open Democracy News Analysis - rule of law - Comments

KVB Tharoor on "Europe’s Afghan test "

KVB Tharoor — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:07:16 +0000

In the last year, Karzai has frequently called for negotiations with elements of the Taliban, recognising that they're not simply a monolithic militant group, but an assemblage of factions, even to some extent a social movement. Yet, Washington has been reluctant to sanction this. Would negotiation with the Taliban in some way compromise American positions of non-engagement elsewhere (for e.g. with Hamas)?

Missing in this strategy is any mention of Pakistan. Is that because the author thinks the turmoil in Afghanistan's neighbour is somehow unlinked to Afghanistan's own problems? Or is it because EU foreign policy is toothless regarding the influence it can exert in Pakistan?

basilsmith on "Deaths in Iraq: the numbers game, revisited"

basilsmith — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:40:14 +0000

I take your point Paul Carline. This has been a cause for real concern for many years in Australia. Is there any country which is not cursed with the damage caused by ignoring the people, and their right to rule - snatched away from them by power-hungry self-righteous party politicians?
The results in Iraq are truly shocking, but it is also happening all over the world, and the UN is stymied by the the security council's (including the USA's) failure to support it.
Wherever you look democracy is a joke.
Readers may be interested to check out website http://ballotsinparliament.org.
Basil Smith

tezcatlipoca on "Deaths in Iraq: the numbers game, revisited"

tezcatlipoca — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:52:57 +0000

The aggressors have no time for a Reconciliation Process, neither restorative justice that exposes the truth and lies of the Bushocracy nor retributive justice that would actually hold someone accountable. Bush et al are too 'morally sound' to allow this to happen. They should be impeached and charged with war crimes, but we all know that this will never happen.

Whether or not 9/11 was fabricated (which I believe it was), the 'suspects' were mostly from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. And now America is selling a massive amount of weapons to Saudi Arabia. This does not make any sense.

This war, which has cost too many lives, regardless of which numbers are believed, is not about democracy and freedom, but OIL.

Iran, by far the most democratic nation in the region, is next.

pete daine on "Deaths in Iraq: the numbers game, revisited"

pete daine — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:44:22 +0000

you write: "The authors of the study published in the Lancet are now arguing that many deaths may have been kept unreported, by implication questioning the independence of a survey conducted with Iraqi national authorities; this would suggest that the international community itself, the World Health Organisation and other participating funding agencies would have trumped scientific excellence to abide by a political agenda".

This is unfair. The Lancet authors are _not_ suggesting anything about the WHO. What they said was this:

"The last time this group (COSIT) did a mortality survey like this they also found a very low crude death rate and when they revisited the exact same homes a second time and just asked about child deaths, they recorded almost twice as many. Thus, the past record suggests people do not want to report deaths to these government employees."
http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/01/10/les-roberts-on-new-iraq-mortality-study/

So the use of government employees itself may be a problem, they say. What they _don't_ say or suggest (by implication or not) is that the WHO "would have trumped scientific excellence to abide by a political agenda", as you claim.

You write: "There remain three numbers: one too small, one too high, one somewhere in the middle."
There's no doubt that the IBC figures are "too" low. But there's no such certainty for the Lancet figures, though you state that they are "too" high. How do you know?

paul.carline on "Deaths in Iraq: the numbers game, revisited"

paul.carline — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:43:01 +0000

Michel Thieren recommends that the warmongers "begin politics and stop the killing". But Clausewitz was right in stating that "war is politics by other means". The wars on and in Afghanistan and Iraq are pre-eminently wars planned, contrived and instigated for political ends - the control of key strategic areas of the planet, together with their resources.

People who have retained their humanity and moral sense will agree that a single death resulting from an immoral and illegal war is a death too many. To that extent the numbers game may be irrelevant (though not, I suspect, if the figure of deaths caused both directly and indirectly were considerably higher - in the millions, as suggested by Gideon Polya).

Surely the problem with MIchel Thieren's recommendation is that there is no mechanism for forcing the aggressors to stop killing and "begin politics". Moreover, what kind of political process does he imagine: a Truth and Reconciliation process? The aggressors are scarcely interested in submitting to a process which would expose the lies and the mass murder (on 9/11) which provided the pretext for war (subsequently reinforced by other bogus 'terrorist' events around the world).

The reality is that most 'democracies' - and especially the US and the UK - are, and have long been, pseudo-democracies in which there are no effective controls on executive action. What is relatively new (we could take Hitler's burning of the Reichstag in 1933 as a starting-point) is the now routine use of state-sponsored terror to create the fiction of an external enemy and to maintain a high level of fear in the domestic population which will then accept both external wars (against the fake enemy) and domestic restriction of civil liberties. The mainstream media play a vital role in the creation and maintenance of the necessary myths - such as 'al-Qaeda' and the 'war on terror'.

If there is a political solution at all, it can come only after the lies have been exposed and the system which manufactures and publicises the lies has been radically reformed. We do need real democracies with constitutional powers to control both the executives and Eisenhower's 'military-industrial complex'. But the political process has been hijacked to such an extent by those forces that it is difficult to see how we can move from the present intolerable situation to something approaching genuine democracy. In the meantime it is vital that the lies which sustain the present structures and politics be scotched.

opendemocracy on "Benazir murdered: what next? "

opendemocracy — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:29:13 +0000

I do recommend everyone to listen to the Lieven lecture that Kanishk points to. What struck me is the story of the dominance of the army as an institution - the only institution? - that covers all--or most-- parts of Pakistani society. No one is saying that popular unrest will lead to chaos--just to the re-establishment of emergency rule. This "stabiltiy" comes from the dominance of the army's position. The blame game: who is behind the killing? will new attacks be revenge attacks or new attempts at destabilisation? remind me of the dark period of Algeria's recent history, when another military establishment became embroiled---at what level no one knows---in a mix of revenge killing and anti-Islamic "political stabilisation". Can Pakistan avoid such a period? Does what the US (and Europe) do now have an impact on this likelihood? Tony

nick_myst on "The so-called "war on terror""

nick_myst — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:43:13 +0000

I do hope this initiative gets the attention it deserves. Terrorism needs to be understood as a more complicated phenomenon. Hopefully, the commonwealth countries - since there are so many - can take it to heart... but how do you get a state to see like society? The state only wants society to see like the state.

ai_1 on "Europe and terrorism: the wrong path"

ai_1 — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:13:55 +0000

On which other kinds of terrorism should we focus? From Methodists? Stamp collectors? It is clear that at his juncture of time there is a problem with Islam-inspired terrorism. Of course, discrimination should be illegal (and in much of EU it is), we should discourage alienation and let all Europeans, regardless of their religion (if any), skin pigmentation, gender, sexual orientation, ..., feel as full partners in the European project. We should also expect from them to behave the way full partners do and respect the rights of other partners and values (like, for example, free speech) which we hold dear. But discrimination is often in the eye of the beholder -- and, as a motivating factor, perception of discrimination is just as bad as discrimination. Take the story opening this article. The author, driving at night at a rough part of Stockholm, is stopped by a police car and questioned about electronic equipment at the back of his car. Being (apparently) non-Muslim, he takes it as legitimate police activity (yet, amazingly, suffieciently remarkable to include in the article). Had he been Muslim, he could have taken it as an evidence of discrimination. Once we establish a language of non-discrimination, rather than putting at the centre a language of universal rights and obligations, we operate ultimately not to realities but to perceptions of discrimination. And this will not alleviate the reality of alienation or the threat of terrorism.

sean.fox on "Europe and terrorism: the wrong path"

sean.fox — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:59:17 +0000

The answer would be easier if all kinds of terrorism were treated equally. If the EU and national governments did more to stop the daily insults to many Muslims. -------------------------------- I agree with much of the article but am gravely concerned about the paragraph above. Is the author equating terrorism with insults and suggesting there is some kind of moral equivalence. I believe that freedom of speech is a fundamental freedom, including the freedom to insult or mock religions. I can accept restrictions on abuse based on gender, race, age, or disability because these are all attributes not under our control. Religion, like political affiliation, is a choice and I absolutely oppose any attempt to make me respect others views in these areas, or to refrain from insulting or mocking them if I choose. They can do likewise to me, so long as, for both of us, violence or the threat of violence, is entirely absent. Just to be absolutely clear I mean physical violence, not insults, jokes, mockery, or vigorous debate.

patrickcummins on "The IAEA escape route"

patrickcummins — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:56:00 +0100

It would be surprising if Iran had zero interest in nuclear weapons. After all, Washington has made implicit threats of regime change and it rejected the 2003 Iranian offer to settle differences. Yet, it is also extremely difficult to see Iran moving straight ahead to build and test a nuclear device, particularly after all the disavowals that they've given to the world. They would lose all credibility and invite total isolation. It is however plausible that they are pursuing an intermediate path between a military and non-military program. The Iranians are clearly intent on mastering uranium enrichment, and all phases of nuclear fuel production. Once they achieve this they will be in the same position as many other countries in the world, e.g., Japan, Canada, Germany, etc. That is, they will not have nuclear weapons, but, if a decision is taken, they could acquire nuclear weapons within a short period of time. They would, in effect, be a virtual nuclear power. This path would give them some deterrent against a U.S. attack, but without the dangers presented by a full and open pursuit of a weapons program. It is my understanding that many people within the IAEA are of the opinion that Iran is pursuing this middle course.

hari_1 on "The IAEA escape route"

hari_1 — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:12:43 +0100

The comments above are ALL inline with current propaganda and misunderstanding of the historical antecedents of US foreign policy in the region and Iran, in particular. Under GWB and his neocons, US foreign policy in mideast has been devastated and perhaps also made irrelevant now! Sarkozy is also climbing on the zionist/israeli pulpit to eventually disenfranchise France and its historical legacy in Maghreb and Palestine, in particular. IAEA will not submit to dictate from GWB/Condi. That's for sure! Like in Iraq, IAEA will expose the duplicity surrounding US strategic calculations in the region with particular reference to Iran. Don't forget under Pres.Regan, Iran-Contra affair was managed by one Elliott Abrams - dealing with Israeli weapons for Contra support in CentralAmerica! Now, the same Elliott Abrams is NSC adviser to GWB on mideast and, in particular, Palestine and Iran. He also happens to be an active supporter/member of AIPAC. If Sharon became a "peacemaker" for GWB, thereby declaring Arafat perona-non-garata from any WhiteHouse meetings, the influence of Abrams is significant not only with "land for peace" strategy with the Palestinians, but specially with current saber rattling against so-called nuclear ambitions of Iran. There's no technical evidence from AIEA that Iran is capable of making nuclear weapons today! Tomorrow, I'm of the view, Iran will inevitably go nuclear for reasons explicity contained in not only current Israeli propaganda on CapitalHill (thru AIPAC!) but also based on US strategic thinking. There's no way US (France)is willing to accept Iran as a nuclear power in the region. More reason why Iran will go nuclear to deter any aggression against its sovereignty! Why did US accept nuclear Pakistan and India and China and Soviet Union? Would not deterrence be a better way to contain Iran in future - istead of an Israeli-inspired blunder of war? The battle ground for this strategic rhetorics will not be the SC - but IAEA Council - in which event India is now also unlikely to support US posture against Iran! [The US nuclear power agreement with India is also in the process of bringing down the centre-left coalition govt. in New Delhi]. Dr El Baradei of IAEA is a respected international layer (graduated from Columbia University/NY) and has been a diplomat in service to his native country Egypt before going to IAEA as an adviser. He took over the mantle from his Swedish predecessor - who was responsible for WMD inspection in Iraq. If US is bent on undermining IAEA and its legal/technical competence under NPT, there's no reason to believe EU and rest of the members will allow such a development in IAEA Council. Without the authority of IAEA, the rule of the junge will prevail! If that's what Israel/US/France want then they'll surely get it!

reza on "The IAEA escape route"

reza — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:03:31 +0100

blisslight It would be good to have some facts in your comments. Your comments just give your personal views without any evidence of its validity. I respect your views as long as it is accepted that they hold no real value in setting policies or supporting the existing US policy which is very much out of order and lacks credibility. The times of bullying are far gone and such policies will not help in international relationships. The US has to come to terms with the reality of the international law and stop using force in place of diplomacy! This is setting a bad example in the world where democracy has become very fragile entirely due to double standards set by the US and forced upon its allies! If this is an acceptable behaviour; then I am afraid this will be a prefix for other developing nations to follow suite.

ai_1 on "The IAEA escape route"

ai_1 — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:43:48 +0100

The author is a self-described "UK board member of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran". Nothing wrong with that: we live in a democracy and it is perfectly valid to make the case against sanctions and military intervention in Iran. However, anybody expecting this article to be anything but a piece of propaganda will be disappointed. It amasses every single piece of evidence to vindicate the Iranian government and the purity of its intentions, while either dismissing or doesn't even caring to mention any argument to the contrary. Propaganda is legitimate, as are advocacy and special pleading. But, to avoid misleading the unwary, they should be seen for what they are.

nick_myst on "The IAEA escape route"

nick_myst — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:20:48 +0100

This is a case of known unknowns and unknown knowns. We know that Iran has a government committed to keeping itself in power. We know it has a government that wants to shelter itself from international scrutiny and intervention. Ergo, nuclear weapons are very much a possibility, as they provide a deterrence and insulate the leadership. Just because there is "no evidence" (I think the case can be made that there is), doesn't mean that Iran doesn't aspire to have them. That can never be allowed.

Anthony Barnett on "One mistake too many"

Anthony Barnett — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:09:00 +0100

JackH: What could the author suggest? Take over the US Airforce? Suggest they make less of them? Make their movements open source and rely on the wisdom of crowds? :-)