ClimateChangeFork

Last week, I promised to discuss issues such as the required “motive” in the context of the recognized legal definition of genocide: “Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.” In addition, I promised to address the fact that the 1948 Genocide Convention didn’t exclude the possibility that the perpetrators of the genocide could be part of the afflicted group. I also said I’d discuss whether or not the judges determining if the action fits the judicial constraints of genocide must be part of the afflicted group.

However, Memorial Day and birthdays intervened. For some reason or other, many birthdays in our family, including mine, are concentrated at the end of May. We drove to a celebration in Connecticut, where my wife’s niece had a party to celebrate her husband and her five-year-old son John’s birthdays. For his birthday, John got a set of Picasso magnetic tiles, shown at the top of this blog. He was using the tiles to construct impressive structures in the middle of the family’s guest room. During our stay, there was heavy traffic in the room, which resulted in an unintentional kick to the structure and its complete destruction. The result was expected: John got seriously upset. His upset lasted for about five minutes, after which he started to rebuild the structure. This dynamic repeated itself two more times (including his own destructive kick, which made him just as upset). Each rebuilding looked to be better than the previous one. I was sitting there, watching and thinking, “is John trying to send the adults a constructive message about creative destruction??”

My thinking quickly shifted to the propriety of my increasing use of the expression “self-inflicted genocide,” which I coined much earlier (2008) than my first blog (April 22, 2012), where I tried to justify my use of the term.

As I mentioned in earlier blogs, I just came back from Europe. There, I attended the 80^th anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen by the British Army and my own liberation, along with the with remnants of my family, by the 30^th Infantry Division of the American Army. The Holocaust has played an important role in my life, especially as a shield and a lens through which I attempt to understand the future global threats that I have outlined repeatedly in my writing and school lectures.

My initial focus was climate change but more recently, I have included other anthropogenic threats as part of this label. Throughout the blog, but particularly in early blogs, I included some reactions to the label, not all of them positive. However, over the last 600 days or so things have changed. Roughly 600 days ago (October 7, 2023) Hamas broke through the Gaza border with Israel and attacked many of the Israeli settlements,  killing 1,200 mostly civilian Israelis and kidnapping 250. There are 57 remaining hostages but nobody is sure how many of them are still alive. During the attack, the Israeli army was mostly dormant. The moment that the circumstances of the attack became clear, Israel attacked Gaza in a war that is still ongoing.

I am a dual citizen of the US and Israel. I arrived in Palestine (which was ruled British mandate at the time and became Israel in 1948) as a 6-year-old kid, a few months after my liberation. I got all my education in Israel, and I served in the Israeli army. My wife was Israeli with a similar background and my son was born in Israel. I came to the US as a postdoctoral fellow and stayed for professional and family reasons.

I don’t like what’s going on right now in Israel and I am not alone. Because of my background, until now I have not made any direct comments about the situation in Israel on this blog. However, watching John’s productive response to the repeated destruction of his creations made me think again about my frequent use of the term “genocide” to describe current global trends.

Some details about the sizes of the forces in this war might help: Hamas’ estimated numbers before October 7, 2023 were 30,000. Half of them have been killed since the October attack. There is no estimate of the new recruits. The estimated population of Gaza is more than 2 million. Palestinian deaths, estimated by the Gaza Health Ministry, come to 55,000.

The population of Israel is around 10,000,000, more than 20% of whom are Arabs. The estimated size of the Israeli army is 170,000, with 465,000 in reserve (currently on call). These numbers are misleading, however because Israel sits in the mostly-Arab-populated Middle East, in which several large Muslim countries support Hamas, whether directly (Iran – population of more than 90 million) or indirectly (Turkey – population of 85 million).  Israel is also in the middle of a strained relationship with Egypt, whose population is 115 million. It is a challenging neighborhood.

Support and condemnation of both sides have spread globally. As I mentioned in the May 21, 2025 blog, a small pro-Israeli group assembled outside the Bergen-Belsen gates during the memorial, mainly objecting to chants such as “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free,” which anybody with a sense of Middle Eastern geography understands means replacing Israel with a Palestinian State. Last week’s blog continued my focus of exploring the legal definition of genocide based on the 1948 Genocide Convention. According to that definition, such a call is a call for genocide on Israeli Jews.

Many have also labeled the original October 7th attack a genocidal attack, which stopped at 1500 Israeli victims only because of the power imbalance between Hamas and Israel. On the other hand, Israel’s extensive use of bombing to kill individual Hamas members in a dense civilian population has almost completely destroyed the piece of land that 2 million Palestinians call home and caused immense civilian casualties. This has also been labeled a genocide by many serious international voices.

In my opinion, these accusations of genocide have been weaponized. To test the accusation, I asked Google AI about its understanding of “weaponized genocide”; this is what I got:

“Weaponized genocide” is a term that describes the deliberate use of strategies and tactics, beyond direct violence, with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. This can include the manipulation of resources, systems, and societal structures to inflict harm, create conditions of life that lead to a group’s physical destruction, or systematically prevent their survival and reproduction.

AI continues with examples of the concept. This is not how I thought about the term; the AI explanation fits more with the detailed legal description of genocide. I went further and asked AI to describe what it understands  “weaponized” to mean. Below is what I got:

“Weaponized” means to adapt something, whether an object, an idea, or even an aspect of oneself, for use as a weapon or to gain a powerful advantage. It can range from physically arming something, like rockets, to using something like a characteristic to manipulate others.

This is exactly what I had in mind, with genocide being the “object and idea.”

The recent weaponization of “sacred” concepts such as genocide now extends, through different players, to Jewish hate concepts such as Antisemitism. My next blog will try to expand on this.

Back to John:

I am interested in what would happen if we were to look at John’s construction improvements following the accidental destruction, and shift our view from personal to collective response.

Getting the topic into institutional learning and research might be even harder. Substituting genocide for destruction will not work; destruction is the prerogative of the military. Most military entities now include “defense” in their title. However, one of the first things that new recruits learn is that the best defense is a good offense. Since most countries have security-first budget priorities, it is not a surprise that security-funded research that is focused on destruction is common. Many of the most threatening global destruction trends started with academic research. These include nuclear threats, AI, and climate change. This issue will be further developed in future blogs.

Back from Connecticut to NYC: we got a beautiful, end-of-spring sky, good enough for posting, and settled back into our routines. One of the first things I did to entertain myself was to watch the new movie, “Mountainhead,” on HBO Max. The movie is about four technology billionaires meeting up at a mountain-top mansion that one of them owns. I am including spoilers about the plot, so if you plan to watch it, you can skip this part. The get together is supposed to be for fun but three of them are trying to coordinate a reaction to the global chaos that the other one triggered. That character is now offering a new AI system that can differentiate between real and fake, which—in principle—could fix the world. The other three see this AI system as a threat (to their pocketbooks) and decide the best solution is to kill the fourth guy. They try and fail.  AI was one of the trends that I included in earlier blogs about what might trigger a “self-inflicted genocide.” The guy directly responsible for the chaos is shown to have a small kid. Unlike John, he is too young to do much.

For reference, Elon Musk is known to have 14 children (with 4 different wives). The youngest, Romulus, is 5 months old; the oldest, Vivian Wilson, is 20 years old. In his recent departure from the Trump administration, he had a black eye after a challenging his 5-year-old to hit him. Good luck to all of us!

Last week’s blog focused on my recent return from a trip I took with my wife to Europe to memorialize 80 years since the British army’s liberation of Bergen-Belsen and the American army’s rescue of me and the remnants of my family near Farsleben. The events made me think harder about my efforts to address the present and future global dangers that I have long referred to using the term “self-inflicted genocide(s),” and to follow up on my last examination of the topic from March 25, 2025. That blog expanded the term from my usual focus of climate change to other global threats such as AI, nuclear war, epidemics, and the chance of an asteroid hitting Earth. This blog should be read as an extension of that earlier blog.

Before returning home to the US, we stopped for two days in London to meet some friends. These friends are international lawyers. The first question that they asked me, after I described what we did in Germany, was whether my efforts to address future global threats focused on addressing future genocides of Jews, following the often-repeated line of “never again,” or whether my focus was more general. The question reminded me of some of my Jewish friends’ earlier objections to my writing that expressed reservations about my use of the term genocide based on the argument that it might have the impact of devaluing the horrors of the Holocaust.

This and next week’s blogs will attempt to extend the March 25, 2025 blog to include a closer look at the legal definition of genocide and to examine whether it still fits the extended definition described in that blog.

The March 25^th blog mentions that the only accepted legal definition of genocide remains the one defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Definition:

Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. 

Key Elements:

• • Intent to Destroy: The most crucial element is the intent of the perpetrators to destroy the group, not just to harm or persecute individuals. 
  • Targeted Group: The victims are targeted because of their membership in a specific group, not because of their individual actions or characteristics. 
  • Acts of Destruction: These acts can include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The American Holocaust Museum cites that definition, but adds the following sentence:

“Although the term “genocide” is often used, its commission is rare when compared to other serious crimes that are not defined by an intent to destroy a targeted group, such as crimes against humanity and war crimes”

Recently, genocide accusations have increased significantly, focused on the following countries (Google AI):

1. Sudan:

• Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – The RSF denies these accusations.
• Janjaweed Militia: The RSF has historical ties to the Janjaweed militia, who were responsible for the genocide in Darfur in the early 2000s.

2. Israel:

• Accusations of Genocide in Gaza. Israel has rejected these accusations as baseless.

3. Myanmar:

• Rohingya Genocide:  The UN and other international organizations have called for accountability for these actions.

4. China:

• Uyghur Genocide:  China denies these accusations.

5. Azerbaijan:

• Nagorno-Karabakh:  Azerbaijan denies these accusations.

Important Note: These are accusations of genocide, and determining whether genocide has occurred is a complex legal and factual matter. Accusations are often based on preliminary information and evidence, and formal legal proceedings may be necessary to establish guilt or innocence.

The American Holocaust Museum, through its Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, gives an explanation and adds a few countries to that list (Country Case Studies – United States Holocaust Memorial Museum).

The introduction to that list states that:

The Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide focuses on threats of large-scale, group-targeted, identity-based persecution potentially rising to the level of genocide and/or related crimes against humanity. We work on select countries where these crimes are ongoing or at serious risk, prioritizing cases that are receiving insufficient policy attention. Below is a non-exhaustive list of cases on which the Center has worked.

The added countries include Afghanistan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Mali, Rwanda, South Sudan, Syria, Uganda, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

Israel and Azerbaijan from the AI list are missing from the Holocaust Museum’s list.

Accusations that were proven by courts of law to be Genocides (Google AI):

Three instances in history have been recognized as genocides under the 1948 Genocide Convention: the Cambodian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and the Srebrenica massacre. Additionally, Israel has faced accusations of genocide against Palestinians, particularly in relation to its actions during the Gaza conflict. These accusations have been formally presented to the International Court of Justice by South Africa, who requested a provisional order for a cessation of military operations in Gaza.

While the Genocide Convention’s official designations are limited, the phenomenon of killing a certain group of people based on their race or ethnicity has been studied extensively. Figure 1 is from “Genocidal Massacres in the Spanish Conquest of the Americas: Xaragua, Cholula and Toxcatl,” in The Cambridge World History of Genocide.

[They carried out]…genocidal massacre[s] targeting a specific community because of its membership of a larger group: the primary objective of the European perpetrators was to provide an object lesson for the surviving members of that group.

Figure 1 – Genocidal massacres in the Spanish conquest of the Americas (Source: The Cambridge World History of Genocide)

The 1948 Genocide Convention didn’t exclude the possibility that the perpetrators of the genocide could be part of the afflicted group. Nor did it state that the judges determining whether the action fits the judicial constrains of genocide must be part of the afflicted group. This issue and the intrinsic difficulty of proving intent, which is an important constraint in the 1948 definition, will be discussed in next week’s blog.

The origin of the term that was described in the March 25, 2025 blog has its obvious roots in the Holocaust. Being a Holocaust survivor gives me “license” to try to extend and generalize the term to include recent global threats.

The March 25^th blog describes the origin of the word genocide:

The word “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin and used in the 3^rd indictment of the Nuremberg Trials. The definition used in the trial was: “Extermination of racial and religious groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particular Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others.”

As mentioned before, the issue of “motive” in the definition of genocide is complex and will be further discussed in next week’s blog. To prove it in terms of the Holocaust was no problem because the Nazis openly expressed their intention to kill all the Jews. Their wish to eradicate Jews was not unique; they expressed it in context with their wish to eradicate other groups such as Roma, Sinti, people with disabilities, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and political opponents. Lemkin realized that and used the more general term “racial and religious groups.”

The legal definition is important because international—and sometimes national—court systems are often the last resorts to save many of us from such threats. This was discussed in terms of the present hostile governmental environment in the US and more generally in terms of the threats of climate change in the March 31, 2025 blog.

Figure 1 – The planned evacuation of some of the Bergen-Belsen prisoners to Thereisenstadt, a camp farther from the front line. The train was liberated by the American Army in Farsleben on April 13, 1945 (Source: Daily Mail)

The title of this blog is based on a publication that I wasn’t aware of until two days before my recent departure to Europe, which I described in a recent blog (April 16, 2025)

As can be seen through the link, the title of the Smithsonian Magazine piece, written by Meilan Solly, and submitted on April 10, 2025, was “How Bergen-Belsen, Where Anne Frank Died, Was Different From Every Other Nazi Concentration Camp.” The article was based on a recent exhibition in London that memorializes 80 years since the British army liberated Bergen Belsen. It started with the following paragraphs:

A new exhibition at the Wiener Holocaust Library in London chronicles the German camp complex’s history, from its origins housing prisoners of war to its afterlife holding displaced persons

Surviving records of Bergen-Belsen are few and far between, as the Nazis destroyed much of the evidence documenting the camp’s operation, and the British soldiers who liberated the camp burned its barracks to control the spread of typhus. But testimony collected by the library, personal items preserved by survivors, art created by liberators and objects unearthed by archaeologists have all helped scholars piece together the camp’s story.

The central exhibit about the camp describes in some detail what the British Army found before the highly publicized bulldozing of the victims into mass graves:

“‘Traces of Belsen’ takes a fresh look at a subject that many of us think we are familiar with, because of the images of overwhelming death and suffering that were broadcast to the world in April 1945,” says the library’s director, Toby Simpson, in a statement. “The more we look at the evidence that remains, however, the more we can see that the catastrophic conditions in Belsen during the last months of the war, which so appalled the camp’s liberators and the wider world, produced shocking impressions which tend to obscure as much as they reveal.”

Today, Bergen-Belsen is best remembered as it was in April 1945, when British troops finally liberated its survivors. These soldiers found around 55,000 emaciated, severely ill prisoners left behind by the retreating Nazis, as well as thousands of rotting corpses.

“The dead and the living were all together,” said medical assistant William Arthur Wood. “They hadn’t the energy to take the dead out, and there were so many piled outside … that it was hard to see, to pick out the dead from the living.” Despite British liberators’ best efforts, nearly 14,000 of the surviving prisoners died in the weeks immediately following liberation.

At the end of my trip, I visited London for two days to meet good friends that my wife and I hadn’t seen for a long time. The two-day visit didn’t allow us to see the exhibition but after returning, I looked at the website of the Holocaust Library. My exposure to the article allowed me to open my eyes to the large British contribution to the liberation of the site that is less well known, through visits to the large encampment that the British army used for the liberated prisoners and the cemetery that was constructed for many individuals that passed away shortly after liberation.

Previous blogs throughout Climate Change Fork have mentioned Bergen-Belsen (put it in the search box) but none, as yet, mentions the context of the memorial with post-war visit. This blog focuses on the following:

• Bringing some members of my family that are second and third generation
• My contribution to the museum, based on my 2002 interview
• The small “civilized” pro-Israeli demonstration in response to the pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the US.
• The publicity of the story of my family liberation in Farsleben.

This time, a second cousin once removed, who is also a good friend met us in Bergen-Belsen. He is part of the “marginal” second generation (his mother was born in 1945 in Poland) and a direct cousin (the daughter of my mother’s younger brother, who was with us in the camp and on the train) and her son (see Figure 4) traveled with us to Farsleben.

Throughout the years after liberation, I sort of boycotted Germany, not traveling there unless absolutely necessary. One thing that contributed to that was that Bergen-Belsen ended up in West-Germany and Farsleben, where I was liberated by the American army, in East-Germany. With the unification of Germany (1990), held a meeting in Berlin in 2002, which was an appropriate time for me to break my “boycott.”

I used the opportunity to visit Bergen-Belsen and give a testimony. In subsequent visits, most of which are covered in previous blogs, the museum was opened, and the location was converted to a memorial site. I never saw any trace of my testimony. This changed over the last visit when a colleague of mine who was also a passenger on the Farsleben train, came and asked me a question about the testimony. I asked how she learned about it. Her answer was simple: she saw it. It turned out that the museum was structured mainly around survivor testimonies that circulate at various contact points. Visitors like us usually spend a few minutes at most of the contact points, hearing random samples. She happened to hit on mine. I followed her instructions to locate the contact point and set a timer for about 30 minutes, until my “turn” came. Figure 2 is the beginning of this testimony.

Figure 2 – The beginning of my 2002 interview

The Israel-Hamas war that started with the October 7^th massacre by Hamas on Israeli settlements near the border, resulted in 1200 mostly civilian deaths and kidnapping of around 250 Israelis. The massacre triggered an Israeli response that resulted in the destruction of a large chunk of the Gaza strip and 50,000, mostly civilian casualties. The conflict is still a center of upsets around the world and the association of the world genocide with this event will be covered in next week’s blog. The memorial in Bergen-Belsen was no exception. The site itself contains direct Israeli imprints and a small group, shown in Figure 3, was a constant reminder of the conflict. However, they stayed outside the site, and they only waved their flags against cries that called for Israeli destruction. The situation was “civilized.” To contradict that, upon our return, we attended a thank-you party that Brooklyn College of CUNY arranged to express their thanks to my wife for her long service to the school. The party was almost cancelled because of an attack by a pro-Gaza, anti-Israel group of students and faculty. They ended up needing to call the police, as was described in the NYT (Police and Brooklyn College Protesters Clash After Pro-Palestinian Rally – The New York Times).

Figure 3 – A small demonstration of a pro-Israeli group outside the camp site

The location of Farsleben, the site of my liberation by the American army, is shown in the opening map above relative to Bergen-Belsen. It is now part of Wolmirstedt, with the closest large city being Magdeburg. The three-train story of our departure from Bergen-Belsen, is detailed in the museum description of the liberation. In previous blogs, I wrote some specifics about being involved in the planning and construction of the memorial to the liberation.

Through this, I acquired many friends in that community. Frank Towers, who passed away at age 99 in 2016, had written and delivered details about the liberation. For the 80^th anniversary of the liberation, I was tasked with adding my viewpoint about the importance of the event in my own life and the role that Frank played in connecting soldiers with survivors (for a picture of the participants during one of these meetings and a 2012 photograph of Frank, see the June 11, 2019 blog). The original intention was to give the honor of the follow-up to his daughter but she couldn’t make it because of an injury, so I was selected to replace her. I delivered my lines from the top of the monument seen better in a previous blog (April 12, 2022).

We had full television coverage (in German) of the occasion that can be seen here.

Figure 4 was mentioned earlier and was taken near the memorial with the German side of the liberation marker. The same message in English and Hebrew are carved on the other sides.

Figure 4 – My first cousin (the daughter of my mother’s younger brother who was also rescued in Farsleben) and her son, with my wife and me, near the liberation memorial in Farsleben

The focus on the liberation and its aftermath is now in production to be a 4-part documentary film on Netflix, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – An early announcement of the coming Netflix documentary on the American army’s April 13, 1945 liberation of our train

The next blog will be an expansion of a previous blog (March 25, 2025) regarding the issue of self-inflicted genocide and looking into some of the differences between the Holocaust and the current usage of the genocide label.

I started the April 16^th blog with the announcement that my wife and I were leaving for three weeks to Europe mainly to memorialize 80 years of liberation in two locations in Germany. The next blog will focus on that experience. We were “grounded” in the US for the last two years mainly because of health issues (an 80 year memorial of something means that I am older and health is an issue). We decided that before the memorials we deserved to be tourists for one week. Neither my wife or I had ever been to Yugoslavia and it doesn’t exist as a single country anymore. During the years after the Yugoslav Wars, Yugoslavia was split into 8 small countries, which are shown in Figure 1 and listed in Table 1.

Figure 1 – Countries in former Yugoslavia

Table 1 – The 8 countries formed after the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s
Population and GDP – Nationmaster, Tourism – AI (Through Google).

As the table shows, tourism is an important element of the economy in 2 out of the 8 countries: Croatia and Montenegro. We decided to follow the trend and were fortunate to have a Croatian travel agency, Jay-Way agency, help in designing this trip. We started in Dubrovnik, from which we traveled for a day trip to Kotor, Montenegro. From Dubrovnik we traveled by boat to the fascinating island of Hvar. We ended our “tourist” week in the second largest city in Croatia, Split. All these places are located in the southern part of Croatia on the Adriatic coast.

Figure 2 – Split, Hvar, and Dubrovnik (Source: Tripmasters)

The distance between Dubrovnik and Split is 232 km (144 miles).

The main attraction of these cities is that although they are modern urban environments, they contain “old cities,” so you can walk through two thousand years of history in one day. The additional attraction, obviously, was the beautiful Adriatic coast and the fact that almost everybody speaks fluent English. To get a sense of the history, I am summarizing below the highlights of the changes in governance there over the last 2,000 years (earlier for Split and a bit shorter for Dubrovnik). The end of April there is early summer and the water was too cold for us but the weather was very cooperative. However, the rich history was a great attraction.

History of Dubrovnik and Split (AI Through Google):

Governance of Dubrovnik:

• Ancient Period (before 614 AD):

Dubrovnik was part of the Roman Empire, specifically the Province of Dalmatia.

• Early Medieval Period (614-1205 AD):

Dubrovnik was founded by Roman refugees as Rausa and later came under the control of the Byzantine Empire.

• Venetian Influence (1205-1358 AD):

Dubrovnik acknowledged Venetian suzerainty, but retained much of its independence, becoming a powerful mercantile power.

• Republic of Ragusa (1358-1808 AD):

Dubrovnik became an independent city-republic, known as the Republic of Ragusa or Ragusa, ruling its territory along the Dalmatian coast.

• Napoleonic Period (1808-1813 AD):

Dubrovnik was conquered by Napoleon’s French Empire and annexed into the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy.

• Austrian Habsburg Rule (1813-1918 AD):

After Napoleon’s defeat, Dubrovnik became part of the Kingdom of Dalmatia within the Austrian Habsburg Empire.

• Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918-1941 AD):

Following World War I, Dubrovnik was part of the newly formed Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.

• Yugoslavia (1941-1991 AD):

Dubrovnik was later incorporated into the Socialist Republic of Croatia within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

• Modern Croatia (1991-present):

With Croatia’s independence in 1991, Dubrovnik became part of modern Croatia.

Governance of Split:

Roman Period (3rd-7th century CE):

• Split began as the Greek colony of Aspálathos, later becoming a prominent settlement after Salona was sacked.
• It was part of the Roman province of Dalmatia.
• Following the fall of Salona, the Palace of Diocletian in Split became a fortified refuge for Roman refugees.

Byzantine Period (7th-15th century CE):

• Split became a Byzantine city.
• The city played a role in the struggle between the Byzantines, Venetians, and the Kingdom of Croatia.

Venetian Period (14th-18th century CE):

• Venice eventually gained control over Split and other Dalmatian city-states.
• Split remained a Venetian city, a fortified outpost surrounded by Ottoman territory.

Habsburg Period (18th century):

• In 1797, the city was ceded to the Habsburg monarchy after the fall of Venice to Napoleon.

Napoleonic Period (1800s):

• In 1805, Split was annexed to the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy, and later became part of the French Empire.

Austro-Hungarian Period (19th century):

• After Napoleon’s fall, Split came under the control of the Habsburg Empire, eventually becoming part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Italian Period (early 20th century):

• During World War I and after, Split was briefly under Italian rule.

Yugoslav and Croatian Periods (20th-21st century):

• Split became part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, later the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and finally the independent Republic of Croatia.

Modern Croatia (today):

• Split is the second-largest city in Croatia and a major port and tourism destination.

The rich history is visible in the buildings of the old cities. Some of the walls of the structures expose their origins. Not surprisingly, we had our mobile phones with us and we were able to follow the adventures of the Trump administration at home. He seems to be focused on destroying much of what previous administrations built. What will come after seems unclear. All of this has happened in 100 days. In Croatia, the “sticking together” took 2,000 years. We fully realize that this picture is misleading because what we saw in Croatia was only what “survived” the process. The destroyed part was unseen. Recent history is trying to “immortalize” the destruction. The breakup of Yugoslavia (in the 1990s), the results of which are shown in Table 1, was a bloody process that almost everybody we talked to regretted (we didn’t talk to Serbs). The monument to Croatian veterans, shown in Figure 3, does a great job representing the destruction that comes with every war.

Figure 3 – Monument to Croatian Veterans (Split, 2020)

If the Croatians hadn’t had the foresight to preserve the “old cities,” their economy wouldn’t have benefited from the inflow of tourists, including us.

Figure 1 –  Preparation of the World Summit on Inclusive Global Governance Plan of Action: Roadmap to 2023 (Source: Democracy without Borders)

Are we ready to change global governance to face threats that do not recognize state boundaries? The figure above shows that some people are working on it. However, the trends in many countries (led by the US) indicate growing tendencies to work against such a change.

Here is how Google AI defines the present state of global governance:

Global governance refers to the system of institutions, rules, norms, and processes that enable international cooperation on issues that transcend national borders, aiming to address collective challenges and promote shared interests.

Key Aspects of Global Governance:

• Focus on Transnational Issues:

Global governance deals with problems like climate change, pandemics, trade, human rights, and economic development that require international collaboration.

• Diverse Actors:

It involves various actors, including states, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), businesses, and civil society groups.

• Rules and Institutions:

Global governance relies on a framework of international law, treaties, and institutions to facilitate cooperation and resolve disputes.

• Examples of Global Governance:
  • The United Nations (UN) system, with its specialized agencies and programs.
  • The World Trade Organization (WTO).
  • The International Monetary Fund (IMF).
  • The Paris Agreement on climate change.
  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• Evolving Landscape:

Global governance is not static; it adapts to new challenges and actors in the international system.

• Challenges:

Global governance faces challenges related to the rise of nationalism, the changing global power dynamics, and the need to address inequalities and injustices.

• Importance of Multilateralism:

Multilateralism, or cooperation among multiple nations, is crucial for effective global governance.

An important tool of global governance that is not mentioned above is international law. Below is how international law is described by AI:

International law is a system of rules and principles that governs the relations and conduct of sovereign states, international organizations, and individuals, encompassing areas like trade, human rights, diplomacy, and environmental preservation.

Here’s a more detailed overview:

Key Aspects of International Law:

• Scope:

International law deals with a wide range of issues, including:

• • Human Rights: Protecting fundamental rights and freedoms.
  • Trade: Regulating international commerce and economic relations.
  • Diplomacy: Establishing rules for interactions between states.
  • Environmental Preservation: Addressing global environmental challenges.
  • War Crimes: Defining and addressing violations of international law during armed conflict.
  • State Sovereignty: Recognizing the independence and authority of states.

• Sources of International Law:

  • Treaties: Agreements between states that create binding legal obligations.
  • Customary International Law: Practices followed by states that are considered legally binding.
  • General Principles of Law: Principles recognized by civilized nations.
  • Judicial Decisions and Writings of Scholars: Can be used to interpret and develop international law.

• Enforcement:

  • International law relies on a combination of mechanisms for enforcement, including:
    • International Organizations: Such as the United Nations, which can play a role in promoting and enforcing international law.
    • International Courts and Tribunals: For resolving disputes between states.
    • State Responsibility: States are responsible for upholding international law and can be held accountable for violations.

• Relationship to National Law:

  • International law and national law are distinct but interconnected.

  • National law is the law of a particular country, while international law governs relations between states.

  • States are generally obligated to comply with international law in their domestic legal systems.

In essence, the definition of international law (as described by this AI) is circular: international law can only be enforced by sovereign states, but state sovereignty is defined through international law. If we click on the Google entry of state sovereignty in the definition of international law, we get the following:

State sovereignty refers to a state’s supreme authority within its own territory, meaning it’s independent from other states and can govern itself without foreign interference. This includes the power to make its own laws, operate its own judicial system, and effectively govern itself.

Elaboration:

• Definition:

State sovereignty is the legal authority and responsibility of a state to govern its internal affairs and external relations without interference from other states. It’s a key concept in international law and political science.

• Internal vs. External:

Sovereignty encompasses both internal independence (governing its own territory) and external independence (being free from foreign control).

• Sovereign Equality:

Under international law, states are generally considered equal in their sovereignty, regardless of their size, population, or power.

• Limitations:

While sovereignty is a core principle, it’s not absolute. States can voluntarily enter into agreements that limit their sovereignty, such as international treaties or alliances.

The interesting entry here is the concept of sovereign equality. Size doesn’t matter. As I mentioned in previous blogs, this blog will be posted while I am in Europe. As part of the trip, we will visit the country of Montenegro, which used to be part of Yugoslavia. I asked AI to provide us with a “list of sovereign states smaller than Montenegro that are members of the UN”:

The following UN member states have smaller populations than Montenegro (627,859 in 2021): Monaco (36,686), San Marino (35,436), Liechtenstein (41,232), Malta (526,748), and Vatican City (764).

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

• Monaco:

With a population of 36,686 in 2021, Monaco is a city-state located in Western Europe.

• San Marino:

With a population of 35,436 in 2021, San Marino is a microstate located in Italy.

• Liechtenstein:

With a population of 41,232 in 2021, Liechtenstein is a microstate located in Western Europe.

• Malta:

With a population of 526,748 in 2021, Malta is an island nation in the Mediterranean Sea.

• Vatican City:

With a population of 764 in 2023-2024, Vatican City is the smallest country in the world by size and is located in Italy.

All these countries have the same degree of sovereignty as China (1.4 billion people), India (1.4 billion people), and the US (340 million people). Power, in terms of people, economy, and development, is a better enforcer of influence (but not by law).

(Source: Eur0m0ney)

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution provides:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The citation is from the US Constitution but there is no doubt in my mind that security is a prime requirement of every sovereign state. The article states that the protection should be provided for all its citizens against “invasion.” It does not specify human or non-human invasions. To my understanding, if a state can do something to alleviate deadly consequences of any sort, it should. Some threats don’t recognize human-created borders, so the “Make America Great Again” policy of letting other countries fend for themselves in this context is folly, and such a government should be replaced. Figure 2 summarizes the death toll of global natural disasters from 1950 to 2022. None of the threats in Figure 2 recognized state borders. Humans cannot do much about earthquakes yet, but the other threats are amplified by climate change, which is an anthropogenic threat.

Figure 2 – The 10 most significant natural disasters worldwide by death toll 1950-2022 

All these disasters are events that took place in the past. All are natural, cross-border disasters. The United States is not mentioned in the list but Wikipedia has a separate entry for cross-border disasters in the US. It includes COVID-19 (1,131,819 fatalities), the opioid epidemic (750,000), HIV/AIDS (750,000), two influenza pandemics (226,000), and a variety of floods, hurricanes, and fires that have been amplified through anthropogenic climate change.

Almost all the countries mentioned in Figure 2 are populated developing countries (Taiwan does not fit into this category and China is classified as a middle-income country). Any disaster of that magnitude that hits a developing country triggers mass immigration to safer countries, which, in turn, triggers instability in the rest of the world.

Possible future global disasters were discussed in two previous blogs:

The general trend in “What Are We Trying to Teach Our Children?” (June 11, 2024) :

Humanity is in the middle of at least 5 existential transitions; all of these started around WWII. They include climate change, nuclear energy, declining fertility, global electrification, and digitization. These transitions started around the time that I was born, but they will hopefully last (if some of them do not lead to extinction in the meantime) at least through the lifetime of my grandchildren (I call this time “now” in some of my writing). For the purpose of this blog, I will now change the word “hopefully” to probably.

And specific numbers in “Back to Self-Inflicted Genocide” (March 25, 2025):

A global all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia with over four thousand 100-kiloton nuclear warheads would lead, at minimum, to 360 million quick deaths.*  That’s about 30 million people more than the entire US population.

360,000,000

The Cretaceous mass extinction event occurred 66 million years ago, killing 78% of all species, including the remaining non-avian dinosaurs. This was most likely caused by an asteroid hitting the Earth in what is now Mexico, potentially compounded by ongoing flood volcanism in what is now India.

Unabated climate change will cause 3.4 million deaths per year by the end of the Century, new data presented to COP27 today shows. Health-related deaths of the over-65s will increase by 1,540%, and in India alone there will be 1 million additional heat-related deaths by 2090, if no action to limit warming is taken, the data shows.

One can find comparisons of global casualties from interstate wars since 1945 in Table 1.

Table 1 – Interstate wars since 1945 with more than 50,000 estimated casualties

It’s obvious from this that the number of casualties in interstate wars is higher than in cross-border disasters. However, a closer look at Table 1 reveals that most interstate wars take place in areas that were once held under colonial rule. These are generally developing countries; meanwhile, the developed countries that could provide the most help are not taking part in most of them.

The next blog will focus on the tools that sovereign countries have and existing attempts to increase the set of tools to fight global threats.

(Source: Kosmos Journal)

Next week, my wife and I are taking a trip to Europe. The main objective is to celebrate 80 years since the liberation of Bergen-Belsen by the British army on April 15, 1945. My own liberation, along with my mother and uncle, happened on April 13, 1945, when we were rescued by the American army near Farsleben, Germany. My previous description of the background of these events can be found in the September 13, 2022 blog. We now have many friends in these communities, and I am sure that many will pose the same question of my citizenship that this blog’s title does.

As of 2023, there were close to 50 million foreign-born people in the US. I am sure that many are being asked a similar question. I was born in Poland in 1939 and I am passport holder in both the US and Israel. I was directly confronted with the question when I needed a security clearance to be a summer guest at a US government laboratory. I was asked what I would do if the US and Israel went to war with each other. This was a hypothetical question (I was above recruitment age), but it was a fair and relevant one, for which I didn’t have a good answer. Not surprisingly, I was denied the clearance.

A historical perspective of the interactions between global and country citizenship was given in a guest opinion in the Sunday, April 6th, NYT by Tara Zahra. A key example from this article, that is also relevant to the situation we are facing now, is given below:

The economist John Maynard Keynes, conjuring an Edwardian version of Amazon, recalled how “the inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep.” After drinking his tea (from India), sweetened by sugar (from Jamaica), that Londoner might later enjoy toast (made from wheat grown in Kansas), butter (from New Zealand), beef (from Argentina) and oranges (from Palestine).

My trip to Europe is for three weeks. As is my habit in such cases, I will leave two blogs to be posted on a weekly schedule when I am away, and take a one-week break. I should be back on schedule on May 14^th. Meanwhile, one blog will deal with cross-border global threats and opportunities, and the other will be on global governance.

To be prepared for the trip, I posed the title question to AI (through Google). Here is what I got, on both a superficial level and on a deeper one:

You can be both a citizen of a particular nation (American, Israeli, Polish, etc.) and a global citizen, as these concepts are not mutually exclusive; a global citizen is someone who recognizes their interconnectedness with the wider world while still holding a national identity.

Here’s a breakdown:

• National Identity:

Belonging to a specific country grants you citizenship, rights, and responsibilities within that nation’s borders.

• Global Citizenship:

This concept emphasizes a broader sense of belonging to a global community, recognizing shared challenges and opportunities, and taking an active role in making the world a better place.

• Overlap:

Individuals can hold both identities simultaneously, recognizing their national identity while also understanding their role in the global community.

In essence, you can be an American (or Israeli, or Polish, etc.) and a global citizen, as these are not opposing concepts but rather complementary aspects of identity.

 

Go Deeper

The answer to your question is a nuanced “all of the above” – you can hold national citizenship and identify as a global citizen simultaneously.

Here’s a breakdown:

1. National Citizenship:

• Definition:National citizenship refers to the legal status of being a citizen of a particular country, with specific rights and responsibilities within that nation’s borders.
• Examples:You can be an American citizen, an Israeli citizen, a Polish citizen, or any other nationality.
• Rights and Responsibilities:These are defined by the laws and policies of the respective country, such as voting rights, paying taxes, and obeying the laws.

2. Global Citizenship:

• Definition:Global citizenship is a perspective or a way of seeing oneself as part of a broader, interconnected global community.
• Key Aspects:
  • Awareness of Global Issues: Understanding interconnected global challenges like poverty, climate change, and inequality.
  • Respect for Diversity: Valuing and appreciating different cultures, perspectives, and backgrounds.
  • Sense of Global Community: Recognizing that one’s actions can have a global impact and feeling a sense of responsibility towards the world.
  • Action and Advocacy: Taking action to address global challenges and promote positive change.

3. The “All of the Above” Perspective:

• Overlapping Identities:Global citizenship doesn’t negate or diminish one’s national identity.
• Complementary Roles:You can fulfill your responsibilities as a national citizen while also acting as a global citizen, addressing issues within your community and also supporting initiatives for global well-being.
• Layered Identities:You can have multiple identities – a local identity, a national identity, and a global identity.

In essence: Being a national citizen means having a legal connection to a specific country, while being a global citizen represents a sense of belonging to and responsibility towards the global community.

Back to my security clearance question. If asked for my choice in a conflict between my perception of my global citizenship and my state citizenship, where should my loyalties stand? I would have to consider the following: disobedience under state citizenship has penalties tied to the privileges: I could be arrested and my citizenship could be withdrawn (through judicial actions). States are sovereign; our planet is not. I will discuss state sovereignty in more detail over the next two blogs. I will also discuss attempts to make global citizenship more structural. In doing so, we automatically dilute the invincibility of state sovereignty. If anybody would like to know how such a process works, they should observe the current dynamics of the European Union.

 (Source: Notes from the Middle Ground Substack)

When we vote to destroy a country, we shouldn’t be surprised when the country gets destroyed. By the same token, when we continue to vote to destroy many countries, we shouldn’t be surprised when the world gets destroyed. On an individual level, we call such actions suicidal. On a collective level, the language is not yet well developed. Fortunately, there is a strong and powerful counterforce. In physics and philosophy we call it inertia. Here is how AI (through Google) defines inertia in humans (as distinguished from physics):

Inertia refers to humans’ inability to alter the ways they process information, sticking with default mental models. As a result, inertia has also been linked to the status quo bias, which describes our resistance to change.

On March 31^st, I gave a talk to Cardozo Law School students, trying to relate my life experiences with their prospective experiences, once they finish school. In preparation for this, I posted last week’s blog, which tried to summarize the legal fights awaiting them after graduation. This week, the terrain has sort of shifted. Everything seems to be changing. A few days prior to my talk, four NYT journalists, who are considered conservatives by NYT standards (David Brooks, Ross Douthart, David French, and Bret Stephens), tried to summarize why President Trump’s followers love him even more now than when they initially won him a second term last year. What caught my attention was the short exchange cited below:

David Brooks: I’d start with the world we’ve been living in for the last decade or so. According to an Ipsos survey last year, 59 percent of Americans think our country is in decline. Sixty percent believe “the system is broken.” Sixty-nine percent believe the “political and economic elite don’t care about hard-working people.” If those are your priors, then you’re going to be happy with a president who wields a wrecking ball.

Healy: As Trump liked to say while campaigning, “What the hell do you have to lose?”

Brooks: I’d add another phrase: “brokenism.” This is the belief system popularized by Alana Newhouse in Tablet magazine in 2022. It’s the idea that everything is broken and we just need to burn it all down. Personally, I think some things are broken and some things are OK, but most of my Trump-supporting friends are brokenists. They get this from media consumption. Do you remember that 2013 study that people who consumed a lot of media about the Boston Marathon bombing experienced “higher acute stress” than those who were actually at the bombing? There’s something about screens that contributes to a catastrophizing mind-set.

The concept was new to me and I went to the definition given by Brooks that is shared below:

The real debate today isn’t between the left and right. It’s between those invested in our current institutions, and those who want to build anew.

I am not a historian, but I am fully aware that destroying stuff is much easier than building it anew. Most revolutions teach us this lesson. The statistics that Brooks mentioned could easily sway every election. Hillary Clinton referring to Trump’s supporters during his first presidential election as “deplorables” didn’t help much:

Let’s start with the obvious: “Basket of deplorables” is a weird turn of phrase. There are baskets and there are deplorable people, but pairing the two is the oddest of linguistic odd couples.

Hillary Clinton said those three words in the final months of her 2016 presidential campaign, making rhetorical and political history. There were two kinds of Donald Trump supporters, she explained: Voters who feel abandoned and desperate, who she placed in one metaphorical basket, and those she called “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic” — her “basket of deplorables.”

Trump — the same man who announced his candidacy by calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” — clutched his proverbial pearls, aghast that his opponent had uttered such a shocking slander. His campaign turned that insult into an asset; supporters wore hats and shirts proudly declaring themselves deplorable. Pundits seized on the phrase, debating who does and doesn’t deserve to be called that. Five years later, many believe “deplorables” — figuratively and literally — are here to stay.

To President Trump’s credit, almost all that he has done during the two months of his 2^nd term has been to follow through on the promises that he made before the election. These included an emphasis on reducing immigration, major cuts to the size of the federal government, and reliance on duties to encourage domestic manufacturing. What was somewhat surprising is that some of these cuts resembled complete destruction. These included federal support for education and foreign aid. The common denominator of all these is the federated (and the constitutional) nature of the country. My wife oversaw a few research groups before she retired (she is continuing to work with the groups) and was notified a few days ago that their federal support is being terminated.

Immediately after President Trump’s November win, I wrote a blog titled “Resilience,” which said that the American constitutional system is resilient enough to stop anything that the voters don’t like. I mentioned that the 1^st test will be in two years, when a new congress will be up for election – the full House of Representatives and third of the Senate.  Actually, a mini test happened two days ago (April 1^st), when two special elections for Congress and an election of a State Supreme Court judge took place in Wisconsin, one of the swing states that Trump won, that could shift the balance of the court from liberal to conservative. The results of these elections are summarized below:

Elon Musk’s money can buy him love from Republicans, but not, it turns out, a Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

A campaign awash in more than $25 million in spending by the world’s richest man and groups tied to him ended up much like the other elections of the first months of President Trump’s second term: with a surge of energy from Democratic Wisconsin voters that overwhelmed whatever turnout Republicans could manage in response.

On the same night that Judge Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate, was delivering a thumping to Judge Brad Schimel, the Trump-backed conservative, Democrats saw a silver lining in losses in two special congressional elections in Florida. In both races, they were able to cut sharply into the much wider Republican victory margins from November. In all, the night’s results demonstrated what Democratic officials have been saying in recent weeks: that their voters are fired up to fight back against a Trump administration set on tearing down large chunks of the federal government.

These were very local tests, all in areas dominated by Trump supporters. The stock market is a much more general testing area, that is also known for its strong fluctuations. Figure 2 shows the performance of the US market compared to the international market.

Figure 2 – The American stock market since President Trump’s inauguration, compared to international markets (Source: Personal Finance Club)

The day after “Liberation Day” (Thursday, April 3), when President Trump announced the “complete” list of trade barriers for friends and foes alike, the market was reduced by additional 5%. The next day started with a continuing decline, with major drops in international markets (Stocks Drop Again as Trade War Intensifies) and continued in the US with a continued drop of close to 6%. A rough calculation indicates that this meant approximately 6 trillion US$ in this country were wiped out in two days. Next week, I will start to make the case that you cannot “Make America Great Again” with the rest of the world in decline.

The American Constitution, and its interpretation by the judiciary, is responsible for the strong inertia and the resiliency that American governance seems to show.  It is difficult, although not impossible, for an individual to confiscate federal power. Time works in favor of inertia.

As a newly retired guy, I am spending quality time trying to formalize my (and my wife’s) modest estate. It looks like President Trump (age 78) is doing the same on a much larger scale. It seems that all eyes are on the large US federal deficit. Republicans will have a hard time advocating for a major tax cut unless they can first achieve a reduction of the deficit. Figure 3 shows the American debt deficit compared to other major countries.

Figure 3 – Gross government debt in 2023 of leading developed countries as a percentage of their GDP (Source: Visual Capitalist)

We will continue to follow.

https://bsky.app/profile/annsharon.bsky.social/post/3liderfg7ak25

A previous blog (November 12, 2024), titled “Resilience,” was posted a few days after President Trump won the November election. It emphasized the constitutional resilience of the American government system. That blog focused on the term limits of the executive and the legislative branches. It left out the judiciary. The role of this branch, during the first two months of the Trump administration, is now rising to be a focus. An important aspect of the role that the judiciary plays in the resiliency of the US government includes the election and tenure of judges. A short summary is included in the publication of the Center for Effective Government

(20240306_Centre_of_Effective_Government_Primer_SummaryPDF_ElectedVsAppointed.pdf), the beginning of which is cited below:

In the United States, the federal judiciary is composed of judges who were nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve life terms. In contrast, judges in state courts come to occupy their positions through a vast array of different procedures, and once in office, generally require additional procedures to stay there. The debate over whether judges should be elected or appointed hinges on a conflict between two competing ideals of judicial independence and accountability. Judicial independence is the belief that judges should be insulated from undue or improper influence by other political institutions, interests, and/or the general public. Independence is closely related to the idea of the rule of law: legal structures should be applied in a consistent and unbiased manner irrespective of the identity of litigants or judges. Pulling against judicial independence is the demand for accountability, the belief that public officials should answer to someone for their decisions in office.

I strongly recommend that readers read through the full publication.

The code of conduct required by the judiciary is summarized by the American Bar Association as the Model Code of judicial conduct:

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct
(2020 Edition).  The Model Code of Judicial Conduct was adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association on August 7, 1990 and amended on August 6, 1997, August 10, 1999, August 12, 2003, February 12, 2007, and August 10, 2010. (Purchase hard copy)

CANON 1
A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

CANON 2
A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.

CANON 3
A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.

CANON 4
A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.

With the Trump administration winning majorities in the November election of the Senate, the House, and the Presidency (a trifecta) and gaining the majority vote, the judiciary became the critical battlefield.

The legal war is described by the two NYT articles, key paragraphs of which are cited below:

A Quick Guide to the Lawsuits Against the Trump Orders

The legal war over President Trump’s blizzard of executive actions is intensifying, with new lawsuits and fresh rulings emerging now day and night.

Judges are already making their mark: As of Saturday, eight rulings have at least temporarily paused the president’s initiatives. Other cases have not been decided. No matter the initial rulings by judges, many decisions are likely to be appealed, and some might reach the Supreme Court in the months to come.

The dozens of lawsuits fall into four main categories.

Here’s what you need to know:

• Immigration

• Budget Freezes and Firings

• Transgender Rights

• 6 Investigators

Why Federal Courts May Be the Last Bulwark Against Trump

More than 40 lawsuits filed in recent days by state attorneys general, unions and nonprofits seek to erect a bulwark in the federal courts against President Trump’s blitzkrieg of executive actions that have upended much of the federal government and challenged the Constitution’s system of checks and balances.

Unlike the opening of Mr. Trump’s first term in 2017, little significant resistance to his second term has arisen in the streets, the halls of Congress or within his own Republican Party. For now at least, lawyers say, the judicial branch may be it.

“The courts really are the front line,” said Skye Perryman, the chief executive of Democracy Forward, which has filed nine lawsuits and won four court orders against the Trump administration.

In addition, what appear to be solid constitutional standings such as birthright citizenship, are now being challenged:

Feb 6 (Reuters) – A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday accused Donald Trump of ignoring the rule of law for political and personal gain as he declared an executive order that the Republican president signed seeking to curtail birthright citizenship to be unconstitutional.

There was applause in the courtroom after U.S. District Judge John Coughenour extended an order he had issued two weeks ago temporarily blocking Trump’s order from being implemented into a nationwide injunction lasting indefinitely.

The battle became not only issue-oriented but personal:

United States President Donald Trump has doubled down on his criticism of a federal judge, calling him “radical left” for blocking the deportation of Venezuelan migrants, as his administration ramps up rhetoric against the courts.

Trump on Tuesday called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of putting the US at risk. “We don’t want vicious, violent, and demented criminals, many of them deranged murderers, in our country,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has criticised calls to impeach Judge Boasberg, but that has not stopped Trump from attacking the judge. The US president lashed out at Roberts as well, suggesting the Supreme Court itself was compromised by political bias.

The personal vendettas targeted not only specific judges who have ruled on present issues but also extended to revenge against judges who ruled against him between his two presidential terms:

As Donald Trump aggressively seeks revenge against multiple foes in the US, he’s waging a vendetta using executive orders and social media against judges, law firms, prosecutors, the press and other vital American institutions to stifle dissent and exact retribution.

Legal scholars say the president’s menacing attacks, some of which Trump’s biggest campaign backer, the billionaire Elon Musk, has echoed, are aimed at silencing critics of his radical agenda and undercut the rule of law in authoritarian ways that expand his own powers.

“Trump’s moves are from the authoritarian playbook,” said the Harvard law school lecturer and retired Massachusetts judge Nancy Gertner. “You need to delegitimize institutions that could be critics. Trump is seeking to use the power of the presidency to delegitimize institutions including universities, law firms, judges and others. It’s the opposite of American democracy.”

The fear of hostile presidential power has encouraged many to capitulate without a fight:

Feb 21 (Reuters) – The American Bar Association will temporarily suspend enforcement of its diversity and inclusion standard for law schools.

The ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar voted on Friday to halt enforcement of its current standard until August 31 while it reviews a pending proposed revision to the rule.

All of these battles came on top of the expanding role of the judiciary in deciding the blame for climate change-related natural disasters (see blogs June 13, 2023 and July 23, 2024 on needed prerequisites). See Figure 2 for the expanding climate change litigations.

Figure 2 – Global climate litigations (Source: Nature)

In August of last year, prior to Trump’s second term, the International Court of Justice got involved:

This is where the entry of the world’s highest court could be a game changer. In the next few months, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ principal judicial organ in The Hague, the Netherlands, will begin hearing evidence on two broad questions: first, what are countries’ obligations in international law to protect the climate system from anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, and second, what should the legal consequences be for states when their actions — or failure to act — cause harm?

By the time this blog is posted, I will be giving a talk to law school students, trying to map my experiences to their prospective experiences after graduation. To have them leave class with a smile, I don’t intend to mention that according to Bill Gates their whole profession (and most others) will disappear shortly after their graduation.

They might find some remedy for this issue (or a postponement) by moving to Europe.

Stay tuned.

(Source: ASU)

 Last week’s blog was focused on learning, from the Warsaw Ghetto under Nazi occupation, how to try to oppose a deadly hostile environment in a non-violent manner. The proposed remedy was to create a modern (computer-based) Ringelblum archive that is opaque to the hostile environment, and that can be opened when the political environment gets more friendly. At the end of that blog, I promised to show an example in this blog. Not surprisingly, the examples that I will use relate to the current global trends that may lead to existential global threats.  Collectively, I define the processes as “self-inflicted genocide.”

Before I go into these trends, I need to discuss two important elements in the concept: my degree of certainty in its continuation and the embedded assumption of “business as usual,” without which we might mitigate the crisis. The best entry to these uncertainties is through an invited talk that I gave on December 1, 2016, at the University of Pennsylvania. The assembly aimed to convince the University to disconnect from investing in fossil fuels. I was invited by a student, Richard Ling, who—together with Thomas Lee—wrote a detailed paper summarizing the concept. I strongly suggest that you read the full manuscript. Here, I am including part of their summary that includes my position on the issue:

As a Holocaust survivor and professor of physics at Brooklyn College, Micha Tomkiewicz has a nuanced understanding of genocide in the context of climate change. In a talk at the University of Pennsylvania on December 1, 2016, Tomkiewicz painted climate change as a prospective “self-inflicted genocide.” With greenhouse emissions (whose increase is primarily attributed to fossil fuel combustion) threatening irreversible harms to ecosystems, living organisms, and the human race, Tomkiewicz makes it salient that his comparison of climate change to genocide should be used as a marker of direction and pointer to clear evil. He warned: “It’s easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it’s much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides.” As moral agents, we ought to maintain an active memory of past injustices and proactively act in the face of new moral evils. Truth and justice ought not to be dismissed in 19 words.

Following the talk, I wrote a blog that summarizes my position on that event, including some relevant information not included by the students’ summary:

Richard’s request forced me to take another look at my claim that by the end of this century the impact of climate change would amount to “self-inflicted genocide.” I decided to see whether such an association didn’t need some narrowing. Reading Philippe Sands’ new book, East West Street: On the Origins of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity helped me with this reassessment. The word “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin and used in the 3^rd indictment of the Nuremberg Trials. The definition used in the trial was: “Extermination of racial and religious groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particular Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others.” From Sands’ book I also learned that Lemkin’s best friend in Poland was my great uncle. I suddenly started to feel even more personal pressure to specify my use of the term in a context that I am almost sure Lemkin would not have agreed with.

The definition of genocide is now moving well beyond Lemkin and the UN’s original definition.

I went to AI (through Google) for a recent summary of the definition:

• • Definition:

Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. 

• • Key Elements:
    • Intent to Destroy:The most crucial element is the intent of the perpetrators to destroy the group, not just to harm or persecute individuals. 
    • Targeted Group:The victims are targeted because of their membership in a specific group, not because of their individual actions or characteristics. 
    • Acts of Destruction:These acts can include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 
  • Historical Context:

The term “genocide” was coined in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish-Polish lawyer, who combined the Greek word “genos” (race or tribe) with the Latin word “cide” (to kill). 

• • Distinction from Other Atrocities:

While genocide is a specific crime with a unique intent requirement, it’s important to distinguish it from other mass atrocities like crimes against humanity and war crimes, which may not involve the intent to destroy a group. 

The global trends that we are currently experiencing were summarized in a previous blog titled “What Are We Trying to Teach Our Children?” (June 11, 2024). A key paragraph from that blog is given below:

Humanity is in the middle of at least 5 existential transitions; all of these started around WWII. They include climate change, nuclear energy, declining fertility, global electrification, and digitization. These transitions started around the time that I was born, but they will hopefully last (if some of them do not lead to extinction in the meantime) at least through the lifetime of my grandchildren (I call this time “now” in some of my writing).

For the purpose of this blog, I will now change the word “hopefully” to probably.

In “business as usual” scenarios, some of these trends could lead to global genocide. Such trends include: climate change, global epidemics, nuclear war, a large asteroid hitting Earth, and the digitization that has led to AI.

All of these threats are projected to take place in the future. Some of these threats are the same age as Lemkin and myself (digitization/AI, climate change, and nuclear war) while two others have a longer history (global epidemics and a large asteroid hitting Earth).

I will go now through the projections of the magnitude of these threats, starting with the newest and “simplest” threat – AI.

AI

About two weeks ago, an article came out describing how AI can revolutionize science:

Across the spectrum of uses for artificial intelligence, one stands out.

The big, inspiring A.I. opportunity on the horizon, experts agree, lies in accelerating and transforming scientific discovery and development. Fed by vast troves of scientific data, A.I. promises to generate new drugs to combat disease, new agriculture to feed the world’s population and new materials to unlock green energy — all in a tiny fraction of the time of traditional research.

Technology companies like Microsoft and Google are making A.I. tools for science and collaborating with partners in fields like drug discovery. And the Nobel Prize in Chemistry last year went to scientists using A.I. to predict and create proteins.

This month, Lila Sciences went public with its own ambitions to revolutionize science through A.I. The start-up, which is based in Cambridge, Mass., had worked in secret for two years “to build scientific superintelligence to solve humankind’s greatest challenges.”

Relying on an experienced team of scientists and $200 million in initial funding, Lila has been developing an A.I. program trained on published and experimental data, as well as the scientific process and reasoning. The start-up then lets that A.I. software run experiments in automated, physical labs with a few scientists to assist.

The description of the global threats posed by this technology is much shorter:

I can ask it a “simple” question: “how to destroy the world” or “how to prevent the destruction of the world?” For certain individuals within our 8 billion people, the two opposing perspectives of the question are basically the same. If these individuals have the right prerequisites to be able to put the AI suggestions to work – would the result be considered genocide?

Nuclear War

Threats of nuclear war (often labeled WWIII) are now spreading. The Russians are reacting negatively to almost any step associated with the West’s help for Ukraine. Trump is threatening Zelensky that there will be major consequences if the US continues to defend Ukraine. Meanwhile, the West is trying to strategize on a new nuclear umbrella to replace the US.

The results, if the current nuclear arsenal of both the US and Russia were to be triggered, have been summarized by Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

A global all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia with over four thousand 100-kiloton nuclear warheads would lead, at minimum, to 360 million quick deaths.*  That’s about 30 million people more than the entire US population.

360,000,000

*  This estimate is based on a scenario of an all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States involving 4,400 100-kiloton weapons under the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) limits, where each country can deploy up to 2,200 strategic warheads. The 2010 New START Treaty further limits the US- and Russian-deployed long-range nuclear forces down to 1,550 warheads. But as the average yield of today’s strategic nuclear forces of Russia and the United States far exceeds 100 kilotons, a full nuclear exchange between the two countries involving around 3,000 weapons likely

An asteroid hitting Earth

From Center for NEO Studies (CNEOS):

CNEOS analysis of near-Earth asteroid 2024 YR4, which is estimated to be about 40 to 90 meters wide, indicates it has a more than 1% chance of impacting Earth on Dec. 22, 2032 — which also means there is almost a 99% chance this asteroid will not impact. These analyses will change from day to day as more observations are gathered. The CNEOS analyses are used for NASA’s contribution to the International Asteroid Warning Network (IAWN). After the impact probability for this asteroid reached 1%, IAWN issued its official notification for the potential impact.

Cosmological collisions are not unusual. However, the last one that hit Earth was about 66 million years ago, well before the emergence of humans:

The Cretaceous mass extinction event occurred 66 million years ago, killing 78% of all species, including the remaining non-avian dinosaurs. This was most likely caused by an asteroid hitting the Earth in what is now Mexico, potentially compounded by ongoing flood volcanism in what is now India.

A 1% probability within 7 years leaves a 99% probability of a non-event. But in case that 1% were to grow, a human response would take time. As small of a probability as it is, we can’t discount the effects of the last asteroid.

Epidemics

Covid-19 – 14.9 million excess deaths associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 (According to the UN)

Spanish Flu – (Wikipedia)

The 1918–1920 flu pandemic, also known as the Great Influenza epidemic or by the common misnomer Spanish flu, was an exceptionally deadly global influenza pandemic caused by the H1N1 subtype of the influenza A virus. The earliest documented case was March 1918 in Kansas, United States, with further cases recorded in France, Germany and the United Kingdom in April. Two years later, nearly a third of the global population, or an estimated 500 million people, had been infected. Estimates of deaths range from 17 million to 50 million,^[6][7] and possibly as high as 100 million,^[8] making it one of the deadliest pandemics in history.

Climate change – New Health Data Shows Unabated Climate Change Will Cause 3.4 Million Deaths Per Year by Century End – V20: The Vulnerable Twenty Group

Unabated climate change will cause 3.4 million deaths per year by the end of the Century, new data presented to COP27 today shows. Health-related deaths of the over-65s will increase by 1,540%, and in India alone there will be 1 million additional heat-related deaths by 2090, if no action to limit warming is taken, the data shows.

Back to the definition and inclusion of the modern Ringelblum Archive. The point is to protect the ideas and arguments that could currently be dangerous to publish in this hostile environment. Inclusions into the archive should include arguments for and against a contribution and it should be used, as all research should be used, as an argument to encourage further research on the issue. In this case, we are talking about the lifespan of infrastructure (e.g. the built environment) that is estimated based on the global threats (e.g. climate change) that the hostile environment (e.g. the government) discounts. In many cases, two versions of the same related issue could be collected; one might be acceptable and publishable in the present environment and the other, with the “speculation” of future consequences, could be stored in the archive.

As I am finishing writing this blog, President Trump is issuing another executive order:

March 19 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Wednesday related to state and local infrastructure preparedness for responding to natural disasters such as wildfires and hurricanes, along with other threats like cyber attacks.

“This order empowers state, local, and individual preparedness and injects common sense into infrastructure prioritization and strategic investments through risk-informed decisions,” the order said.

The only way to comply is to make a new, modern Ringelblum Archive that can stay transparent to any administration.

Stay tuned!