open Democracy News Analysis - europe - Comments

Not logged in on "Met watchdog must hold police command to account for the G20"

Not logged in — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:04:59 +0000

'sub-standard velcro' - is that meant to be some kind of joke???

Helen Lambert on "Met watchdog must hold police command to account for the G20"

Helen Lambert — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:13:07 +0000

Thanks for the apology, Victoria.

I could be wrong, but I understood the family's question to be whether the Civil Liberties Panel (and, by extension, the MPA) intended to investigate this aspect of the Met's behaviour following Ian Tomlinson's death.

It has long been known that the IPCC is investigation the allegations of deliberate misinformation. The Guardian announced the official complaint to the IPCC in April, and the IPCC confirmed that they were investigating it in May.

The independence and objectivity of the IPCC have been seriously questioned since the G20. People have turned to the MPA, yourself and your colleagues in hopes that you will be more willing and able to challenge the behaviour of the Met.

Given the above, are you able to answer the question? Will the Panel investigate the allegations of a cover-up, and will the the MPA take the accusation seriously? People's faith in the IPCC has been rightly shaken - we are looking to involve as many investigatory bodies as possible to bring the Met to account.

Victoria Borwick on "Met watchdog must hold police command to account for the G20"

Victoria Borwick — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:31:24 +0000

Further to the uncertainty yesterday, for which I apologise, The IPCC have now confirmed that they are looking into this aspect of the complaint by the Tomlinson family. On the Civil Liberties panel we had understood that this was in fact likely to be the case, and that has now been confirmed, so I hope that the Tomlinson family will take some comfort from this in order to help resolve their ongoing concerns.

Can I just remind everyone that we are very keen to hear from anyone who has personal experiences of any demonstration of protest - Were you "kettled" in the Oxford Street May day demos? were you involved in the Gaza marches? please let us have your comments - you can email the MPA : PPO@mpa.gov.uk

thanks, Victoria Borwick

Michael. on "1989: moment, legacy, future "

Michael. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:08:57 +0000

How sad it is reading sophist rhetoric of the events of 1989.

The truth is, all that happened was a rotten-to-the-core totalitarian system inevitably failed in the manner forecast by many in the decade after the Bolshevik Revolution - prime amongst them, Leon Trotsky.

Now that system is gone the eternal dispute is still there. No amount of Western capitalist propaganda can change it. Capitalism is also a rotten-to-the-core system that will inevitably fail. How many more depressions and slumps are required before the zeitgeist reaches a mature understanding of this reality?

The only question is whether the minority perpetrators of capitalism will stand aside peacefully as history catches up with them too.

Guy Aitchison on "Met watchdog must hold police command to account for the G20"

Guy Aitchison — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:02:46 +0000

Thanks Helen - very helpful account. What a pity the new civil liberties panel is already looking weak and compromised by refusing Tomlinson's family's request to investigate the Met's cover up.

Rukki Odds on "Poland: the politics of history "

Rukki Odds — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:35:41 +0000

I am from Poland and I was a witness of these all events. However I was only a child in 80'sbut I remember how I was been wondering of tanks on streets.

volleyball odds
betting arbitrage

Sossie Kasbarian on "The Armenia-Turkey process: don’t stop now "

Sossie Kasbarian — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:01:56 +0000

Thanks for a balanced and thoughtful article, Kerem.

Although many Armenian diasporans are positive about the protocols, in terms of opening the borders, improving relations, improving the economy etc, the real stumbling block is the idea of the 'historical commission' which most diasporans, regardless of political affiliation, scholars and non-scholars alike, find unacceptable, for many reasons, as eloquently expressed by some here:

http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/10/19/leave-it-to-the-historians-scholars-from-the-armenian-diaspora-reflect-on-sub-commission-on-the-historical-dimension/

For many diasporans this stipulation puts a dark cloud over the whole 'improving relations' discourse and makes them worry about the real agenda being pursued (aggressively by the US and others) and where a tiny developing state with no strategic importance or natural resources will fit in to that. The diaspora's reactions (and yes mobilised by the ARF but not confined to it) is also one of worry - if the Armenian state can agree to a 'historical commission' after more than 20 countries and credible genocide scholars attest to the genocide, then what else will it (be forced to) compromise?

The other sad aspect of this whole business is that it has contributed to an increasing chasm between state and diaspora. The fact that the diaspora was not made a part of this process in a meaningful way has been felt very deeply. In political terms perhaps they don't have a say but in terms of the (internal dynamics of the) Armenian 'nation(s)', this chasm has serious implications about the future of the relations between the diaspora and the state, the future of western Armenianness, issues of leadership and legitimacy etc. The AGBU and others are presenting themselves as the voices of 'reason' and ‘balance’ in a diasporan discourse which is being played out in nationalist terms by the ARF, but it is important to recognise that the leadership of a diasporan institution does not necessarily reflect the views of many of its ‘constituency’. The reactions to the protocols demonstrates yet again the complexities about legitimacy, authority and representation in the diaspora. The question of 'who speaks' for the diaspora is as ever, a highly pertinent one.

Deguef on "Italy: the ungovernable nation"

Deguef — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:23:17 +0000

Certainly Italy during last two decades has lost ground in Europe and forecasts are not favourable, but certainly Berlusconi is not the cause. Perhaps he is the result of this situation. Public administration heavily worsened in the 80s due to corruption and expenditure of regions out of control. "Mani pulite" had dismantled pro-west political parties but not pro-Soviet Union parties. At this point Berlusconi emerged and was able to attract former pro-west voters.

Jim T on "Michael Martin, former MP, disgraced ex-Speaker...Peer?!"

Jim T — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:22:41 +0000

last year that his wife Mary had racked up £4,000-worth of taxi bills at the taxpayer’s expense. The parliamentary watchdog ruled that nothing untoward had happened.!!!!!!!!
His wife also managed to spend £50,000 of public money on air fares, both overseas and between Glasgow and London as part of her “role” of “supporting her husband in his official duties”. How many of his family were "encouraged" to pursue careers in politics as the financial rewards would be substantial. 4 at last count !!!

Agilis Lux on "Silvio Berlusconi: the last battle"

Agilis Lux — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:50:03 +0000

The Italians are not more stupid than other Democrats. Many see precisely the weaknesses of their "Cavaliere", his narcissism and political substance. The vote for him anyway.

This schizophrenia can be explained. The Italian government has long known that people don't trust it, and act with "passive resistance". The government responds by issuing ever more stringent laws, be it in road construction or in tax law. Citizens continue with more "passive resistance", and the state responds again.

The result: dense set of rules have emerged, that it would stifle the Italians, when they would keep to these rules. Thus the state pushes its citizens into illegality. He, Berlusconi, made Italy, in considerable part, to a land of dirty hands. Many people are latent in illegal activities, must always fear controls, processes, penalties.

In this situation presents to them a man, which apparently does the same and is one of them. Berlusconi's promises to halt the government, his insults to the "annoying" justice system. It suggests, that a bit of corruption is a rather a trivial matter. "I am not a politician, but one of you,"says Berlusconi, and there is some truth in this. Many citizens from the right until well into the middle feel safe with him. They think: "Under Berlusconi the government will not become any better, but at least he leaves us alone."

Nareg Seferian on "Armenia and Turkey: forgetting genocide "

Nareg Seferian — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:50:44 +0000

Mr. Oktem's remarks were quite apt indeed. I would add that the emotional investment of all Armenians - whether in the Homeland or in the Diaspora - makes any sort of steps towards rapprochement difficult to deal with.

However, the real crux of this matter, in my opinion, is the illegitimacy of the government in Yerevan, again, both with the citizens of the Republic of Armenia and with Armenians of the Diaspora. There have never been truly free and fair elections in Armenia, and the current authorities came to power crushing a wave of protests after the last presidential elections, early in 2008. So, no matter what Serge Sarkisian and his cabinet move towards would be perceived as illegitimate by all Armenians.

keremoktem on "Armenia and Turkey: forgetting genocide "

keremoktem — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:53:40 +0000

I sympathize with Juan Gabriel Tokatlian in that I share his despise for the cynicism of power politics. There is no doubtthat the Turkish policy change towards Armenia is guided by the realpolitikgoals of appeasement and even, to an extent, the denial of genocide.

However, I also believe that Tokatlian'srevolt is above all the reflection of a feeling of catastrophe in parts of the Armenian Diaspora. And this feeling is not the default response of all Armenians in the Diaspora, but an emotional state that has been created deliberately by nationalist-leaning activists ever since the accords have become public. The explicit aim has been to obstruct any progress in Armenian-Turkish relations, as long as Turkey does not accept its responsibility for 1915.

But why all the anger now? Is the opening ofthe borders between the two countries going to take away anything from Armenia orthe Diaspora? I honestly do not think so. Turkey does not recognize the genocide now, and this situation will not change in the imminent future. Opening the borders, however, will create new channels between the two peoples. Already today, mostly politically interested Turks are travelling to Yerevan,and many of them do go to the Genocide Memorial Dzidzernakaberd, and face the dark side of their own history with very mixed feelings. Some of them have their individual ‘Warsaw Genuflections’ and write about it mostly in left-wing and liberal newspapers.

As for the historical commission: Yes, it is ridiculous to set up a forum for historians to establish what is a historical fact: That hundreds and thousands, probably in excess of a Million of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were killed deliberately with the aim to render historical Armenia and central Anatolia devoid of its Armenian population and of the material signs of their very existence. Establishing the commission, however, is not selling out on the genocide: It’s a strategy of playing safe by both sides. There are three possible outcomes of the Commission: Either, one side will walk out and the commission will lose its legitimacy and hence be disbanded, or, the commission will start meeting with big media fanfare and then eventually dissipate into oblivion once the sides lose their interest. The third possibility, that both sides agree that 1915 constituted a genocide would be wonderful, as it would create the space for Turkish political leaders, to sell it to their electorate. It would also help to make possible a sense of closure for those, whose suffering is multiplied by Turkey's official refusal of recognition. Yet, this is not a very likely scenario.

In conclusion, the protocols do not take anything away from Armenia and they are not a deal with which Armenia forfeits the historical claim to genocide. It does, however, explicitly accept the current borders between Turkey and Armenia, which by all means is a sensible and good thing.

Why I understand the feeling of dismay in parts of the Diaspora, I also sense a whiff of cynicism in Tokatlian’s piece: Armenians from the Republic have to live with the Turks, whether they like itor not, whether genocide recognition takes place or not. Members of the Diaspora have the luxury to visit the villages, from which their forefathers were evicted, and then return to the safety and comfort of their countries of residence and pontificate about the course Armenia should follow. Armenia is condemned to live with Turkey as a mighty and often overbearing neighbour. It is hence not surprising that its current government may have slightly different policy interests than Armenian nationalists in the Diaspora (and parts of the opposition in Armenia). Opening the borders with Turkey,without giving up on the genocide claim and establishing a non-descript commission with little real power is not such a bad deal. Whether this is a great progress is another story. But it will make eventual genocide recognition by Turkey, or at least the recognition of this troubled part of Turkish history by many citizens of Turkey more likely, not less likely.

Finally, there are two good reasons to reconsider, whether the protocols may in fact not be such a bad deal. Almost all opposition parties in Turkey, including the Social Democrats and the extreme Nationalists as well as the Azerbaijani government have condemned the protocols and negotiations as a sell out to Armenia. And they would probably know best!

Kerem Oktem, Oxford

Allen Breed on "Armenia and Turkey: forgetting genocide "

Allen Breed — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:47:48 +0000

It's disputed genocide(!) [Ref. ''The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, by Guenter Lewy''] and i don't think it's forgetting issue.

Genocide(!) of Azerbaijans in Hodjali by Armenians in 1992 also disputed. [Ref. ''Georgia Turkish American Advocacy Group - Hodjali Genocide''].

But Armenian should leave occupied territories. [Nagorno-Karabakh].

Camus on "Germany's shift to the right"

Camus — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:49:17 +0000

The S.P.D. has lost half of its voters in the past ten years; in 1998 20 million, 2009 9.9 million, so the tide isn't about to turn - it's gone out completely, leaving the SPD floundering in the mud. The party will need to re-invent itself and look at ways of winning back the non-voters if it is to make any progress in the next two decades.

Anna T. on "Latvia’s crisis: the Swedish factor "

Anna T. — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:01:47 +0000

Find out social consequences of global crisis in Latvia in Katya' s blog http://www.rigacityonline.com/node/70