[Salon] Prof. Richard A Falk Oral History Interview - YouTube

Here is my latest oral history video, with Prof. Richard A. Falk, who served as "UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967,” from 2008 - 2014, entitled:  

Prof. Richard A. Falk Oral History Interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCVHHW75xSw&t=2754s.


All of this should be watched as he touches on Israel, Gaza, Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, Thermonuclear War, etc., all informed from his very broad knowledge and experience on these subjects, as well as a vast intellect capable of greater understanding, with a lot to teach people, as he continues to the present. 
(For some of his UN reports, see https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/689002https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCVHHW75xSw&t=2771s.)

Here are some of his most recent writings on Israel’s ongoing war against Palestinians, and particularly, against Gaza (no, Oct. 7, 2023 wasn’t the “beginning of the war.” 1948 was, with it escalated in 1967). 


Attachment: RAF MEE Israel as Abusive Occupying Power.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

Attachment: Daniell Falcone 10:18 Qs on Gaza Catastrophe 10.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

Attachment: [2] Daniel Falcone on Gaza Attack 10-7-23.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document



But if time is short, and none of what Prof. Falk has to say should be missed, begin with his discussion of background to the most recent “crisis,” though this was recorded in August. So begin at 18:14 - 40:20. But none of this should be missed!  

Prof. Richard A. Falk Oral History Interview, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCVHHW75xSw&t=2754



One person he mentioned was John K. Fairbank, whom I was unacquainted with, not remarkably. 
https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/presidential-addresses/john-k-fairbank/john-k-fairbank-biography

But proving that "the more things change, the more they stay the same,” or at least it's true of virulent Conservatives, to include their fellow warmongers in the Democratic Party, currently in power, is this, not surprisingly, with this headline:  (Joe) "McCarthy Labels Fairbank As Red"
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1954/1/27/mccarthy-labels-fairbank-as-red-psenator/

With this an important “corrective” to the revisionist history promulgated by the Trumpites, by Peter Beinart, consistent with actual history: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/opinion/republican-candidates-china-russia.html

BLUF: "Regardless of their views on Ukraine, Republicans are united in focusing on China. They are returning to the principle that many championed at the beginning of the last Cold War. It’s neither internationalism nor isolationism. It’s Asia First."


Having knowledge of Republican/Conservative “Asia Firsters” by way of my Conservative step-mother, and her politically active, Republican relatives from the DC  area of that post-WW II era, none of this is new to me. Nor is it that always leading the way for war, have always been the Republican/Conservatives, which is a criticism I have of this book, Asia First : China and the Making of Modern American Conservatism, with a couple chapters attached below, which is that the author takes it as true that there was an “Isolationist” element in the Republican Party. Without consideration of the “context” of the inter-World War period when the wars then being waged by the US and its post-WW I Republican Presidents were the “Banana Wars,” at the direction, in order, of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. (Only brought to something of an end by FDR with a changed policy to toward Latin America, in 1933.) 

With “Isolationism” contradicted by the “non-Isolationist Doctrine” of Fortress America, which Taft and Hoover were particularly conspicuous in advocating. Which was all the Monroe Doctrine area plus Teddy Roosevelt Corollary to that, meaning all the Western Hemisphere, given to us by God to “police,” with its western boundary extended all the way to China, with my Great, Great Uncle having been “Viceroy,” U.S. Minister,  to China, and my father having “served” on the Bataan Death March in the territory that Taft’s father had once been Military Governor of, the Philippines. So I have some personal, family, knowledge of US policy in Asia, as part of our Asia First policy. Nevertheless, the author of this book provides a needed correction to the historical revisionists amongst us who for the purpose of electoral politics on behalf of the Trumpites, are creating a fictional history of Conservatism, as “Peacemakers,” to fit the times as an argument “Elect Trump (or DeSantis): He Will End the Endless Wars.” A lie which has been fully revealed by their fanaticism for Israel’s extermination of Gazan’s underway now! And for war against China and Iran, which they deceptively omit will “necessarily” include Russia as part of our worldwide “Geopolitical War,” which Prof. Falk has also written critically of.But here are two chapters from “Asia First.”  

Attachment: 1. Up from Isolationism- The Conservative Dilemma and the Chinese Solution.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: 5 The New Normal- Asia First Realpolitik.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

JPEG image

JPEG image

JPEG image

JPEG image

Prof. Richard A Falk Oral History Interview

15 views 10 hours ago
Prof. Richard A. Falk is a prominent International Law and International Relations scholar. As a Vietnam War opponent, he helped Daniel Ellsberg in the distribution of the Pentagon Papers. In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Prof. Falk  …
...more
Chat Replay is disabled for this Premiere.

JPEG image

JPEG image

JPEG image

JPEG image

JPEG image

JPEG image

JPEG image

JPEG image

JPEG image

JPEG image




Some things never change, from Chap. 1, p. 30:

"As Truman ordered MacArthur to pull back for fear of Chinese mobilization, Asia Firsters decried the wasted opportunity to drive allied forces northward into China. The more virulent among them asserted the president was keeping MacArthur and, by extension, Chiang on a leash. The use of Nationalist troops came to be considered a potential costsaving measure and, ultimately, a way to spare American lives.70 


(TP-Think the current charge against Biden by Republicans for “restraining” Netanyahu; so much for “restrainers” amongst Conservatives when it come to Israel’s war on Palestinians!) 

 

"That theory held even after the momentum had reversed. When PRC troops entered the conflict on November 26 and UN forces suffered two withdrawals

south of the 38th parallel, conservatives framed those developments as preventable. They argued Truman had circumvented Congress by going to

the UN, and once war was underway, he had refused to take necessary steps toward total victory by decisively engaging the PRC when MacArthur had

momentum on his side. If only Truman had chosen to act aggressively rather than remain committed to mere containment.”

 

That was the “Conservative” opposition to Executive power; they charged that it enabled a President to be “less militaristic” than the right-wing fanatics in Congress demanded,  who were so eager for war! As with Yalta and the Potsdam Conference, “giving away” so much, when we had the atomic bomb and could have used that against any country that stood in our way! To “resolve” any issues we had with the USSR, and later, with its Ukrainian leader, and in sequence, China, Korea, Vietnam. The “Right-wing Peacenik Tradition” so boasted of today!

 

 






This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.