Saturday, September 21, 2024

Water, War and Women in Gaza

THE WAILING OF GAZAN WOMEN SHOULD ECHO 
THROUGH THE HALLS OF CONGRESS

By H. Patricia Hynes
September 19, 2024
Source: Informed Comment


In late 2020, a report titled Saving Gaza Begins with its Water stated:


The water crisis in Gaza is a problem of daunting proportions, with grave implications for the more than 2 million inhabitants of the Palestinian enclave. The Coastal Aquifer from which Gaza pumps water is diminishing; but more dangerously, it is experiencing significant deterioration from seawater and highly saline groundwater intrusion, as well as sewage pollution.

Fast forward to 2024: Gaza’s water scarcity pollution is severely worsened by its forced closure of water and wastewater treatment plants due to Israel’s blockade of fuel to Gaza to run the plants in its 2023-2024 war.

The authors of the Saving Gaza Begins with Its Water end in a cautiously positive note. The crisis of water in Gaza also holds promise, they wrote because Gaza’s water problem will require cooperation between antagonists, to their mutual benefit. There is no solution that can be achieved by Gaza or Israel in isolation because one of Israel’s water sources is the same Coastal Aquifer.

But this affirmative conclusion presumes that the people of Gaza have not been annihilated by Israeli bombing, inflicting a daily death rate greater than any major war of the 21st century, combined with the induced famine across all of Gaza by Israel’s blockades of food aid, and rampant disease including the recent polio virus. At the current rate of killing and death, 15 to 20% of Gaza’s people could be dead by the end of the year, a UN expert stated and almost entirely exterminated within a few years.

Prior to the current war, Gaza had 150 small-scale desalination plants to produce potable water. By mid-October 2023, Israeli missile attacks destroyed the drinking water desalination plants; and its almost total blockade cut off fuel to run the other water treatment plants, as well as metal parts to repair them. Gaza’s drinking water production capacity dropped to just 5 percent of typical levels,

With no power to run Gaza’s five wastewater treatment plants, sewage has flowed freely through the streets, causing a record increase in cases of diarrheal illnesses. By December 2023, cases of diarrhea among children under 5 in Gaza jumped 2000%, because of which children under five are over 20 times more likely to die than from Israeli military violence.

More than three quarters of Gaza’s 2.2 million people are internally displaced to southern Gaza and, even there, continually forced to re-locate because of Israeli bombing. In some of the most overcrowded shelters in southern Gaza there is one toilet per 600 internally displaced persons and little to no running water.

Every human being in Gaza suffers soul-shattering existence from this war variably described as genocide, ecocide, domicide (destruction of homes) and scholasticide (destruction of schools and universities). Indeed, two American trauma surgeons who have volunteered for surgical missions in crisis situations all over the world, stated that they have never seen cruelty like Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Women and their children are its gravest victims: 70% of those killed are women and children. Daily in Gaza children are having one of both legs amputated without anesthesia. More than 17,000 children have lost 1 or both parents.

Recently American doctors who volunteered in Gaza and spoke at a press conference during the Democratic National Convention accused the Biden administration of “hypocritical action” in saying they are working on cease-fire while providing the weapons massacring Gazans. They pleaded with Kamala Harris to “embrace an arms embargo on Israel and immediate cease-fire.” The doctors attested that the killing and suffering is on “an entirely unprecedented scale.” None has seen anything “so horrific, so egregious, so inhumane.”
Impacts of war on women

As of early 2024, The U.N. estimated that some 700,000 women and girls in Gaza experience menstrual cycles but lack adequate access to basic hygiene products like pads, toilet paper, soap, running water and toilets because of the war nor privacy to manage menstrual hygiene. These conditions put women and girls in Gaza at grave risk of reproductive and urinary tract infections. The challenge of trying to find an available bathroom is especially difficult for pregnant women who have pressure on their bladder, and women who have just given birth and are going through weeks of postpartum bleeding.

By early March 2024 Relief/Web reported: there has been a steep rise in malnutrition among the more than 155,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women. Every day about 180 women give birth in unimaginable conditions, no longer having health-care facilities to deliver their babies. Many mothers who have given birth since the beginning of Israel’s war are too malnourished to produce milk for their newborns.

Although mothers and adult women are tasked with sourcing food, they are the ones who eat last, less, and least.

What can be done? Nothing without Israel and the United States agreeing to end their totalistic war. Dima Nazzal, a systems engineer at the Georgia Institute of Technology believes that while rebuilding Gaza is “a daunting prospect,” with “cooperation, coordination and courage, it is achievable.” But “the war must be ended.”

Israel has sought security through militaristic means since its founding: expelling 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 (the Nakba – “catastrophe” in Arabic), claiming Palestinian land by force, apartheid conditions for Palestinians in Israel, establishing colonizing settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and now omnicide in Gaza. The only way for Israel to live in security is through a political compromise, in the spirit of Isaiah 59:8, that guarantees the human and political rights of the Palestinians who have lived on the land of Palestine for thousands of years. Without justice – the US ending its criminal trafficking of weapons to Israel, a permanent ceasefire, the UN recognizing Palestine as a state and then organizing the rebuilding of Gaza with supportive countries – there can be no peace.

Pat Hynes gave a talk on the plight of women in water-starved Gaza during a conference on Memorial Day weekend sponsored by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom entitled Water on the Frontlines for Peace. This piece is a much abbreviated and updated version.


Israeli Ignominy

September 21, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Palestinians inspect the damage following an Israeli airstrike on the El-Remal aera in Gaza City on October 9, 2023. Israel continued to battle Hamas fighters on October 10 and massed tens of thousands of troops and heavy armour around the Gaza Strip after vowing a massive blow over the Palestinian militants' surprise attack.
 Photo by Naaman Omar apaimages

Sometimes we must explicitly state what ought to be utterly obvious. Or would we rather make what is disgusting normal? Rather make every street corner a shooting gallery, every handheld device a bomb, every bomb a cemetery, every step someone’s last? Do we want to make fear the new normal? Paranoia wisdom? Do we want to ceasefire or to spread fire?

Netanyahu: You have crawled past statist elitism, past nationalistic immorality, past ignominious war making infamy, all the way to fascistic bottom feeding decrepitude. You are disgusting. And you want to drag us all after you, don’t you?

But what of those in the Israeli Defense Force? What of Israelis living life and life only throughout Israel? What of Israel’s supporters living life and life only around the world?

How should we who are nauseated by what has been and is being done to Palestinians and by what is now spreading rather than ceasing, regard Netanyahu, regard the IDF, regard Israelis in Israel who support genocide, and regard Israel’s supporters around the world who ignore, alibi, arm, and abet genocide?

Can we be horrified, outraged, and enraged but also regard the ignorers, supporters, perpetrators, and planners of the genocide hurled at Gaza’s schools, hospitals, homes, and streets without ourselves hurling dehumanizing epithets? Without ourselves becoming dehumanizers?

It is getting difficult. It really is. We don’t want to think of fellow humans much less of neighbors or relatives as planners, perpetrators, abettors, or even just ignorers of genocide. We don’t want to hate fellow humans. But can we hate the acts yet somehow recognize that those involved are like us? Can we hate the acts but not dehumanize the perpetrators?

Could Israelis’ have hated the October 7 acts yet have understood the circumstances and feelings that led to those acts? Could Israelis have not dehumanized the perpetrators much less dehumanized all Palestinians? Could Israelis have not called Palestinians vermin, not incentivized genocide against Palestinians? Could the Israelis have avoided reducing themselves to genocide perpetrators?

For that matter, can we hate repressive and even murderous policing and not call the cops pigs? Can we hate racist, misogynist Trump but not dehumanize Trump’s supporters? Can we arouse in ourselves appropriate energy to battle fascist trends but not let fascist feelings infect our own behavior?

Can we work to end the horrors in Gaza and prevent their spread? Can we see that against everything holy, everything moral, everything worthy, Israel seems literally hell bent upon mayhem and destruction until nothing remains of Palestinians—and perhaps of Israel as well? Can we also not become what we rightly reject? Isn’t that part of our task regarding ending genocide and Trumpism too?

It’s not easy to express outrage an


Israel’s True Objectives in Gaza, and Why It Will Fail

By Ramzy Baroud
September 20, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Never in its history of war, and military occupation has Israel been so incapable of developing a coherent plan for its future, and the future of its victims. 

Even a quick glance at headlines in international media reveals the depth of the Israeli dilemma. While Tel Aviv continues to carry out a genocidal war against the Palestinian people in Gaza, it seems to have no idea what to do beyond simply destroying the Strip and its people. 

Even the country’s Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, who could soon be officially wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), indicated on multiple occasions that Israel has no post-war plan in Gaza. 

“Since October, I have been raising this issue consistently in the Cabinet, and have received no response,” Gallant said in the clearest possible language last May. 

Others suggest that Netanyahu and his far-right government might have a plan but, in the language of the Washington Post, it is a ‘no workable plan’ or, according to Vox, “is no plan at all”.  

Netanyahu’s ‘not workable’ plan, or ‘no plan’ at all, is inconsistent with the wishes of the US administration. 

True, both Israel and the US are in full agreement regarding the war itself. Even after Washington had finally begun shifting its position from wanting the war to continue, to asking Netanyahu to conclude his bloody task, American weapons have continued to flow at the same rate. 

The Americans, however, are not convinced that destroying Hamas, fully demilitarizing Gaza, taking control over the Gaza-Egypt border, shutting down the UNRWA refugees’ agency and the ‘de-radicalization’ of the besieged Palestinian population is the right approach. 

But Netanyahu himself must have already known this, if not at the very start of the war, at least nearly a year into the genocide. His exhausted army kept moving from one phase to another, declaring ‘tactical victories’, without achieving a single strategic goal in Gaza. 

The most optimistic estimation of the Israeli army is that their war, which has practically destroyed all of Gaza, has resulted in a stalemate. A more sober reading of the war, according to former Israeli Prime Minister General Ehud Barak, is that Israel must end it before “sinking into its moral abyss”.

Yet, more delusional plans, pertaining to both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, continue to be leaked to the media. 

The first major leak was a taped recording of a speech by extremist and very influential Israeli minister in Netanyahu’s cabinet, Bezalel Smotrich. 

“I am telling, it is mega-dramatic. Such changes change a system’s DNA,” Smotrich told a group of Israeli Jewish settlers last June, according to the New York Times. 

The minister’s “carefully orchestrated program” hinges on transferring the authority of the West Bank from the occupation army to a group of civilians under the leadership of Smotrich himself. The goal is to seize more Palestinian land, expand the illegal settlements and prevent any possible continuity of a viable Palestinian State. 

In fact, the plan is already underway. On May 29, Israel  appointed Hillel Roth, a close ally of Smotrich, as the deputy in the West Bank Civil Administration.

The plan for Gaza is another episode of cruelty, but also delusional. It was revealed in an article by the editor of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, on September 9. 

Aluf Benn wrote that Netanyahu’s plan also consists of the hiring of an Israeli ‘governor of Gaza’, Brigadier General Elad Goren, who became the ‘Head of Humanitarian-Civilian effort’ in the Strip on August 28 

Using a combination of tactics, including starvation, military pressure and the like, Netanyahu wants to drive the population of northern Gaza to the south in preparation of formally annexing the region and bringing back Jewish settlers. 

These are not the only plans that have been leaked or, at times, communicated openly by Israeli officials

At the start of the war, such ideas as ethnically cleansing the Gaza population into Sinai were advocated openly by Israeli officials, and were also the main topic of discussion in Israeli evening news programs. 

Some Israeli officials spoke of fully occupying Gaza, while others, like Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, floated the idea of dropping a nuclear bomb. 

The plan of totally evacuating Gaza did not work simply because Palestinians would not leave, and Egypt had rejected the very insinuation that ethnically cleansing Gazans was an option. Additionally, the total depopulation of northern Gaza also did not work, partly because Israel was massacring civilians in both north and south at comparable rates. 

Israel’s new plans will not succeed in achieving what the original plans have failed to achieve, simply because Israel continues to face the same obstacle: the steadfastness of the Palestinian people. 

However, much can still be learned from the nature of the Israeli schemes, old and new, mainly the fact that Israel regards the Palestinian people as the enemy. 

This conclusion is not only gleaned through statements by top Israeli officials, including President Isaac Herzog himself, when he said that “an entire nation out there (..) is responsible”.

Almost every Israeli scheme seems to involve killing Palestinians in large numbers, starving them or displacing them en masse. 

This means that the Israeli war has always been a war against the Palestinian people. The Palestinians themselves know it. Shouldn’t the rest of the world also know it by now? 


Can the World Save Palestine From US-Israeli Genocide?

September 17, 2024

Image by Eskinder Debebe, UN

On September 18th, the UN General Assembly is scheduled to debate and vote on a resolution calling on Israel to end “its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” within six months. Given that the General Assembly, unlike the exclusive 15-member UN Security Council, allows all UN members to vote and there is no veto in the General Assembly, this is an opportunity for the world community to clearly express its opposition to Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine.

If Israel predictably fails to heed a General Assembly resolution calling on it to withdraw its occupation forces and settlers from Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the United States then vetoes or threatens to veto a Security Council resolution to enforce the ICJ ruling, then the General Assembly could go a step further.

It could convene an Emergency Session to take up what is called a Uniting For Peace resolution, which could call for an arms embargo, an economic boycott or other UN sanctions against Israel – or even call for actions against the United States. Uniting for Peace resolutions have only been passed by the General Assembly five times since the procedure was first adopted in 1950.

The September 18 resolution comes in response to an historic ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 19, which found that “Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law.”

The court ruled that Israel’s obligations under international law include “the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements” and the payment of restitution to all who have been harmed by its illegal occupation. The passage of the General Assembly resolution by a large majority of members would demonstrate that countries all over the world support the ICJ ruling, and would be a small but important first step toward ensuring that Israel must live up to those obligations.

Israel’s President Netanyahu cavalierly dismissed the court ruling with a claim that, “The Jewish nation cannot be an occupier in its own land.” This is exactly the position that the court had rejected, ruling that Israel’s 1967 military invasion and occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories did not give it the right to settle its own people there, annex those territories, or make them part of Israel.

While Israel used its hotly disputed account of the October 7th events as a pretext to declare open season for the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza, Israeli forces in the West Bank and East Jerusalem used it as a pretext to distribute assault rifles and other military-grade weapons to illegal Israeli settlers and unleash a new wave of violence there, too.

Armed settlers immediately started seizing more Palestinian land and shooting Palestinians. Israeli occupation forces either stood by and watched or joined in the violence, but did not intervene to defend Palestinians or hold their Israeli attackers accountable.

Since last October, occupation forces and armed settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have now killed at least 700 people, including 159 children.

The escalation of violence and land seizures has been so flagrant that even the U.S. and European governments have felt obligated to impose sanctions on a small number of violent settlers and their organizations.

In Gaza, the Israeli military has been murdering Palestinians day after day for the past 11 months. The Palestinian Health Ministry has counted over 41,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, but with the destruction of the hospitals that it relies on to identify and count the dead, this is now only a partial death toll. Medical researchers estimate that the total number of deaths in Gaza from the direct and indirect results of Israeli actions will be in the hundreds of thousands, even if the massacre were to end soon.

Israel and the United States are undoubtedly more and more isolated as a result of their roles in this genocide. Whether the United States can still coerce or browbeat a few of its traditional allies into rejecting or abstaining from the General Assembly resolution on September 18 will be a test of its residual “soft power.”

President Biden can claim to be exercising a certain kind of international leadership, but it is not the kind of leadership that any American can be proud of. The United States has muscled its way into a pivotal role in the ceasefire negotiations begun by Qatar and Egypt, and it has used that position to skillfully and repeatedly undermine any chance of a ceasefire, the release of hostages or an end to the genocide.

By failing to use any of its substantial leverage to pressure Israel, and disingenuously blaming Hamas for every failure in the negotiations, U.S. officials are ensuring that the genocide will continue for as long as they and and their Israeli allies want, while many Americans remain confused about their own government’s responsibility for the continuing bloodshed.

This is a continuation of the strategy by which the United States has stymied and prevented peace since 1967, falsely posing as an honest broker, while in fact remaining Israel’s staunchest ally and the critical diplomatic obstacle to a free Palestine.

In addition to cynically undermining any chance of a ceasefire, the United States has injected itself into debates over the future of Gaza, promoting the idea that a post-war government could be led by the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, which many Palestinians view as hopelessly corrupt and compromised by subservience to Israel and the United States.

China has taken a more constructive approach to resolving differences between Palestinian political groupings. It invited Hamas, Fatah and 12 other Palestinian groups to a three-day meeting in Beijing in July, where they all agreed to a “national unity” plan to form a post-war “interim national reconciliation government,” which would oversee relief and rebuilding in Gaza and organize a national Palestinian election to seat a new elected government.

Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary-general of the political movement called the Palestinian National Initiative, hailed the Beijing Declaration as going “much further” than previous reconciliation efforts, and said that the plan for a unity government “blocks Israeli efforts to create some kind of collaborative structure against Palestinian interests.” China has also called for an international peace conference to try to end the war.

As the world comes together in the General Assembly on September 18, it faces both a serious challenge and an unprecedented opportunity. Each time the General Assembly has met in recent years, a succession of leaders from the Global South has risen to lament the breakdown of the peaceful and just international order that the UN is supposed to represent, from the failure to end the war in Ukraine to inaction against the climate crisis to the persistence of neocolonialism in Africa.

Perhaps no crisis more clearly embodies the failure of the UN and the international system than the 57-year-old Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories it invaded in 1967. At the same time that the United States has armed Israel to the teeth, it has vetoed 46 UN Security Council resolutions that either required Israel to comply with international law, called for an end to the occupation or for Palestinian statehood, or held Israel accountable for war crimes or illegal settlement building.

The ability of one Permanent Member of the Security Council to use its veto to block the rule of international law and the will of the rest of the world has always been widely recognized as the fatal flaw in the existing structure of the UN system.

When this structure was first announced in 1945, French writer Albert Camus wrote in Combat, the French Resistance newspaper he edited, that the veto would “effectively put an end to any idea of international democracy… The Five would thus retain forever the freedom of maneuver that would be forever denied the others.”

The General Assembly and the Security Council have debated a series of resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, and each debate has pitted the United States, Israel, and occasionally the United Kingdom or another U.S. ally, against the voices of the rest of the world calling in unison for peace in Gaza.

Of the UN’s 193 nations, 145 have now recognized Palestine as a sovereign nation comprising Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and even more countries have voted for resolutions to end the occupation, prohibit Israeli settlements and support Palestinian self-determination and human rights.

For many decades, the United States’ unique position of unconditional support for Israel has been a critical factor in enabling Israeli war crimes and prolonging the intolerable plight of the Palestinian people.

In the crisis in Gaza, the U.S. military alliance with Israel involves the U.S. directly in the crime of genocide, as the United States provides the warplanes and bombs that are killing the largest numbers of Palestinians and literally destroying Gaza. The United States also deploys military liaison officers to assist Israel in planning its operations, special operations forces to provide intelligence and satellite communications, and trainers and technicians to teach Israeli forces to use and maintain new American weapons, such as F-35 warplanes.

The supply chain for the U.S. arsenal of genocide criss-crosses America, from weapons factories to military bases to procurement offices at the Pentagon and Central Command in Tampa. It feeds plane loads of weapons flying to military bases in Israel, from where these endless tons of steel and high explosives rain down on Gaza to shatter buildings, flesh and bones.

The U.S. role is greater than complicity – it is essential, active participation, without which the Israelis could not conduct this genocide in its present form, any more than the Germans could have run Auschwitz without gas chambers and poison gas.

And it is precisely because of the essential U.S. role in this genocide that the United States has the power to end it, not by pretending to plead with the Israelis to be more “careful” about civilian casualties, but by ending its own instrumental role in the genocide.

Every American of conscience should keep applying all kinds of pressure on our own government, but as long as it keeps ignoring the will of its own people, sending more weapons, vetoing Security Council resolutions and undermining peace negotiations, it is by default up to our neighbors around the world to muster the unity and political will to end the genocide.

It would certainly be unprecedented for the world to unite, in opposition to Israel and the United States, to save Palestine and enforce the ICJ ruling that Israel must withdraw from Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The world has rarely come together so unanimously since the founding of the United Nations in the aftermath of the Second World War in 1945. Even the catastrophic U.S.-British invasion and destruction of Iraq failed to provoke such united action.

But the lesson of that crisis, indeed the lesson of our time, is that this kind of unity is essential if we are ever to bring sanity, humanity and peace to our world. That can start with a decisive vote in the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, September 18, 2024.



AMERIKA


Waffle House Workers Fight Back Against Wage Theft

Employers steal billions from workers each year through wage theft, a crime which disproportionately affects workers earning the lowest wages
September 21, 2024
Source: Peoples Dispatch


Waffle House workers rally in Morrow, Georgia (Photo: USSW)

On the morning of Thursday, September 19, Waffle House workers from across Georgia converged at a Waffle House location in the town of Morrow to protest widespread theft of wages.

A new survey by the Strategic Organizing Center found that 90% of Waffle House workers polled have experienced some form of wage theft in the past year. 77% reported experiencing more than one form of wage theft, and 49% reported experiencing more than two.

75% of Waffle House workers reported that they had “been required to perform job tasks before clocking in or after clocking out,” 72% had been “not been paid for all hours worked or all tasks performed,” 58% had been paid a much lower tipped wage for work they did not receive tips on, and 21% reported that they did not always receiving overtime pay despite working over 40 hours per week.

The rally also comes after a complaint was filed by the Union of Southern Service Workers (USSW), a union seeking to organize Waffle House employees and other low wage service workers across the US South, with the US Department of Labor. According to the USSW, “Waffle House workers allege rampant wage theft in the form of the company refusing to pay tipped servers the federal minimum wage when they perform non-tipped tasks like cooking and deep cleaning.”

Wage theft steals more from working people than any other crime in the US. According to the Economic Policy Institute, wage theft robs workers of as much as USD 50 billion each year, which dwarfs the amount of money stolen via robberies, burglaries, and motor vehicle theft each year according to FBI statistics from 2019. And yet, most mainstream media, principally local media sources, dedicate little time to reporting on one of the most rampant crimes across the country, which disproportionately affects workers earning the lowest wages. Most importantly, the bosses who steal the wages are rarely held accountable, with state labor departments often ruling in favor of employers. Research by CBS News found that out of 650,000 total wage theft complaints, states ruled in favor of workers only around half of the time. And in over one third of those cases in which workers won out, those workers never recovered their stolen wages.

Waffle House workers have been fighting back against the company, demanding not only an end to wage theft but also safety at work in light of the rampant violence at the fast food chain that has gone viral on social media. Workers feel that their employer is not doing enough to protect them from potentially violent customers, as well as natural disasters. Workers are also demanding an end to mandatory meal deductions, in which Waffle House deducts a “meal credit” of at least USD 3 per shift, whether or not workers eat the meal the company provides, as well as a living wage of USD 25 per hour.

Waffle House workers recently won a historic raise which the company dubbed “single largest additional investment in our workforce in the entire 68-year history,” although workers claim this is a result of labor organizing, not their employer’s benevolence. Workers also say these raises are not enough compared to their demand of USD 25 per hour. The company’s tipped wage for servers can run as low as USD 3 per hour.
US Provoked the 1979 Russian Invasion of Afghanistan: Parallel to the Ukraine War?


September 21, 2024
Source: Antiwar.com


Charlie Wilson (D-TX), 2nd from the left, dressing in Afghan clothing
 (armed with AKS-74U) with the local Afghan mujahidin

The December 1979 invasion of Afghanistan was a watershed event, one that definitively ended “détente” between the global superpowers, the United States and the USSR, and inaugurated a new and more intense phase of tension. The invasion was a clearcut violation of international law and was widely condemned. At the time, it appeared that the Soviet invasion was completely unprovoked, either by the Afghans themselves or by the United States.

In the nearly half century that that has elapsed since the invasion, a large amount of new information has emerged that casts doubt on the benign image of the US government, as a bystander in the Afghan calamity, and suggests that US officials deliberately provoked the invasion; and then, after the invasion occurred, some US officials actively welcomed its occurrence.

A reexamination of the 1979 Afghan case seems especially relevant today, given the obvious parallels to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Indeed, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the US response to the invasion of Afghanistan offers a model of what US officials should seek to achieve in Ukraine. The similarities between the two historical cases are indeed striking: Above all, the 1979 Afghan invasion was widely viewed at the time as being an unprovoked act of aggression, very much the way that the Ukraine invasion is being viewed now. We will see that such claims are contradicted by the historical record. It was US provocation that triggered both conflicts.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was widely presented as a major threat to Western security, but this was largely a propaganda invention. If one surveys the record of declassified documents from 1945 all the way to the late 1970s, one finds little US interest in Afghanistan, which was regarded as a strategic backwater, due to its exceptionally rugged geography and lack of access to the sea. The overarching US perspective was succinctly stated by a 1973 article in the Wall Street Journal, which was entitled: “Do the Russians Covet Afghanistan? If So, it is Hard to Figure Why.” The article went on to characterize Afghanistan as “a vast expanse of desert waste.” From the US National Security Council, a 1974 document stated: “Afghanistan is of no major importance to us.”

Columbia University Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski published extensively on international relations over several decades. None of Brzezinski’s academic writings made any significant mention of Afghanistan, which was viewed as a very minor piece in the global chess game of the Cold War. Brzezinski’s later implication that Afghanistan was strategically vital to Western security is not corroborated by his own scholarship.

Afghanistan did hold strategic importance to the USSR, however, since the two countries shared an extended border. Accordingly, the Soviets established a large-scale program of economic aid to the country. In addition, the Soviet Union became the country’s main supplier of weaponry, while Afghan officers were trained at Soviet academies. The Afghan government, for its part adopted a policy of official neutrality in the Cold War, though one that was tilted somewhat in favor of the Soviets. In Afghanistan’s domestic politics, however, the Soviets did not seek influence.

A 1967 academic study concluded: “Soviet aid to Afghanistan has been immensely successful… Even American officials are hard pressed to find major flaws.” A small communist party, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan had very limited popular appeal and no realistic prospects for gaining power (or so it seemed at the time). Overall, Afghanistan’s status in the early phase of the Cold War suited both superpowers.

The country’s stability was gradually undermined during the 1970s. The key triggering event was an effort by the Nixon administration to make up for its weakness in the Vietnam War by seeking to challenge Afghanistan’s neutral status. In 1973, the CIA collaborated with Iranian and Pakistani intelligence to provoke an Islamist rebellion against the Afghan government, as a means of intimidating the government into downgrading its relationship with the USSR. This intervention led to a series of “tit for tat” interventions by both superpowers that destabilized the country entirely.

By 1979, Afghanistan was engulfed in a full-scale civil war, between an unpopular communist government under the PDPA and a series of Islamist guerrilla forces, collectively known as the Mujahiddin. Declassified Soviet documents, released after the end of the Cold War, show that the USSR was backing their Afghan communist proteges with military support and training. However, the new documents also show that the Soviets initially had no interest in sending their own army into the fight against the Mujahiddin. The Afghan communists repeatedly requested that the Soviets send in their own forces to fight, but the USSR kept refusing those requests.

In public, US analysts repeatedly stated that the Soviets were laying the groundwork for further aggression, aimed at occupying the oil-rich Persian Gulf region or a warm water port on the Indian Ocean coastline. Afghanistan was to become a staging area for these further attacks, it was claimed. The documents from ex-Soviet archives offer no support for these views. On the contrary, Soviet officials showed considerable caution and restraint through the first half of 1979, resisting calls for augmented intervention. Declassified US government documents, from diplomats based in Afghanistan during the 1978-1979 period, similarly show that Soviet and East bloc officials were actively trying to settle Afghanistan’s civil war through political means, by establishing a more broadly based government in Kabul, without requiring an external invasion. Discussions at the Politburo in March 1979, revealed in a declassified document, show a high-level consensus against invasion.

Soviet attitudes began to harden later in 1979, gradually turning in favor of invasion. A key factor influencing the Soviets’ change of heart was an aggressive US policy, directed by President Jimmy Carter and his hardline national security advisor, Brzezinski. On Brzezinski’s advice, the president signed a July 3 “finding,” authorizing the CIA to furnish aid to the Mujahiddin fighters, directly intervening in the conflict for the first time.

Though the amount of US aid was small, only several hundred thousand dollars, and was supposedly “nonlethal” in character, it was sufficient to arouse Soviet paranoia. The US intervention coincided with Soviet fears that the PDPA might switch sides in the Cold War, moving away from Soviet influence and into the Western orbit. At the end of December 1979, the Soviet military installed a new puppet government in Afghanistan and invaded the country, occupying it with Soviet troops for almost a decade.

The American supply of aid to the Mujahiddin very likely triggered the USSR’s decision to invade. This latter point was revealed by Brzezinski himself in a 1998 interview with the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur. The information in this interview is so startling that I present an extended translation. Note that the italics have been added to emphasize vital points.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period, you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout].

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked for a way to provoke it?

B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q : When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

In the above statements, Brzezinski frankly admitted that US officials had deceived the American public: They denied that they were intervening in Afghanistan, prior to the 1979 invasion, even though the US was in fact intervening.

Brzezinski confirmed the provocation, stating that US aid to the Mujahiddin was expected to “induce a Soviet military intervention.” When pressed on this point by the French journalist – that the US had deliberately provoked the invasion – Brzezinski hedged a little bit (“We didn’t push the Russians to intervene”). Then he immediately contradicted himself and admitted that “we knowingly increased the probability” of an invasion, implying that he did indeed push the Russians to intervene. And he boasted that US officials were “drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap,” once again suggesting intentional provocation. And after the invasion occurred, Brezinski expressed satisfaction at the prospect of “giving the USSR its Vietnam War,” thus getting even for the US humiliation during the chaotic evacuation from Saigon in 1975. And finally, it is clear that President Carter acceded to Brezinski’s recommendation and personally authorized the intervention.

Brzezinski’s 1998 claims have been corroborated by additional sources. At the time of the invasion, Brzezinski was briefed by his military aide, Lieutenant General William Odom. In response to the briefing, Brzezinski raised his fist in triumph and exclaimed that the Soviets “have taken the bait!” according to General Odom (as later recounted to Cambridge University historian Jonathan Haslam). Brezinski had baited the Soviets into invading, he intentionally provoked them.

And in his own published memoirs, Brzezinski offered only perfunctory regret about the invasion, while expressing pleasure that the Soviet aggression had vindicated his own hardline views and strengthened his position in internal policy debates within the Carter administration. Brzezinski also noted it “represented an opportunity for [Carter] to demonstrate his genuine toughness.” In January 1980, a month after the invasion, Carter’s public approval rating soared to 58 percent, the highest point of his last two years in office. The President was benefiting from the “rally round the flag,” effect, typical of public responses to international crises. From Brzezinski’s perspective, the invasion was not altogether a negative development, since it made him look good, and it made his boss look good as well. The statements in Brzezinski’s memoirs and by General Odom seem perfectly consistent with the 1998 Nouvel Observateur interview, thus providing additional corroboration.

This interview nevertheless elicited harsh public criticism, especially after the September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, which were perpetrated by groups that were linked to the anti-Soviet crusade that Brzezinski helped to provoke. In this new atmosphere, after 2001, the Nouvel Observateur statements were an embarrassment (notably his flippant comment regarding “Some agitated Moslems”). In a 2010 interview with the Real News Network – twelve years after the original interview – Brzezinski distanced himself from his earlier statements and implied that he had been misquoted.

Brzezinski’s disavowal of the 1998 interview should be viewed with considerable skepticism. We must recognize a measure of self interest in Brzezinski’s disavowal, given the public criticisms of his past statements, which seemed dismissive of international terrorism. It seems unsurprising that, after the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks, Brzezinski would want to disown such statements, which tarnished his image as a protector of US security.

More recently, historian Conor Tobin has also tried to discredit the Nouvel Observateur interview, noting an inaccuracy in the article title. However, this does not seem very damaging to the interview’s overall credibility, since article titles are typically added at the end of the production process, often to fit into the allotted space for print editions; they are often composed by the copyeditor, not the original author. Among journalists, the title is widely recognized as the least reliable part of an article. No errors have been shown in the body of the interview. It should also be noted that the Tobin critique is flawed, since he fails to mention General Odom’s comments, which substantiate the Nouvel Observateur interview.

Overall, efforts to discredit the claims of US provocation seem unconvincing, and there can be little doubt that the United States did provoke the 1979 invasion. The Carter administration lured the USSR into “the Afghan trap,” as Brzezinski stated.

The Soviet invasion was viewed positively by executives in the weapons manufacturing industry, who saw the invasion as an opportunity to expand the US military budget and justify that expansion to the public. “Very good times are indeed around the corner for defense contractors,” according to a Washington Post reporter, in response to the President’s decision to raise military spending.

With its close ties to the aerospace industry, Air Force Magazine expressed optimism that the invasion would set US foreign policy “on the road to renewed credibility.” The magazine noted an important historical precedent: “North Korea’s invasion of the south in 1950 triggered US rearmament,” with the hopeful implication that the Afghan invasion might trigger another round of rearmament and heightened military spending, to the advantage of weapons manufacturers. The editorial concluded that by invading Afghanistan, “The Soviets, once again, may inadvertently save us from ourselves.”

When looking back at Brzezinski’s actions in 1979, what is most impressive is the extraordinary recklessness that went into his decision to provoke a war. The results of the US provocation have been very negative, with a nine-year Soviet occupation, followed by decades of further war and instability, as well as horrific effects on the Afghan population. Many Afghans initially welcomed US support for the Mujahiddin guerrillas, which became the largest CIA operation of the Cold War; but they eventually tired of this generosity, as they came to realize how much the Agency had used them.

By 1990, the New York Times Magazine ran an article entitled: “Afghans: Now They Blame America.” The instability that was unleashed in Afghanistan also generated turmoil at the global level, after the Cold War, with the 2001 terrorist attacks, Global War on Terror, and Iraq war.

Now, 45 years later, we can see striking similarities between the Afghan case and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Just as in Afghanistan, the 2022 invasion was illegal and deserves condemnation. But we must also recognize that the Ukraine invasion was provoked by NATO’s expansion up to Russia’s borders, despite earlier promises not to expand NATO.

The evidence for provocation in the Ukraine case is overwhelming, and has even been confirmed by the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who stated in a public address: “President Putin… went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO close to his borders.” Once again, the only real winner from the war has been the US and European military-industrial complex. And in the end, Ukraine will be devastated by these events, just as Afghanistan was devastated. History seems to be repeating itself, as we have learned nothing from past failures.


David N. Gibbs is professor of history at the University of Arizona, as well as affiliated faculty in Africana Studies. He is the author of recently published Revolt of the Rich: How the Politics of the 1970s Widened America’s Class Divide.

A Nuclear War in Ukraine Is a Distinct Possibility

An interview with Norwegian political scientist Glenn Diesen.

September 21, 2024
Source: Common Dreams


The war in Ukraine has been going on for 2.5 years with no end on sight. Not only that, but we are now close to a nuclear war, according to the Norwegian scholar Glenn Diesen who predicted in November 2021 that “war was becoming increasingly unavoidable” as NATO was escalating tensions with Russia by strengthening its ties with Ukraine. Indeed, as Diesen argues in the interview that follows, NATO provoked Russia and sabotaged all peace negotiations, using Ukraine as a proxy to a geopolitical chessboard. Diesen is professor of political science at the University of South-Eastern Norway and author of scores of academic articles and books, including, most recently, The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order (2024).

C. J. Polychroniou: On February 22, 2022, in a move that few had anticipated, Russia invaded Ukraine by launching a simultaneous ground and air attack on several fronts. The war hasn’t gone at all as Moscow had intended and it rages on as neither side is seriously considering an end to the fighting. Yet, the invasion is in many ways a continuation of a territorial conflict between Russia and Ukraine that goes back to 2014. What lies behind the Russia-Ukraine conflict? How did we arrive at this dangerous juncture that is now dragging NATO into the conflict?

Glenn Diesen: I predicted the war in an article in November 2021, in which I argued war was becoming “unavoidable” as NATO continued to escalate while rejecting any peaceful settlement. This should have been evident to everyone if we had an honest discussion about what had been happening.

NATO was always part of this conflict, and it did not start as a territorial conflict. The conflict began with the Western-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014, which was seen as a precursor to NATO expansion and the eventual eviction of Russia from its Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol. As the New York Times has confirmed, on the first day after the coup, the new Ukrainian government hand-picked by Washington established a partnership with the CIA and MI6 for a covert war against Russia. It is important to remember that Russia had not laid any claims to Crimea before seizing it in the referendum in March 2014. This is not a commentary on legality or legitimacy, merely the fact that Russia’s actions were a reaction to the coup.


We are very close to a nuclear war, and we are deluding ourselves by suggesting we are merely helping Ukraine defend itself.

A proxy war broke out in which NATO backed the government it installed in Kiev and Russia backed the Donbas rebels who refused to recognize the legitimacy of the coup and resisted the de-russification and purge of the language, political opposition, culture, and the church. The Minsk-2 peace agreement of 2015 laid the foundation for resolving the conflict, but this was merely treated as a deception to buy time and build a large Ukrainian army as confirmed by the Germans, French and authorities in Kiev. After 7 years of Ukraine refusing to implement the Minsk agreement and NATO’s refusing to give Russia any security guarantees for NATO’s military infrastructure that moved into Ukraine—Russia invaded in February 2022.

It is correct that the war has not gone as Moscow expected. Russia thought it could impose a peace but was taken by surprise when the U.S. and U.K. preferred war. When Russia sent in its military, the small size and conduct of the invading forces indicated that the purpose was merely to pressure Ukraine to accept a peace agreement on Russian terms. Ukraine and Russia were close to an agreement in Istanbul, although it was sabotaged by the U.S. and U.K. as they saw an opportunity to fight Russia with Ukrainians.

The nature of the war changed fundamentally as it became a war of attrition. Russia withdrew to more defensible front lines, began mobilizing its troops and sourcing the required weapons for a long-term war to defeat the NATO-built army in Ukraine. After 2.5 years of war, this has become a territorial conflict that makes it impossible to resolve in a manner that would be acceptable to all sides. As NATO refuses to accept losing its decade-long proxy war in Ukraine, it must continue to escalate and thus get more directly involved in the war. We are now at the brink of a direct NATO-Russia War.

Did NATO provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? Even if so, didn’t Moscow have any other options other than to resort to the use of military force?

NATO provoked the invasion and sabotaged all paths to peace. The NATO countries affirmed on several occasions that the UN-approved Minsk agreement was the only path to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, yet then admitted that it was merely a ruse to militarize Ukraine. This convinced the Russians that NATO was pursuing a military solution to the conflict in Ukraine that would also involve an invasion of Crimea. As argued by a top advisor to former French president Sarkozy, the U.S.-Ukrainian strategic agreement of November 2021 convinced Russia it had to attack or be attacked.

Russia considered NATO in Ukraine to be an existential threat, and NATO refused to give Russia any security guarantees to mitigate these security concerns. The former U.S. ambassador to NATO, Kurt Volker, argued during the Biden-Putin discussions that no agreements should be made with Russia as “success is confrontation.” This war is a great tragedy as it has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians and Russians, made Europe weaker and more dependent, and taken the world to the brink of nuclear war. By failing to admit NATO’s central role in provoking this war, we also prevent ourselves from recognizing possible political solutions.

Russia and Ukraine were close to war-ending agreements in April of 2022, but apparently certain western leaders convinced Ukrainian president Zelensky to back down from such a deal. Is Ukraine a US pawn on a geo-political chessboard?

Zelensky confirmed on the first day after the Russian invasion that Moscow had contacted Kiev to discuss a peace agreement based on restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. On the third day after the invasion, Russia and Ukraine agreed to start negotiations. Yet, the American spokesperson suggested the US could not support such negotiations. When the negotiations nonetheless began, Boris Johnson was sent to Kiev to sabotage them. Johnson later wrote an op-ed warning against a bad peace. The Ukrainian negotiators and the Israeli and Turkish mediators all confirmed that Russia was willing to pull back its troops and compromise on almost everything if Ukraine would restore its neutrality to end NATO expansionism. The mediators also confirmed that the US and UK saw an opportunity to bleed Russia and thus weaken a strategic rival by fighting with Ukrainians. The US and UK told Ukraine they would not support a peace agreement based on neutrality, but NATO would supply all the weapons Ukraine would need if Ukraine pulled out of the negotiations and chose war instead. Interviews with American and British leaders made it clear that the only acceptable outcome for the war was regime change in Moscow, while other political leaders began to speak about breaking up Russia into many smaller countries.

Yes, I believe that Ukraine is a pawn on the geopolitical chessboard. Why do we not listen to all the American political and military leaders who describe this as a good war and an opportunity to weaken Russia without using American soldiers?

What does Russia want from Ukraine?

Russia demands peace based on the Istanbul+ formula. The Istanbul agreement of early 2022 involved Russia retreating from the territory it seized since February 2022 in return for Ukraine restoring its neutrality. However, after 2.5 years of fighting, the war has also evolved into a territorial conflict. Russia therefore demands that Ukraine also recognizes Russian sovereignty over the territories it annexed.

Russia will not accept a ceasefire that merely freezes the front lines, because this could become another Minsk agreement that merely buys time for NATO to re-arm Ukraine to fight Russia another day. Moscow therefore demands a political settlement to the conflict based on neutrality and territorial concessions. In the absence of such an agreement and continued threats by NATO to expand after the war is over, Russia will likely also annex Kharkov, Dnipro, Nikolaev, and Odessa to prevent these historical Russian regions from falling under the control of NATO.

Ukraine has become increasingly a de facto NATO member. What are the chances that Russia might introduce tactical nuclear weapons in the battlefield to achieve its aims?

Russia permits the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack or if its existence is threatened. NATO becoming directly involved in the war is considered an existential threat by Russia, and Russia has warned that NATO would become directly involved by supplying long-range precision missiles. Such missiles will need to be operated by American and British soldiers and navigated by their satellites, thus this represents a NATO attack on Russia. We are very close to a nuclear war, and we are deluding ourselves by suggesting we are merely helping Ukraine defend itself.

Can you briefly discuss the implications for world order if the West defeats Russia? And what would the international system look like if Russia wins the war in Ukraine?

The West would like to defeat Russia to restore a unipolar order. As many military and political leaders in the US argue, once Russia has been defeated then the US can focus its resources on defeating China. It is worth remarking that few Western political leaders have clearly defined what “victory” over the world’s largest nuclear power would look like. Russia considers this war to be an existential threat to its survival, and I am therefore convinced that Russia would launch a nuclear attack long before NATO troops get to march through Crimea.

A Russian victory will leave Ukraine a dysfunctional state with much less territory, while NATO will have lost much of its credibility as this was bet on a victory. The war has intensified a transition to a multipolar world, and this likely increase at a much higher pace if NATO loses the war in Ukraine.

NATO expansion that cancelled inclusive pan-European security agreements with Russia was the main manifestation of America’s hegemonic ambitions after the Cold War, thus the entire world order will be greatly influenced by the outcome of this war. This also explains why NATO will be prepared to attack Russia with long-range precision missiles and risk a nuclear exchange.
Widening Gender Divide Among Gen Z Voters Could Decide the 2024 Race
September 20, 2024
Source: Counterpunch


It may be the most under-reported story of the entire 2024 presidential race; the ever-widening gender divide among young voters identified as Gen-Z (18-29 year olds). The Harris campaign is touting its appeal to young voters and pointing to high levels of enthusiasm and voter registration levels among youth as evidence of its mounting edge over Donald Trump this November.

But the campaign is also concealing a disturbing reality: young male voters are increasingly tilting toward Trump, keeping the former president highly competitive and posing a growing threat to Harris in the swing states.

In Pennsylvania, for example, Trump is spending heavily on niche messaging to Gen-Z males, one of the reasons he’s narrowing the gap with Harris – and in some polls, now leading her. How wide is the chasm between Gen Z men and women? It’s enormous. In fact there’s an astonishing 50-point spread between these two groups on key policy issues like cutting taxes and cracking down on illegal immigration – and unless the margin is reduced, a high Gen-Z turn out could end up handing the race to Trump.

This trend is recent – but not entirely new. Since 2016, according to the survey firm APData, a growing percentage of young males have been registering as Republicans In fact, about 47% of Gen Z men now identify as GOP, compared to just 33% eight years ago. Many of these young men became drawn to Trump during his first term in office, but as more youth have come of voting age, the tilt towards the GOP – and to Trump – has become even more pronounced, APData research shows.

For Gen Z women, the trend is completely reversed. Especially since the Dobbs decision, and even more so with the replacement of Joe Biden with Kamala Harris as the Democratic party standard-bearer, younger women have flocked to the Democrats in ever-increasing numbers.

Pollsters say the two groups’ vastly different life experiences – and gnawing anxieties over the future – are driving their ever widening partisan divide. In polls, Gen Z men say they are especially concerned about their mounting student debt and their dwindling job, income and homeownership prospects – which they largely blame on the Biden-Harris regime. They also cite illegal immigration as a top concern, again blaming the current administration. Gen Z women, by contrast, say they’re far more afraid of threats to their reproductive rights – which they blame on Trump – and see Harris as a vital protector of those rights and as a positive role model and inspiration to women.

Don’t young women also fear for their economic future? They do, but men and women aren’t necessarily facing the same challenges. Women’s position in the labor market has actually become considerably stronger in recent years, while that of young men has weakened, according to labor force data. This is especially true for young non-college educated males, whose position has fallen the greatest, creating a groundswell of resentment and anger that Trump has successfully exploited.

By contrast, women make up 60% of all new college graduates and their position in the labor market has reached record heights – 87% are now gainfully employed. These women, mostly unmarried, are flocking to Harris in large numbers now, while married women with children tend to support Trump and the GOP.

The gender divide is also sharp on the issue that Biden and Harris have placed at the core of their youth campaign outreach: student loan debt forgiveness. Gen-Z women still account for two-thirds of all student loans and favor debt forgiveness by a whopping 45 points, according to polls conducted by the Wall Street Journal. By contrast, Gen Z males are more evenly divided on this issue. But the economic policy divide actually runs much deeper, the Journal found. Young males favor extending Trump’s corporate and individual tax cuts by 23 points, while young females oppose them by 20 points – an astounding 43 point divide.

Researchers say that Gen-Z men aren’t necessarily as conservative as they might seem. Instead, they view their GOP registration as a badge of defiance and a protest against what they perceive as growing “discrimination” against men in the society at large. Many view the rise of the #MeToo movement – which has catalyzed a massive female leftward trend – as a broadside against masculinity and an attempt to stigmatize all men as toxic and dangerous – and they’re rebelling, by signaling support for Trump even though they don’t necessarily buy into the entire MAGA doctrine

To be sure, in the current Trump-Harris face-off, there’s a sharp gender divide among all voters, not just youth. Trump is now up by high double-digits among men while Harris leads among women with somewhat smaller double digit margins. The country hasn’t witnessed a pronounced gender gap like this one for years. And it may get even larger as the race continues to unfold.

But the gap among younger men and women is far wider, polls show, suggesting that the two genders may soon inhabit entirely different policy universes with ever-deepening divisions in party registration and political ideology. The longer-term political consequences could be severe, pollsters say regardless of which candidate wins in November.

But Harris and Trump aren’t doing anything to reduce the gender gap – in fact, the two campaigns are accentuating it. Harris, for example, is single mindedly targeting young unmarried – and sexually vulnerable – women on college campuses with messaging that depicts Trump’s partnership with his youthful running mate J.D. Vance as a cross-generational “bromance” exclusive to toxic female-bashing men. Vance’s own past statements referring to unmarried women as “cat ladies” less deserving of the voting rights and benefits accorded to married women have also damaged his standing. Some of these attacks are fair game, but depictions of the happily married VP as a college-age sexual deviant and “weirdo” who can’t be trusted around women – based on smears and innuendo alone – have further torpedoed Vance’s favorability rating – but in the process, may also be alienating Gen Z men, setting the stage for backlash.

How has the Trump campaign responded? By targeting their own outreach and messaging exclusively at young men – with the same determination and not-so-subtle gender bias. Trump has made a number of highly-publicized appearances at sports fighting events frequented primarily by young men, including men of color. He’s also invited prominent rap music singers Lil Uzi Vert known for their amped-up masculine lyrics to perform at his rallies while publicly embracing popular macho celebrities like professional wrestler Logan Paul. And Trump’s burgeoning alliance with RFK Jr., who extols his own ageless athleticism and bravado on YouTube and Tik Tok videos and whose anti-vaccine views tend to find favor with men, is deliberately calculated to attract larger numbers of Gen Z males to his campaign.

There are growing signs that the youth gender gap is not just wide but beginning to favor Trump – by a lot. The very latest New York Times/Siena College poll, released last week, found that an overwhelming 67% of Gen Z women plan to vote for Kamala Harris, while just 29% say they’ll back Donald Trump. By contrast, among young men, a clear majority – 53% – plan to vote for Trump, while 40% say they’ll support Harris. That’s an astonishing – and unprecedented – 51-percentage-point gender gap, pollsters report.

The Harris campaign isn’t completely oblivious to the gender gap but seems to be making some potentially costly assumptions while largely ignoring it. One is that young women generally vote in higher numbers than younger men – and the same is likely to be true of Gen Z. Therefore, the emphasis is on driving up female voter turnout, emphasizing reproductive rights and threats to women generally in the hopes of simply overshadowing young male support for Trump. The campaign is also trying to tout Harris’ husband Doug Emhoff and her VP running mate Tim Walz as positive male role models. A number of female columnists have been enlisted to write profiles extolling both men’s gender virtues – counterposing them to Trump’s well-documented boorish and sexist behavior.

But there’s little evidence that this approach is deflecting growing male support for Trump across all age groups, but especially youth. In July, Harris led Trump among all Gen Z voters by 22 points; by August, her lead had fallen to 14; in the latest Times/ Siena poll, her margin had shrunk to just 8 points. If current trends hold, Trump may well regain the parity with Gen Z voters that he enjoyed when Biden was still the Democratic standard-bearer – a potential disaster.

With so little time left in the race, it’s incumbent upon Harris to get out of denial and squarely address its gender gap with young male voters. Openly acknowledge the perceptions and concerns of young men – and make the case for why Democratic policies offer a better solution than Trump’s. Young men do have their own legitimate perceptions and aspirations in the world and these aren’t just shaped by gender power dynamics – much less women’s perception of them. This is a longer term problem for Democrats and speaks to how they plan to address divisive culture war issues moving forward. Some swing states, including Georgia and North Carolina, do have entrenched conservative White male cultures. Youth in these settings aren’t necessarily as socialized or even exposed to the more enlightened gender and race cultures one one finds in Blue states and their cosmopolitan cities. Likewise, young Hispanic men in states like Nevada and especially Arizona, which like Georgia, barely flipped Blue in 2020, are still steeped in traditional values. especially on abortion and LGBTQ issues.

But it doesn’t help Democrats or the Harris campaign when they simply attack vestiges of racism or sexism in American politics, and blame them for resistance to Harris’ candidacy. One Harris campaign director said young men are becoming “drunk on misogyny,” an exaggerated broad-brush claim that glosses over real sources of legitimate disagreements in gender attitudes and leaves young men – and men generally – stigmatized and simply beyond reach, politically. For a campaign that needs every vote it can still get, such dismissiveness can become a self-fulfilling – and self-defeating – prophecy.

Trump has already exploited the Gen Z gender gap to make massive inroads with disaffected young men – and these efforts will continue over the next two months. The former president is in the process of expanding his digital ad campaigns on YouTube and Tik Tok, as well as Twitch and Kick, where a large number of highly conservative male influencers hold sway. Trump credits his 18-year old son Barron with first introducing him to the power of online vehicles to reach disaffected young men, including young Black influencers like Solomon Brent who hosts a YouTube channel that broadcasts daily to millions. Computer scientist and podcaster Lex Fridman, who also enjoys a large audience of mostly younger men, says he’s planning to host an episode with Trump in October. Adin Ross, a controversial broadcaster known for his extreme right-wing views, has already hosted one show with Trump, and plans several more before election day.

There’s no room for error here. Young voters are now the fastest growing voter group in America today – with 41 million eligible voters overall. From a record-breaking 39% turnout in 2016, their numbers ballooned even higher – to roughly 50% in 2020 – a factor that helped deliver the presidency to Biden. But there’s a danger that an even higher turn out in 2024 won’t actually favor the Democrats, not in the margins needed to defeat Trump.

“We’re all in this together,” Harris says – and rightly so. But where does that leave young men who feel, rightly or wrongly, that America is prepared to leave them behind? Harris already has young women firmly behind her – and they’re not about to abandon her now. Finding creative ways to pivot back to men, especially young men, with more explicit and balanced gender messaging is essential to prevent further hemorrhaging of her support among all Gen Z voters that could well prove catastrophic in November.

Stewart Lawrence is a long-time Washington, DC-based policy consultant.
The Scientific Socialism of J. B. S. Haldane

J. B. S. Haldane was one of the 20th century’s great scientific minds. He was also a passionate socialist and a scourge of pseudo-scientific racism whose life gives us a fascinating case study on the relationship between science and politics.
September 21, 2024
Source: Jacobin

J. B. S. Haldane in the laboratory, circa 1920-1930
 (Photo from the-pen.co)

J.B. S. Haldane was one of the great scientific minds of the twentieth century and played an important role in the development of genetics. Haldane was also a tireless political campaigner who gravitated toward the British communist movement in the 1930s and ’40s. His public career makes for a fascinating case study on the relationship between politics and science.

This is an edited transcript from Jacobin Radio’s Long Reads podcast. You can listen to the interview here.

Before going into the details of his life, could you give people who might not be familiar with J. B. S. Haldane a brief summary of the position that he occupied in British public life during the middle part of the last century, and some of the contributions that he made to the development of science?

Samanth Subramanian

J. B. S. Haldane was primarily a geneticist, and his career overlapped with the rise of genetics as a field of study in the first half of the twentieth century. He demonstrated a whole series of things through his work. One was the mechanism of genetic linkage in mammals — that’s the way in which two genes that lie next to each other on a chromosome tend also to be inherited together.

He mapped the genes for hemophilia and colorblindness, and introduced a theory for how life began on Earth. His most important contribution, I think, was to reconcile two aspects of genetics that in the early part of the twentieth century seemed to be irreconcilable. While the gap between those two aspects persisted, people had been afraid that Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection was doomed.

When we talk about his stature and his role in public life, he became as famous as Albert Einstein was in Britain at the time. This came about primarily because of his double duty as a writer and speaker.

As a writer, he would publish opinion pieces. He wrote about his life and his experiences in World War I and II. As a speaker, he gave talks and hundreds of people would turn up to hear him speak. He wasn’t a particularly magnetic speaker, but he did have the quality of simplifying science in a way that allowed people to understand it without dumbing it down and stripping it of nuance.

Arthur C. Clarke called J. B. S. the most brilliant scientific popularizer of his generation. If you go into the Haldane archives, you’ll see hundreds of letters from regular people with scientific questions, and he would try to answer them. You’ll see newspaper clippings in which the press sought him out for comment on some aspect of science or economics or government policy.

Haldane was a sturdy pillar of the Left in Britain at the time. For a while, he was a card-carrying communist to the extent that MI5 kept a file on him for the better part of two decades. All of this added up to a kind of public profile that was not merely that of a scientist, but also that of a political thinker or a public intellectual — something that we see less often these days.

Daniel Finn

Haldane came from a privileged background, but it also seems to have been a background where it was considered normal to have a well-developed social conscience and a concern for the working class. Perhaps that meant his later turn toward left-wing politics and eventually toward communism wasn’t quite as much of a departure as it would have been for many other people from a similar class background in the early twentieth century.

Samanth Subramanian

I think that’s right. I would attribute a lot of this to his father, J. S. Haldane, who was also a scientist. J. S. studied respiration, and he was a professor of physiology at Oxford. Right from the beginning of his own career as a scientist, J. S. seemed to be the kind of man who thought science should improve the lot of people out there in the world: it shouldn’t be confined to an ivory tower or to academic journals. The purpose of doing science was to improve the conditions of regular people.

In his studies on respiration, for example, he used the same principles to examine why coal miners were dying underground, or how being on ships for an extended period of time affected people, or how naval divers could rise from the depths safely without succumbing to the bends. He would go into slums in Dundee and try to measure the air in the tenements and see if it was sensible for people to breathe and live there.

All of this scientific activism, if you will, was informed first of all by a robust background and schooling in the sciences. That was something that J. B. S. had as well. But it was also informed by experiments. J. S. experimented on himself: he would often go out into the field, into mines and into slums, and see what the effect of the air in those places was on his own body.

He took his son along on some of these experimental field trips while he was just a boy. On one occasion, they all went down into a mine and J. B. S. was asked to stand up straight and recite the funeral oration from Julius Caesar. He was a little boy at the time and his head barely grazed the ceiling of the mine shaft. He began speaking, and because the poisonous gases that knocked people out in these mines had risen to the top, he started to feel woozy and had to sit back down.

All of these experiences instilled in J. B. S. a couple of principles. One was the joy and surprise of doing robust science. But there was also the idea that scientists could and should have a social conscience. They should worry about how the working classes of the world could benefit from the kind of science that he and his father ended up doing.

Daniel Finn

How did his experience as a soldier in World War I, and then the time that he spent in British-ruled India, affect Haldane’s worldview?

Samanth Subramanian

I think he went to World War I still carrying scars from having been at Eton, the public school in Britain, which was famously a place for snobs and the children of snobs from the upper classes. J. B. S. went there just past the age of ten. He was a shy boy, and he was picked upon quite frequently. He witnessed a huge degree of class snobbery around him in the school.

After Eton, he went to Oxford to get a degree, but then he went to the trenches as a soldier. The trenches were a relatively democratic space, at least in the way he saw it. It’s true that several people from well-born and wealthy backgrounds had been commissioned as officers and they supervised many men from the working classes, just as they did back home. But in the trenches, the hierarchies became those of rank rather than those of social class.

If you were a private with a public-school education, you didn’t get any special treatment or undue privileges (or that was how he saw it anyway). In any case, when you’re all sitting around in a cramped trench or coming under fire from the enemy, it’s very difficult to hold onto the distinctions of class. For the first time, J. B. S. found himself to be popular and enjoyed a kind of camaraderie that he hadn’t experienced until then. I think that experience never left him, and it informed his views about the irrelevance of class distinctions that he was to carry for the rest of his life.

He subsequently went to India, where he was on sick leave, and spent a considerable amount of time there. He came back with a sense of the vanity and purposelessness of the imperial project. He said at one point to his mother in a letter that he couldn’t see how long this system could possibly continue. He saw the unfairness of a handful of Englishman ruling a country as vast as India.

Daniel Finn

Haldane’s route toward becoming a professional scientist seems hard to conceive of nowadays. He studied classics at Oxford rather than any scientific subject, and never completed a science degree of any kind before going on to work in the field.

Samanth Subramanian

It was something that happened back then, although J. B. S. may have belonged to the last generation of nonspecialists. I cannot think of any scientists who came after that and specialized in a particular field without having been schooled in one of the sciences at least, if not in that field itself.

Perhaps there was a kind of Victorian hangover of the gentleman-scientists that persisted into the twentieth century when J. B. S. was at university. His father was a trained scientist, but there were many other people in that era who were amateurs. These were invariably men of privilege and wealth who were able to pursue scientific experiments for the love of it. They often found out things that were useful and that aided the progress of science.

As you mentioned, J. B. S. never studied science at university and never had a science degree, but he had done so much as a boy. He had helped his father and then started working out some genetics problems on his own. He had a great facility with numbers in particular. When he came back from the war and was offered a position in biochemistry at Oxford, it wouldn’t have been out of the ordinary back then, although as I said, he may have been one of the last nonspecialists to have been offered such a position.




Daniel Finn

How did Haldane develop a particular interest in genetics, and how was the wider field of genetics developing at that time?

Samanth Subramanian

Haldane’s own interest came about because of experiments that he ran as a boy, with which his sister Naomi often helped. These were experiments with guinea pigs. The siblings kept them in hutches at their home in Oxford, on the side of a path that ran to the tennis courts, and they would track how the guinea pigs produced and what traits they passed on — the color of their coats, for example, or the length of their fur.

They were watching, as Gregor Mendel did, for dominant and recessive traits — what kind of traits a particular combination of parents produced in the children. Mendel was a monk in what is now Czechia, in the town of Brno. He predated J. B. S. and Naomi by decades, but his work had only been recently rediscovered with great excitement. Mendel ran experiments with peas in which he tracked how parents passed traits onto their offspring, and he built up a tabulated system of how that happened and what that corresponded to in terms of what we now know as genes.

The rediscovery of Mendel in the early 1900s also presented a problem that was developing in genetics at the time. This was what I alluded to earlier. The people who followed Mendel and his theories attributed changes in a species to mutations in the genes. Those changes could be large or small, but they were always what you might call discontinuous.

If a guinea pig was born with an extra toe, for instance, that would be a discontinuous change — it’s discrete. Darwinians thought that small, undetected variations would eventually accumulate over many generations in a population. Eventually they would lead to a kind of fitness for their environment that would help the species thrive. Darwin had famously written that nature doesn’t make jumps.

If you think about height in a population of people, height is a continuous quantity. If you graph it in terms of how tall people are, it’ll follow a natural, continuous bell curve, whereas the followers of Mendel could only ever see jumps. This gap in the theory between Mendel and Darwin threatened to undo the theory of evolution and natural selection altogether.

It was at this point in the 1920s and ’30s that Haldane along with a couple of other scientists helped to yoke the ideas of Mendel and Darwin together. They essentially rescued the idea of Darwinian natural selection. Without getting into the numbers of it, they showed through mathematics that natural selection was a powerful force, capable of selecting even small genetic changes and amplifying them in a population surprisingly quickly. To resurrect the power of natural selection was to validate Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Daniel Finn

What position did Haldane adopt toward the idea of eugenics, which was considered to be very respectable and fashionable during the interwar period? It was by no means tainted by association with the experience of the Third Reich as it would be at a later stage.

Samanth Subramanian

In both the US and the UK at the time, you could see what were definitely eugenic policies. The UK wanted to isolate the feeble-minded, as they called them, and the US wanted to sterilize people it deemed unfit to reproduce. This included not just people who had physiological weaknesses but also those who belonged to what were considered inferior races. All of this was happening throughout the 1920s.

Haldane himself as a very young man carried the prejudices of his class. At one point he wrote about Australian aborigines and said, “I find it hard to believe that their descendants will produce a [James] Watt or [Thomas] Edison.” He wrote several things along those lines when he was very young. But as he grew older, when he was in his thirties, he started to poke holes in these so-called theories of eugenics.

Part of this was simply a question of the scientific invalidity of those theories. For example, scientists had found no way to know which human characteristics would best serve future evolution, and no way to selectively breed them in humans, so obviously there was a huge scientific fallacy at the heart of eugenics. Another such fallacy arose from the fact that in the world of biology, diversity in a population is actually a good thing. It contributes to the overall genetic fitness of a population, because it is only if you have diversity that you can sometimes produce traits that help the population as a whole through natural selection.

The notion of race often bedeviled Haldane and other scientists in that part of the twentieth century because people struggled to understand how such visible physical differences could matter so little. But Haldane soon realized that people’s capacities were shaped by their environment as well as their genes, and that ideas of superiority and inferiority were quite meaningless in comparing humans.

He came to the conclusion that the word “race” as it was used then was very imprecise. He said that the races of the past were not purer than those of today, which is a claim that champions of racial perfection always come back to. Instead of “race,” he started using the term “population group,” which is the more accurate scientific term. We continue to use it today for a distinct set of people or other organisms that display similar characteristics.

That was the scientific platform on which Haldane stood when it came to eugenics. But part of his opposition to the theory was also his developing political sense. The further he went to the left politically, the more he came to realize that theo
ries of eugenics were bound up in right-wing notions of class and imperialism.

Daniel Finn

How did Haldane develop a public profile as perhaps the most famous British scientist of his age and how did he use that profile for political advocacy in the 1930s and ’40s?

Samanth Subramanian

Haldane’s primary avenue toward being a public intellectual was his writing. The essay I would recommend first and foremost is called “On Being the Right Size.” It is a concise marvel of the kind of writing we are talking about. The essay is very accessible and deals with a fundamental notion: the question of why our organisms are the size they are and what impact that has on their characteristics.

I think Haldane took his father’s idea that science should enrich the lives of common people one step further. He decided that everybody should be able to appreciate science and understand its basics. For Haldane, a scientifically informed society would be a better (and politically wiser) society.

Another aspect of this was the fact that a lot of his writing, if not all of it, was political in some form or other. The political thrust might not be explicit, although it did become more explicit as the 1930s wore on and World War II started. But very often, there was a sort of political moral at the end of every story that he told.

Sometimes the connections to the science he had just discussed were tenuous. Sometimes those connections were very clear, as the eugenic ideas that we just talked about started to swirl around public debate in the second half of the 1930s, especially as the Nazis rose to power in Germany. He was a loud voice in debunking the theories of blood that the Nazis promoted and by extension the theory of any kind of racial purity.

Haldane was also willing to take sides in the great political battles of the time over socialism and communism. He started off as a socialist and became a communist at some point in opposition to the forces of fascism.

He went out to Spain during the Civil War three times, trying to help and always writing for audiences back home about the things that he was seeing. He wrote about the dehumanization that the fascists were perpetrating on the people he wanted to be allied with — the Left in Spain — and about the weapons that were being used and the imperialist themes running through these conflicts.

All of these points made it into pieces back home. They very often ran in the Daily Worker, which was the publication of the Communist Party of Great Britain [CPGB]. Using that profile for public advocacy in this particular case meant urging people to think about where their loyalties lay and urging them to shun the Right in any country — the Nazis in particular.

Daniel Finn

What was the path that led Haldane toward formal membership of the CPGB after he had spent several years as a close sympathizer of the party — a “fellow traveler,” in the jargon of the time?

Samanth Subramanian

We’ve already touched upon how he grew up in a relatively egalitarian household, given the times and his background, and how he found the trenches in World War I to be a relatively democratic space and felt solidarity with people from the working classes. His first wife, Charlotte, had a lot to do with his decision to join. She was a communist herself: in fact, she had joined the party well before him and made no bones about her affiliations. I think that influenced him tremendously.

A trip to the Soviet Union in the late 1920s influenced him as well. It was an odd time at which he went because some of Joseph Stalin’s show trials had already started. But perhaps they hadn’t been publicized quite as much to somebody who was visiting from Britain, didn’t read any Russian, and was taken selectively to particular scientific institutions.

I think one thing that really drew him to the Communist Party was his perception that the Soviet Union was very serious about the role of science in public life and in the uplifting of citizens. He went to Soviet agricultural research institutes and marveled at the resources they had and the facilities they were given.

He was not the only one in Britain at that stage who felt this way. One of his colleagues, J. D. Bernal, did a comparison to see what percentage of GDP the Soviet Union spent on science in relation to Britain. It turned out the Soviet Union outspent Britain handily. For somebody like Haldane, this was evidence of a rational form of governance in which you harnessed the power of science to improve the lives of the people in your country.

As the 1930s wore on, he began to perceive communism as a bulwark against fascism. He wasn’t the only one to see it that way. By the end of the decade, he had traveled and written enough and possessed enough of a public profile that the CPGB felt he would be a great catch. Haldane thought that it would be an act of solidarity against the fascist forces to publicly align himself with the Communists.

Daniel Finn

Did Haldane have his own perspective on the relationship between Marxism and science and on the philosophy of dialectical materialism that the Soviet Union promoted, which was meant to apply not merely to the history of capitalism or the history of human societies, but also to the whole history of nature and the universe?

Samanth Subramanian

It’s difficult to tell at this remove how seriously he took dialectical materialism. There is an anecdote that I included in my book: he was once sent a beautiful new calendar as a gift and he wrote back to the sender saying, “I have only one possible serious criticism of the calendar — it seems a pity to have to tear out the pages of such a beautiful and instructive production — however, I expect this criticism is undialectical.” It’s impossible to tell if he was joking or not!

I think he did persuade himself that dialectical materialism explained the known universe relatively well and he spoke about the subject quite often. In fact, he published an essay in 1937 called “A Dialectical Account of Evolution,” which strained through all kinds of torsions of interpretation to conclude that natural selection falls into the great dialectical triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Of course, these categories felt artificially neat, even to him. He may have felt at some point that he was turning the entire structure of dialectical materialism into a convenient pigeonhole for cherry-picked facts. But at the core, I think he never leaned on these principles to do what he would call real science.

The real science was always kept distinct from these essays that he wrote, which were almost entirely a political exercise — an exercise in spreading the Marxist way of thinking and popularizing Marxism as a philosophy. He was investigating some of this stuff for himself and we won’t ever know whether he found it entirely satisfactory. But we do know that in all of his rigorous, published scientific papers, there is no mention of dialectical materialism at all.

Daniel Finn

Haldane ultimately had to respond to the ideas of Trofim Lysenko about evolution and genetics. First of all, can you give people a brief introduction to who Lysenko was, the arguments that he made about biology, and the fate of his scientific opponents in the Soviet Union? Secondly, how did Haldane respond to Lysenko as he came under pressure from the British communist leaders to endorse his ideas?

Samanth Subramanian

Lysenko was a Soviet agronomist. He became one of Stalin’s favorite scientists and was eventually appointed president of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. His interpretation of biology and genetics ran completely counter to everything that scientists in the West (or anywhere else in the world) had previously discovered or proved.

Lysenko believed, for example, that the way genes behave is not random and they don’t change by accident. The body in which the gene is carried has an influence upon the gene itself. If you change the environment around an organism like a stalk of wheat, you will change the genes in it and make it hardier or more productive for the second generation of wheat. He said, “We cannot wait for favors from nature — we must wrest them from her.”

This outlook seems to have been very much of a piece with the Soviet philosophy of taming the natural world to get as much from it as possible in order to improve the lot of the working classes. Lysenko sometimes directly contradicted the things that Haldane had worked on or that he stood for. He rubbished the idea that mathematics or statistics could tell you anything about the way that genes behaved. That was precisely what Haldane worked on for most of his life.

Anybody in the Soviet Union itself who disagreed with Lysenko was ostracized or worse. In the case of Haldane’s acquaintance, Nikolai Vavilov, he was sent off to prison where he would eventually die. Several other people were kicked out of the academic sciences in the Soviet Union, while others disappeared.

In parallel with this, there were disastrous agricultural experiments in the Soviet Union based on Lysenko’s advice, which all failed spectacularly. You have to remember that much of this was happening in the 1940s, by which time Stalinism was well and truly entrenched and people were frequently being sent to the Siberian Gulags.

Lysenko created a climate of fear in the Soviet sciences. No one would be willing to speak out against his highly erroneous theories. Again, that went completely against the grain of Haldane’s thinking. If he championed anything in the sciences, it was the ability to speak the truth about what you found and thought, and to approach science with the so-called scientific temper — a cold, hard, rational look at the facts without any fear of political prejudice.

Daniel Finn

You suggest in the book that Haldane was reluctant to face the truth about Lysenko and the way his critics had been repressed because of the wider implications that it would have in terms of how the Soviet system worked. When he did ultimately move away from the Communist Party in the wake of the Lysenko controversy, did Haldane change his broader perspective on the Soviet Union under Stalin’s rule, whether in public or in private?

Samanth Subramanian

For decades, there has been a real sense of bewilderment about the way Haldane responded to Lysenko. This is particularly because he famously went on the BBC in the late 1940s and took on three of his scientific colleagues, attempting to defend Lysenko’s scientific theories. For anyone who only had access to that kind of information, it would appear as if Haldane had either subscribed to Lysenkoism wholesale, which seems ridiculous, or had given in to pressure from the Communist Party to defend Lysenko.

The truth is more complex, and a lot of the archival material that I found speaks to this. I think Haldane chose for a year or two to defend Lysenko in print and on radio because he felt that it was an important moment in the history of communism and that by rejecting Lysenko, he would do the party more harm than good. He decided that he would lend his stature to the task of buttressing Lysenko’s reputation and theories for the sake of the greater cause, you might say.

However, in the background, he was writing to his colleagues in the CPGB all the time, arguing that the party had to distance itself from Lysenko. He had furious arguments with people in the party on this point. After the Lysenko episode, the reason that he distanced himself from the CPGB was in part because he had burned so many of these bridges. He was quite upset with the way in which his colleagues in the party refused to stand by him or think like rational scientists, which was his model of thinking.

I think he did change his broader perspective on how the Soviet Union worked as well. But there’s no evidence of him rethinking his view of Stalin in private. I didn’t find anything in letters or diaries that indicated he had changed his mind about Stalin himself.

Somewhat disgracefully, I think, toward the end of his life, he gave the following answer when somebody asked about his perception of Stalin: “I thought and think that he was a very great man who did a very good job and as I did not denounce him then, I am not going to do so now.” I struggled for a long time to make sense of this and to figure out if it was one last show of public loyalty toward communism or the cause of the Left, or whether it was just an example of stubbornness and unwillingness to accept that he had made a mistake.

By the time he said this, the details of Stalin’s massacres, starvations, and penal colonies were well known, and yet it seemed as if he wanted to keep ammunition out of the hands of the critics of the Soviet Union. That might have been the last thing he ever said or wrote about Stalin. But I think disillusionment with the Soviet Union did set in, and one result of that was his move to India in the final phase of his life.

We know that he quit the CPGB at some point after the Lysenko affair, although we don’t know exactly when. He refused to confirm his departure to reporters who asked him about it. But I think it’s clear that he was disillusioned with the way that the party had behaved around Lysenko. Perhaps he felt that he couldn’t continue to be a public figure in British life while speaking up for the party and the cause.

There were other reasons, too. University College London, where he was a professor at the time, was in quite straightened circumstances after the war. Some of the buildings had been demolished, and they had so few resources that Haldane himself had to buy teaspoons for the staff room where his lab was based.

At this point, an offer came from a university in India promising the kind of resources, students, and pace of work that he was seeking now that he was quite old. His own finances in Britain were also quite straitened: he was paying alimony, and he was often in the red. His bank statements are still in the National Archives, so you can look them up and see that he was in the red month after month. This was frequently because he was paying for lab equipment and other expenses related to work out of his own pocket because the university wasn’t able to cover the costs.

He had got married for a second time and the university in India offered his wife Helen a position there as well, which was something that he wanted. He had been to India before, and he liked the country. He admired Jawaharlal Nehru, who was the Indian prime minister at the time. India might also have offered Haldane an alternative socialist model to the Soviet Union, a model in which the country was democratic but there was a strong welfare state.

Nehru himself was a huge advocate of science and technology and its role in public life, which was something that Haldane championed. Politically, he was very attracted to the Nehruvian idea of India, and it must have been a welcome relief from having to defend the Stalinist ideal of the Soviet Union.

Daniel Finn

You mentioned in the final pages of the book a conference at the NASA headquarters in the US that Haldane attended toward the end of his life. Carl Sagan, surely the best-known scientific popularizer in the US (if not the whole world) during the late twentieth century, was in attendance at that conference. You also mentioned a meeting that Haldane had in the US with Richard Lewontin, the biologist who was a collaborator with Stephen Jay Gould, another great popularizer. Did figures like Sagan and Gould take Haldane as a model to emulate in writing about science for a general audience, as well as in drawing connections between science and politics?

Samanth Subramanian

I’m not sure that they consciously looked to Haldane, or at least I have found no evidence thus far that they did. They were very popular, lucid writers about science for the general public. But I think the uniqueness of Haldane lay in his willingness to stake out a political position almost every time he wrote about science.

I have read a lot of Stephen Jay Gould, and of course you could make the argument that all writing about science (or indeed anything) is political, and therefore that politics is implicit in every piece of work that you do. But what Haldane did, which writers like Sagan or Gould perhaps didn’t, was to relate science (or anything else he was writing about) to the political issues of his age.

It was a form of writing that was extremely partisan, in a good way. We might expect that approach today from political scientists, but not from biologists, physicists, or chemists. That culture faded as the twentieth century progressed. C. P. Snow famously wrote about this tendency for the sciences and the humanities to exist in different worlds, not speaking to one another.

Daniel Finn

You finished the book with some reflections on the political implications of science and what scientists today could learn from Haldane. Perhaps that might also be a good point on which to round off the interview.

Samanth Subramanian

It’s difficult to generalize because it was a different time. The fact that Haldane didn’t formally study science at university helped him to be a broader writer who could combine science with ideas about how society and politics worked. That formative background enabled him to become the kind of person that he was.

Scientists today begin specializing from a very early stage in their lives and careers. There are children in high school who start interning with scientists for the eventual career that they want to have fifteen years later once they have finished their PhDs. Of course, that greater degree of specialization is a symptom of how science has developed. There’s so much more to master in a particular field that you need to start studying it earlier in order to be able to make meaningful contributions.

It’s not that scientists today can look at Haldane’s life and aspire to mimic every aspect of it. Some of the exigencies of modern science and the modern era definitely weigh upon them. But having said that, when I was writing my epilogue, it was around the time that Donald Trump had been elected in the US and the March for Science was starting to take off in cities around the world. I remember thinking to myself that it was a shining example of scientists raising a public voice in a way that had only happened sporadically earlier.

It might have happened with climate scientists like James Hansen, for example, being loud and vociferous when arguing about the dangers of climate change. But it hadn’t happened in the realm of politics that confronts everyday life and society. I think Haldane made it a specialty of his own to speak to precisely those situations.

We should also remember the insistence of Haldane (and his father) that science shouldn’t transpire entirely in laboratories, ivory towers, or academic journals. They insisted that scientists should reach out to ordinary people and try to communicate important aspects of science in accessible terms, but also that they should constantly think about how science could relate to the problems of the working classes and the problems of society.

That is linked to the point about raising your voice in a political space — those two things go hand in hand. Haldane realized that science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Science is always impacted by politics, so it should push back against politics as well.


Samanth Subramanian
Samanth Subramanian is an Indian journalist based in London. His book A Dominant Character: The Radical Science and Restless Politics of J. B. S. Haldane was published in 2019.