White House Chronicle

News Analysis With a Sense of Humor

A British Immigrant’s Defense of Immigration

by Leave a Comment

Migration, people moving to new lands, is as old as human history, and as fraught. Today it is a global problem complete with layered hypocrisy, cruelty and, always, hope among those on the move. War and extreme poverty collude in driving people to seek a livable future.

There is no simple solution, no slogan that encompasses a fair and reasonable course of action for the receiving country.

I moved from a British African colony, Southern Rhodesia, to the homeland, Britain, when that was our birthright, and to America a few years later. I did that because it was the place I wanted to be, the happening place, the place of all possibility and challenge.

I didn’t plan to stay, and now it is more than 60 years later. And, yes, I was elated to become a citizen.

In those days, if you were British, immigration was no harder than filling in some forms and swearing that you weren’t a communist and wouldn’t live in “moral turpitude” when you got to America. That reprehensible state wasn’t described.

To me, America was more than a country; it was, and remains, a state of mind.

At its best, America is generous, caring, open and empathetic to the world and its hurts. Yet, how human a country! It is replete with hideous mistakes from the Palmer Raids, to McCarthyism and the Red Scare, to the Vietnam War. The gash of slavery hasn’t healed, and racism has left its mark.

America’s genius is that it realizes itself as a work in progress. 

Our major weakness, it always seemed to me, was the obverse of our strength: wishing our ways on others; wanting them to see the light we see. 

Like so many others, my attitudes are conflicted, hypocritical and without a simple, elegant defense. About 30 years ago, I first raised the issue of immigration’s effect on the nation. My concern then was that Spanish was becoming a second language. If that were to happen, I feared the country would enter into the same debilitating, two-nation status that has divided Canada and Belgium.

Also, I have argued against the way immigration has left its mark on Europe, especially from North African migrants who have set up enclaves where there is no attempt to integrate and where their religion has maintained them in isolation; angry minorities in their urban strongholds. That undermines the value of the journey both to the migrant and the host country.

I have come to believe that Spanish isn’t the threat it appeared at that time, and that our ability to absorb and prosper as a result of immigration is at a real and present danger of being wasted, denying us the talent flow that has made us a beacon to the world.

Never forget that every deportation is a human disaster: a life and a family sent into an unknown purgatory.

Recently, I had a weeklong stay at a Rhode Island hospital and marveled at doctors who were from distant lands, including Iran and Arab countries. In the late reaches of one night, I had a crisis. My room was flooded with nurses and their assistants, all helping and caring. From their accents, I was certain that at least four of my angels weren’t born here. I was glad of them.

Just as I am glad that we lead the world in high tech and, at the apex of its leadership, sit immigrants. They dominate at the top tech behemoths.

Not every immigrant has added to America’s greatness; some have brought with them creeds that are hard to accommodate, some have brought crime. Overall, each wave of immigrants has lifted America and its people to new heights.

From those early settlers to the German filmmakers, to the Scandinavians who planted the Great Plains, to the Irish who have informed our culture, to the Italian builders, to the German filmmakers, who came in the 1920s and 1930s and created the Hollywood we know and treasure, to the Jewish refugees from Europe who gave us everything from great music to the magic of Broadway, to high science and lifesaving medical research.

When I first arrived in New York, I wrote to a friend, “This is an extraordinary place, less of a mixing bowl and more of a stew, where all of the ingredients remain intact and yet work together in a kind of wondrous unity.” I wouldn’t withdraw or amend a word of that more than 60 years later.

People move because they aspire to a better life for themselves and their families. Grabbing those who slipped in and sending them to all they sought to leave behind is, to this grateful immigrant, un-American.

We are a big country, big-hearted, too, and we have room for these big contributors to our future.

Iran War May Speed Nuclear Proliferation Elsewhere

by Leave a Comment

The story goes that a weakling gets sand kicked in his face on the beach. He then joins a gym, pumps iron and returns to the beach, where all he has to do is flex his new muscles, and he is left alone.

That, it would seem, is one lesson of nuclear weapons. Small countries might be left alone if they had nuclear weapons, which would seem to be the case with North Korea: unloved but uninvaded.

In the case of Iran, which has sought a nuclear weapon for a long time, the fear was that it would do more than discourage aggression: It would move aggressively against Israel.

It also raises the question: Would Iran have been attacked by Israel and the United States if it already had a nuclear weapon?

Israel is a small country with 10.2 million people, and a land mass equivalent to New Jersey. By contrast, Iran has more than 90 million people and a land mass more than twice the size of Texas. It is a big place to sustain an attack and to hide men and materiel, to say nothing of secret weapons development centers.

Israel and the United States have attacked Iran, but when it ends, what kind of peace can they expect?

The Iran war — and the one by Russia against Ukraine — is making the case for smaller nations to get a nuclear weapon of their own.

Ukraine voluntarily gave up its weapons — the third-largest nuclear arsenal after Russia and the United States — after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In exchange, the United States, Britain and Russia would guarantee Ukraine’s security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum.

Would the Russians have invaded if Ukraine still had its weapons?

The lesson of that war is clear: You could be attacked for assorted reasons, but if you have a nuclear weapon, that likelihood is diminished.

The case in point is North Korea and its oppressive and dangerous regime. It is a threat to its neighbors and has an asocial stance internationally. Yet, the United States, South Korea and Japan have never proposed attacking it.

Over the years, there have been many studies among these allies as to how its communist regime might be brought down with force. The fear that the North Koreans would launch a nuclear attack on Seoul, Tokyo or even the West Coast of the United States has always been uppermost in the planning. No American president has been asked to approve a takedown of the country. It is too dangerous.

Nuclear proliferation is again an issue that the nations of the world need to heed. Not only is it frighteningly real, but it may be easier than ever.

In a severe report last July, Alan J. Kuperman, coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the University of Texas at Austin, raised the alarm that the drive for small modular reactors here and around the world would increase the chances of nuclear proliferation, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the “Doomsday Clock” forward.

The original nuclear weapons states were the United States, Russia, France and Britain. The world was shaken up when China joined the club in 1964, and again when India did so in 1974, Pakistan in 1998, and North Korea — the most worrying of all — in 2006.

Long term, more weapons make the world more dangerous, more subject to crazed governments and autocrats.

Concern about nuclear proliferation dominated U.S. nuclear policy for decades and was at a peak after the Chinese advance, and another peak when Pakistan became the first Muslim country to get a nuclear bomb.

President Jimmy Carter moved aggressively to avoid the risk that the United States could inadvertently contribute to proliferation. He cancelled the reprocessing of nuclear fuel, the breeder reactor program, and discouraged some new reactor ideas, which are, again, being developed.

Now, nuclear weapons are being considered by Poland, Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea, according to sources in the nuclear establishment.

Not only are nations looking again to nuclear weapons for their own defense, but designing and engineering them may also be easier with artificial intelligence, which can perform thousands of calculations instantly.

Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb, once told me that calculations were the root of the whole weapons enterprise. In 1955, in records that are now declassified, he urged the development of “better computing machines” for nuclear weapons development.

Nuclear proliferation is a cause for deep alarm as mankind enters a new epoch where old treaties lose their meaning and where the vulnerable are seeking defense against the hegemons.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late, great senator from New York and former U.N. ambassador, said, “The world is a dangerous place.”

The war in the Middle East is making it more so.

A Tale of Two Countries: Cuba and Vietnam

by 1 Comment

HANOI, Vietnam — What do Vietnam and Cuba have in common? Short answer: The Washington Post.

In an editorial that shocked as much by where it came from as by its rather distended logic, the newspaper attacked President Barack Obama’s opening to Cuba. It did so because Cuba is still a Communist dictatorship, and argued that giving trade privileges and diplomatic recognition to Vietnam in 1995 had neither lessened the Communist grip there nor improved the human rights record at all.

Wait a minute. Cuba is still very much a Communist country, with severe restrictions on its people. Vietnam has a titular communism and a lot of personal liberty.

Cuba’s President Raul Castro has lightened some of the worst of the oppressiveness of the state but not by more than he has had to, given the changes that Western tourism has forced on the regime. It is still oppressive and there is no personal freedom for the Cubans. They cannot travel and when I was last there, a few years ago, they could not even go to the tourist hotels unless they were government officials.

I can say, though, that things were so much better than they had been when I first visited the island in the 1980s. Then the atmosphere was palpably repressive. The block committees for social spying were in full swing, and the good spirits of the people were shackled by the heavy, Slavic presence of the Soviets. It had the feeling of an occupied country.

By contrast, when I visited Vietnam in 1995, and traveled the length of the country, there was none of the sense of almighty government. Relations with the United States had just been normalized, and Vietnam was enthusiastically looking to joining the world. Businesses were beginning to take hold, and the war had been not so much forgotten as put aside.

One thing you did not get at that time in Vietnam was any sense the Marxist-Leninist dogma was affecting everyday life, or that the people felt oppressed. Those from the South, who had fought against the Communists on the American side, did complain of discrimination.

Fast forward nearly 20 years, and I am again in Vietnam. It is bustling, more prosperous, but still primarily a happy country with people free to travel. In other words, much a better place for personal freedom that the Castro brothers Cuba.

The rub is that human rights are abused in Cuba and Vietnam. Both get low ratings from Human Rights Watch on its listing system. It is not a wise thing to criticize the regime in either Cuba or Vietnam: If you do, the prison door will swing open and in you will go. However, I am told by the Dutch Embassy in Havana that they feel things are improving in Cuba. And sources in the U.S. State Department tell me that they think things are slowly getting better in Vietnam — and that they are already much better than they are in China. One thing I am sure of is that if Vietnam had not been so keen to trade with the West, it would not be as easygoing as it now is.

Next year, an important one for Vietnam, as it is the 40th anniversary of the ending of the war and the 20th of normalization with the United States. The government has ambitious plans to privatize as many as 400 companies that are at present inefficient state enterprises. Vietnamese business people told me they thought the country was on the move, going in the right direction.

Business is very important in “Communist” Vietnam.

By stark contrast Cuba has a subculture of tiny businesses, mostly restaurants, that are constantly harassed by government agents. In Vietnam business is celebrated. There are multi-millionaires in Vietnam. Not so Cuba.

One way or the other, the United States has this choice: Maintain the servitude in Cuba that the brothers Castro have been able to blame on U.S. policy since 1960, or let the force of openness prevail. I can tell you that things are better in Vietnam because of normalization of relations with the United States, and worse in Cuba because that has not happened.

To have open relations with China and to rue those with Vietnam, and to want to keep Cuba in limbo is incoherent and self-defeating. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate