open Democracy News Analysis - global politics - Comments

Not logged in on "The greater middle east: Obama’s six problems"

Not logged in — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:28:13 +0100

SOUTH YEMEN IS A RICH COUNTRY BUT THE GOVERNMENT OF NORTH TAKES THE WEALTH AND CAUSED PEOPLE OF SOUTH ONE OF THE MOST POOR PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.

Shahidan Said on "China’s Tiananmen moment: the party rules"

Shahidan Said — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:27:20 +0100

Every year for the past two decades, we have been clobbered by the Western media in its familiar self-righteous tones on the Chinese government's failure to concede to the voice of dissent and for putting down the student movement violently in Tiananmen Square.

The Chinese student movement and its demands in 1989 certainly deserve our deepest sympathy. But the ritualisation of an event over which public opinion in the West has very little influence stands out in stark contrast to the posture of the media when discussing massacres in territories in which Western governments and public opinion are fully complicit.

The recent invasion and massacre carried out by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza is a case in point. The media bent over backwards to justify the Israeli invasion. The Western media in general has yet to find its moral compass to apply evenly its overstated values of respect for democracy and the rule of law when these are violated by their own governenments (Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.) and their allies/cronies/puppets. These guardians of human rights lose their voices and squeek like mice when confronted by the Zionist transgressions against the lofty ideals of human rights.

I write from Malaysia and am appalled at the hypocrisy of the media that is so brazenly displayed when discussing human rights violations in the South.

rebecca6880 on "The miscalculation of small nations "

rebecca6880 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:27:42 +0100

Perhaps the summary of article is:

"Big powers are hypocritical and small
powers have no rights.."

Agilis Lux on "China’s Tiananmen moment: the party rules"

Agilis Lux — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:56:04 +0100

it is very diffecult, but I have not seen coverage of such events that had taken place in the so called "civilized world", like Kent State Shootings 1970 , (So much for the rule of law!)

Our leader are et(hically any better? here few tags: looking at Ruwanda, causing with its war in Vietnam a genocide in Cambodia still looking at Dafur, sending unmaned drones out to bomb for democracy in A- & P-Stan, not getting tiered to state majority of Israelies are against the wall and settlements Lieberman and Netanjahu.

Our are our main-stream media subordiating themselves to finacial and political elitesholding the power. Look arround in US or Europe when there is a demonstration in town, the "security-forces" look like knights.

Beaking up China, like it was so conviniently done with Yugoslavia and any other Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) member staates, would be the worse that could be happened for anybody in the world, not just for people in China.

Just let the metics pay their tax, so the Demos have their fun, - like anywhere else in the world!

rcshreeyan on "The assassin’s age: Pakistan in the world "

rcshreeyan — Sun, 31 May 2009 17:15:56 +0100

rcshreeyan If we look what is going on the pakistan it looks that every body is ruling the country. The mixed centre of power is being well extablished and the political parties, their administration, social groups and terrorist hardcore centre are dictating how the country should run. The free for all like situation is in Pakistan.

The political killings, inocent people's killing, and ofcourse the killing of nation is very painful to all. Today pakistan is burnning from its own people.

The American involment in what purpose in pakistan is not understandable, war, voilence, kidnapping, looting are on the card and islamist mind is working behind this.

Brian Landers on "The Dominican Republic: a time of ghosts "

Brian Landers — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:47:35 +0100

There is an odd historical footnote to the US military intervention in 1965 mentioned in this article. The US Marines who protected Government forces while they butchered hundreds of rebel troops and civilians were commanded by John S McCain II. I wonder how the United States would have regarded the changes Halliday describes if John S McCain III had won the last Presidential election.

HappySense on "Iran/USA relations: tough transition from boxing to chess"

HappySense — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:18:21 +0000

Oil is the backbone of the Iranian economy. It is almost the ONLY
export that Iran has. When oil was high, they were in a very strong
position to be pushy. They had the money they needed to do what they
want. However, when the oil prices drop as low as they have, Iran's
financial capital dissapears. Worse, for Iran anyhow, is the report
that their oils reserves are running low. When staring at the light at
the end of the tunnel, Iran knows they will either have to make a
technology breakthrough on their own right now, or come to terms with
the rest of the world's demands soon.

Eliyahu on "Iran’s revolution in global history"

Eliyahu — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:54:27 +0000

Halliday fails to point out that this revolution was in fact a revolution AGAINST freedom, not for it. And Khomeini's views on the issue of freedom were fairly well known before he took power, so the "liberals" and "socialists" that Halliday mentioned should have known better. The French, Russian, Cuban and many other revolutions claimed to be for freedom before the takeover, although they degenerated into tyrannies of one sort or another afterwards. In this case, everyone should have known better, since Khomeini's books were in fact known, just like Hitler's Mein Kampf was known before 1933.

Secondly, many other analysts, such as George Lenczowski, have argued that the United States in fact supported Khomeini's takeover rather than opposing it, as Halliday claims.

William deB. Mills on "Iran’s revolution in global history"

William deB. Mills — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:07:24 +0000

Given your fine historical review, how do we deal with such a vigorous, diversified revolutionary movement?

1) Do not panic. The revolution has been around for a generation. Differences
between the West and Iran
exist; a crisis does not.

2) Do not insult. Revolutionary movements are sensitive, and zealots thrive on frontal attack. Make psychological space
for moderates.

3) Offer respectful interaction. As you note, the same elite that is pursuing
revolutionary goals is also trying to improve Iran’s “regional and military power”
position. The resulting contradictions offer room for the West to maneuver and
bargain.

4) Look for opportunities to influence but do not expect it to copy our
approach. And why should it? Has the American moral performance (e.g., Gaza, Lebanon,
Iraq, New
Orleans) been so upright, its military performance (e.g., Iraq,
Afghanistan, Somalia) so victorious, or its economic performance so enriching
that the whole world should adopt our model?

William deB. Mills
http://shadowedforest.blogspot.com

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

michaelcalder on "Iran/USA relations: tough transition from boxing to chess"

michaelcalder — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:47:57 +0000

Let's hope that the "diplomats" dealing with Iran are more like Ms Hilsum in their appreciation of the nature and complexity of Iran than the "western diplomat" she quotes - '"When an offer is made, the Iranians pocket it and say nothing, or they dismiss it as if they always knew that was on the table. Then they decide what to do next," he said.'

Not making an immediate snap decision, deciding what to do on the basis of what is suggested to you, after consideration, seems to me to be a rational way to behave. Remarkable, in fact, for a theocracy.

Wherein, of course, lies much of the problem - if you see Iran as a problem.

I am more and more struck with the figure of the mirror, in international politics.

It seems that powers and principalities, and their agents upon Earth, our glorious political leaders, invariably see the attitude of other peoples, whether opponents or merely the exploitable in potentia, as reflections of their own, or what they intend. So Iran is a "problem", a "source of instability in the region", and agent with a "clenched fist", a disseminator of "terrorism".

Our own dear governments would, of course, shrink from any action or stance that could be perceived in those terms - even by the most unjust interlocutor.

In my personal life, I find the policy of disengagement most efficacious when I encounter the tiresome - the religious, for example; I find that it is pointless, and irritating to both parties, to attempt any rational discussion.

Suggesting this as an exemplar for the international stage would, of course, meet with the response that this is all very fine, but not possible; the villains in question are exporting their villainy around the globe, in areas which conflict with our interest, here, there, and everywhere.

Of couse, again, these areas of conflict are never of our making, or examples of our interference, or if they are, they are done for the best of all possible motives in this, the best of all possible worlds.

Clear skies!

Surreya Yigit on "Kyrgyzstan’s default mode is Russia"

Surreya Yigit — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:00:48 +0000

In response to Tony Curzon Price's question I should say that my intention in the article was to identify the "magnetism" enjoyed by the Russian Federation over the Kyrgyz elite rather than diminish Turkish, American or Chinese interests. The ongoing repression of the Uygurs by the Han Chinese in what is claimed to be their natural homeland of Eastern Turkistan is a signifcant factor to bear in mind with regard to Sino-Kyrgyz relations. Since the replacement of the Soviet-Chinese land border with that of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan to name but two, the Chinese authorities have striven to ensure there is no support for the Uygurs in these countries. To a great extent they have been very succesful indeed. Perhaps the greatest help with regard to this issue came not from the Central Asian states but from the USA, which in return for quiet Chinese acquiescence of its policy in Iraq considered practically all Uygur organisations as terrorist breeding grounds.
As for the concern over transit routes for natural resource pipelines, these gravitate much more towards Kazakhstan than its smaller neighbour to the south. One needs to bear in mind Kyrgyzstan is not an energy-rich country but quite the reverse. It does not enjoy the oil and gas of Kazakhstan. Those of us who were living in Kyrgyzstan from September until November 2008 can certainly attest to the country's poverty with regard to energy as we endured six hours of power cuts on a daily basis. Finally, the Chinese do have interests in Kyrgyzstan as I have mentioned above. Concerning the closing of the Manas air base the Chinese are not unhappy that the Americans may well leave. Closure of an American air base right on their border is definitely an important development and in their eyes a positive one.

imprensa on "Kyrgyzstan’s default mode is Russia"

imprensa — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 06:14:00 +0000

please, how can we contact the author?

Tony Curzon Price on "Kyrgyzstan’s default mode is Russia"

Tony Curzon Price — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:24:38 +0000

I was surprised by the author's rapid dismissal of any Chinese concern for what happens in Kyrgystan. With China's own irridentist problems over the border, as well as the issue of transit routes for natural resource pipelines, does China not have substantial interests in what happens to Kyrgystan?

tony

Muhiddin on "Kyrgyzstan’s default mode is Russia"

Muhiddin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:44:54 +0000

This e article represents the view of the small minority of the "nationally minded" Kyrgyz elite. Majority of the government elite ( chinovniki) is very corrupt, even by the Russian standards, but have no intention to join its older brother in the North. Similarly to their former Soviet colleagues, they would rather have their quasi-independence which allows them to steal with impunity. On the other hand, the vast majority of the population despise its national government and would rather join Russia. In fact, Putin is just as popular in Kyrgyzstan as he is in Russia (probably, more).
I agree with the author that elite is completely russified and enjoys such non-Muslim things as vodka, pork, concubines, etc. However, I do have a suspicion that they won't agree to replace it with the kind of regimes that their Muslim neighbors have. Also, I very much doubt that comrade "Putvedev" can give orders to his Kyrgyz colleagues: the independence years taught them to use its geographical and political status to milk both the Russia and the West( Manas is a good example). In this respect, I would also question author's notion that "international lenders are unwilling to allow the Kyrgyz Republic to borrow from them; all except it seems, the Russian Federation". In fact, Kyrgyz receive help and loans from every major international financial lender, they prefer Russia, since it charges them ridiculously low interest ( less than 1%).
Views expressed in the article are shared by about 2 percent of the Kyrgyz population.

Muhiddin

Nadejda Letat on "A crisis of dignity in Gaza"

Nadejda Letat — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:47:54 +0000

Nadejda Letat

I'm fed up with the notion that because we, who don't agree with Israel, are automatically vilified as anti-semites and racists. For a start how can being anti-Israel be racist? Hows many "races" are there in Israel. And really, is there anything remotely looking like a "race" today - with all the globalisation? And that "anti-semite" tag? Well that is a symptom of persecution complex of Jews who are still "glorifying" the "holocaust"!! You are all wallowing in self-pity over something that has "happened" and cannot be "unhappened"! The world had sympathised with the Jews but Israel wants something else ... but what?

Israel is collectively punishing the world and holding us all to ransom for the "holocaust"!! I'm sick of it! Take a good look at yourselves, Israelis! Do you like what you see? Obviously not - otherwise you wouldn't be so hateful, miserable and unable to even laugh anymore! What do you want from the rest of the world? To say "Yes, we hate you too, just as much as you hate yourselves!". Your self-hatred may cause a total self annihilation! Is that what you want?

Nadejda Letat