife, Hillary, was running for a Senate seat in heavily Jewish New York. These are realities and unless the country comes to grips with them there is no hope for the type of enlightened global policy Brzezinski had in mind. Our Iran policy is dictated by the fear that the “mad Mullahs” would use a nuclear weapon, once they have one, against Israel which would lead to another holocaust. This has to be prevented at all cost, “with all options against Iran on the table.” Translated this means a pre-emptive strike which might produce exactly what one wanted to avoid. Under these circumstances Israel instead of being an anchor, as Huntsman proclaimed, could actually be a millstone around our neck.

          What our domestic friends of Zionism, be they Jewish or Christian neglect to see is that Israel has not escaped from the current protest movements sweeping the world. Shimon Peres, its aged President, warned last week that there is a battle going on for “Israel’s soul.” He referred to the increasing power of the ultra-orthodox segment which now clashes with the secular element of the population. But the metaphor of “Israel’s soul” is inadequate because as Faust complained: Zwei Seelen wohnen ach in meiner Brust (Alas, two souls reside in my breast) and one wants to separate itself from the other. In the Jewish context it goes back to Napoleon’s question to the French Sanhedrin: are you a religion or are you a nation? The answer then was “a religion and loyal Frenchmen;” now in Israel it is “Both.” This, of course, brings up the question what kind of a nation: a theocracy where Talmudic law rules, or a liberal democracy with equal rights for all the inhabitants of the land. A student of history will immediately detect the similarity to the Maccabean era of the 1^st century BC and its civil wars, with the only difference that the “Hellenists” are now called “secular” and the “God fearing,” “orthodox” or “ultra-orthodox.” The Israelis must sort this out for themselves and it is a grave error on part of our Zionists, who unfortunately have a great deal of influence on our election outcome, to enforce their idealistic tunnel vision on our foreign policy. Prime Minister Netanyahu also faces an election and whether or not he will try to avoid defeat at the polls by a foreign policy adventure, such as bombing Iran, is another question.

          The Iranian nuclear quest is, however, only one of the many areas of concern. Last month Kim Jong Il of North Korea died and his son Kim Jong Un is an untested unknown individual. His youth and inexperience present a potential hazard. We don’t know what he will do with this impoverished but nuclear armed country and the hope is that older generals will curb his appetite for glory. On the geostrategic level a divided Korea, regardless of the wishes of the population, remains a priority for America because once the two halves are united they may no longer want our troops there. Under these circumstances our “Far East anchor,” as Brzezinski called Japan, would also be in jeopardy because our bases there are officially needed to protect the Korean “tripwire.”

          All of these problems are compounded by the economic woes of the world. Our employment situation is still grim, the gap between the have and the have-nots continues to widen and street protests, with or without violence, are bound to arise again once the weather gets a little warmer. The same applies to Europe where the Euro continues its slide and how long Mrs. Merkel can retain German support for her pan-European policies is another question. The Brits have already bailed out and put their bets on America rather than Europe which does not bode well for the continent. In Russia, Putin is fighting for his political life and the opposition is liberally supported by America’s NGOs (non-governmental organizations) as well as probably the CIA, because the weaker Russia becomes the better for our prospects in Central Asia. Obviously Putin knows this and how he will react cannot be fathomed at this time. But one thing is certain it is not likely to make him more well-disposed to our country.

          In view of the visceral dislike Republicans harbor against Obama it is highly improbable that any meaningful legislation for the public good can be enacted this year. All eyes are on the November election as if this could solve any of the problems which have been touched on here. So what can one say about our prospects? Let’s hope that we can somehow “muddle through,” and avoid the looming disasters so that 2012 will get only a passing glance in the history books rather than becoming another hallmark.