AMERICA IS NOT THE PROBLEM (AINTP)

SPIRALLING, SPIRALLING

2005-02-24T14:22:00.000+11:00

SPIRALLING, SPIRALLING
24 February 2005

There is a spiralling debate occuring on the following weblog about Australia's additional military committment to Iraq. http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/02/23/wading-back-into-the-big-muddy/#comments

Read how opponents to promoting democracy in Iraq are quoting Heath Ledger of all people!

2005-02-24T13:38:00.000+11:00

2005-02-24T13:21:00.000+11:00

2005-02-23T12:37:00.000+11:00

Who Links Here

THANKS

2005-02-21T19:41:00.000+11:00

THANK YOU

Thank you for all the people who have read and of course continue to read this blog.

In addition, a number have forwarded on their email address in order to receive notification of updates to the blog.

The response to the blog has been much appreciated, and continues to grow.

In the next few weeks, we will publish our web metrics outlining readership levels.

Should you wish to receive email notifications please email robertomelbourne1@bigpond.com

WHO ARE YOU GOING TO CALL?

2005-02-21T19:27:00.000+11:00

Readers are invited to view two articles published examining America's role in the world.

Stephen Barton at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3021 writes that "... midwife and godparent is the United States."

Alexander Deane at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3041 ends his think piece to US critics: "You may sit in the comparative luxury of your home and smugly condemn America’s attempts to spread a way of life you take for granted. You live in a society fortunate enough not to need its help. Spare a thought for those that do."

Both writers have made very brave attempts, and despite their efforts they are going to find that they will be howled down.

The US is in an in enviable position. If the US acts, it's acting imperially and out of ('corporate') self interest. If the US does not act, then the rants and squeals follow about the US not acting and not behaving as the world's policeman!

At the end of the day, the US is the world's only real super power, both economically and military - the PRC is still a long way off. At the end of the day, when there is a crisis, who are you going to call?

HISTORY LESSON: SYRIA & LEBANON

2005-02-17T20:41:00.000+11:00

17 February 2005

Daniel Engber in Slate.com prepared a short, but concise history of the relationship between Lebanon and Syria. This is particuarly pertinent given the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Read the article at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2113567/

COUNTER-TERRORISM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: 'RIYADH DECLARATION'

2005-02-17T15:26:00.000+11:00

17 February 2005

COUNTER-TERRORISM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: 'RIYADH DECLARATION'

On the 8th of February 2005, the Counter-Terrorism International Conference released its communiqué titled the 'Riyadh Declaration'.

See http://www.saudiembassy.net/2005News/Statements/StateDetail.asp?cIndex=498

And the main output of the communiqué. To quote: “A task force has been formed to crystallize this proposal.” And what is that proposal? Well, it's for the establishment of an international center for combating terrorism.

If you read the communiqué, its reads as if all the delegates had a great time, and came away full of warmth for humanity. Nice!

So what is this Centre of Combating Terrorism? What will it exactly do? Who will fund it? How will it be managed? What are its scope and terms of reference? Is it policy focussed, advisory? Can it recommend police and or military actions? Where will it be based?

Some of the questions are answered at http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=12635

The article states: “The "Riyadh Declaration" did not say where the center would be based, but the head of one delegation at the four-day meeting in the Saudi capital had earlier said it would be set up in Switzerland. … The center, staffed by counter-terrorism experts, would exchange and pass information instantly in a manner compatible with the speed of events and prevent them (terror attacks) before they occur.” But doesn’t this happen anyway, through Interpol, and state spy agenies?

The Declaration formally ends with: “The Declaration emphasized the importance of spreading virtuous human values and the spirit of tolerance and coexistence, urging the media to refrain from publishing information materials that call for extremism and violence.” So it calls for censorship!

In all, the reader is left with nothing more than a warm inner glow and not much more substance to work with. It is a pity that the Declaration was not more imminent and forthright.

A full copy of the declaration is provided below:

Counter-Terrorism International Conference: 'Riyadh Declaration'
The Counter-Terrorism International Conference held in Riyadh February 5-8, 2005, issued a final communiqué on February 8, to be known as the 'Riyadh Declaration'.

The Riyadh Declaration stresses that no international effort will be capable of effective confrontation with the phenomenon of terrorism unless there is cooperation and a comprehensive strategic perspective to deal with it. Within this framework, the countries and organizations support and adopt the proposal of Deputy Prime Minister and Commander of the National Guard Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, referred to in his opening address to the Conference, for the establishment of an international center for combating terrorism. A task force has been formed to crystallize this proposal.

The communiqué praised the spirit of understanding and cooperation that prevailed during the conference, and the unanimity of vision and stance concerning the danger of the phenomenon of terrorism and the necessity of confronting it by long-term, united, and organized international efforts. These efforts must respect the principles of the United Nations, particularly those regulations governing human rights that enhance its inherent role, in adopting a comprehensive and multilateral approach. The Conference affirmed that terrorism constantly threatens peace, security and stability, and that there is no justification whatsoever for terrorist acts, which are always condemned whatever their circumstances or alleged motives might be.

The Declaration emphasized the importance of enhancing the values of understanding, tolerance, dialogue, and multilateralism, becoming acquainted with other peoples, bringing cultures together, rejecting any clash of civilizations, and combating any ideology that calls for hatred, instigates violence, or justifies the terrorist crimes that are denounced by all religions and laws.

The Conference affirmed that terrorism has no particular religion, race, nationality or geographical area. In this context, it stressed that any attempt to link terrorism with any religion is helpful only to the terrorists.

The countries and organizations participating in the Conference emphasized their commitment to the United Nations resolutions that relate to combating terrorism, calling on the international community to condemn terrorism, combat it by all means available, and confront it in every way in accordance with the United Nations Charter, since terrorist acts threaten international peace and security.

The Declaration stressed that the United Nations is the basic platform for the enhancement of international cooperation against terrorism, that the relevant UN Security Council resolutions form a firm and comprehensive basis for combating terrorism internationally, and that all countries should fully comply with these resolutions. It called on all countries to join, ratify and implement the twelve international treaties on combating terrorism.

The Declaration called for the promotion of self-effort aimed at expanding political participation, achieving sustainable development, meeting the requirements of the social equilibrium, and activating the role of civil institutions, in order to confront the circumstances that are conducive to the spread of violence and deviant ideas. It emphasized the role of the mass media, civil institutions and educational systems in forging strategies to confront terrorist allegations and encouraging the press to set down guidelines for information and news reports.

The Conference demanded that the United Nations develop criteria to facilitate non-profit, charitable and humanitarian organizations in carrying out their roles organizing relief work, and to prevent their exploitation in illegal activities.
The Declaration called for cooperation at national, bilateral, and regional level among specializing bodies for in the fight against not only terrorism, but money laundering, trafficking in weapons and explosives, and smuggling drugs, in order to exchange their expertise and experience, including training, and ensure their effectiveness in confronting terrorist links to organized crime. It stressed the need to strengthen international measures aimed at preventing terrorists from possessing weapons of mass destruction, and to support the role of the United Nations in this respect, including full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1540. It called for supporting and assisting countries, upon their request, in the field of combating terrorism particularly in providing equipment and training and building up their capabilities.

The countries and organizations participating in the Conference called for the development of legislation and measures to prevent terrorists from exploiting the laws of asylum and immigration in order to obtain a safe haven in certain countries or use the territories of these countries as bases for recruitment or training, or for planning, instigating or launching acts of terrorism against other countries.
The Declaration emphasized the importance of spreading virtuous human values and the spirit of tolerance and coexistence, urging the media to refrain from publishing information materials that call for extremism and violence.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan

2005-02-16T21:02:00.000+11:00

16 February 2005

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Director of International Studies and Chair, Political Science Department at Adrian College in Michigan, and is a noted expert on the Middle East and Islamic affairs.

He has his own website at http://www.ijtihad.org/Iraqi%20Elections.htm

While I think he may be too pessimistic in his assessment, I recommend his site to you. We were drawn to his following commentary.

"While the Sunnis of Iraq are fighting a violent Jihad against US occupation and opposing democratization to prevent Shiite hegemony over Iraq, the Shiites are engaged in their own silent Jihad. It is quite possible that the US led invasion of Iraq has replaced an overt and brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein with a covert and subtle dictatorship by Marja-e-Taqleed [Role Model for Emulation] Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani who is the highest-ranking Shiite authority on the planet."

DEALING IN PEACE (2), IRAQI ELECTIONS AND THE LEBANON

2005-02-15T21:44:00.000+11:00

15 February 2005

DEALING IN PEACE (2)
As if the peace process could not be any more difficult, reports are circulating that Hezbollah have published a threat to assassinate Palestinian President Abbas if he continues with the peace negotiations with Israel. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/13/1108229853462.html)

Hamas on the other hand are playing their cards close to their chest, by adhering at least to the initial requests for a cease-fire, with the active provision that if Israel ‘attacks’ Hamas will respond.

IRAQI ELECTIONS

The Iraqi Electoral Commission released figures concerning the results of the national elections. The final tallies are still to be tabulated, but as expected, the Shias and the Kurds were the most represented ethnic groups. How those arrangements play out with or without the Sunnis is still to be tested, the most interesting finding is that approximately 60% of all Iraqis or 8.5 million people cast their votes. The total registered voter number was just over 14 million. (http://afr.com/premium/articles/2005/02/14/1108229928871.html)

IN THE LEBANON

The brutal assassination of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri was a tragic return to bestial politics, ‘Lebanon style’.

The country has made continual and steady progress (as commented before on this blog) towards normalcy. Not only the assassination, but also the manner and style it was undertaken suggests that not is all well below the surface.

There have been suggestions mooted that Hariri was killed because he was leading the move to call on the Syrian army to finally leave Lebanon. Syrian occupation of the country forced an end to the tribal civil war that ravaged the country. And during occupation, Lebanon reclaimed its economic independence and was fast tracking itself towards becoming a successful emerging economy in the region.

However, the Syrians had never made public their ‘exit timeframe’ from Lebanon. The Syrians have for centuries viewed Lebanon as part of greater Syria, and it has been further mooted that Syria may have had a roll in the assassination of Hariri in order to reduce the internal political movement towards liberation.

MAMDOUH HABIB'S INTERVIEW ON AUSTRALIAN 60 MINUTES

2005-02-15T14:15:00.000+11:00

MAMDOUH HABIB'S INTERVIEW ON AUSTRALIAN 60 MINUTES

Follow the discussion on John Quiggin's blog about Mr HABIB'S Interview on Australian televisions' 60 Minutes programme.

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/02/15/habibs-day-in-court

DEALING IN PEACE, BACKGROUND NOISE, & READINGS

2005-02-14T23:53:00.000+11:00

14 February 2005

DEALING IN PEACE

Well, the peace process is back on again!

After an immediate rocky start immediately following the Palestinian election, in which the Israeli government indicated that Abbas was not controlling the actions and rhetoric of Hamas and other similar groups, the Israeli’s appeared to have ‘re-warmed’ to Abbas; well at least for now.

A good synopsis of developments can be found at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3643056

The success and I guess the failure of the peace process rests with not so much with whether the Israelis will give ‘diplomatic’ ground. The tipping point is whether Abbas can hold the Palestinian side together. There are a number of issues Abbas faces.

1. He is following in Arafat’s political and, too a degree ideological, wake. A tough ask for anyone, particularly as Arafat was such an all consuming political and larger than life figure in the Palestinian mindset, who consumed as much political oxygen as possible, leaving very little breathable air for a future successor, or rival. Abbas will find the rush of oxygen very challenging.
2. Abbas is a committed secularist. Hamas and Al Qaeda are committed not just to confronting Western secularist ideals and governance, but are equally odious of Arabic secular regimes.
3. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah have effectively been let off the leash for so long by the Palestinian Authority, that it will be near impossible to reign them in, and at least to comply with any prospective peace deal. A peace deal with an accommodating cease-fire will mean a reduction in political power for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. Ultimately, despite whatever concessions Israel affords, the militant groups ultimately will view them cynically, after all the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable.

But at least, the agreement struck between the Israeli’s with Palestine, supported by Jordan and Egypt offer a key structure to work with, rather than empty rhetoric. But time will of course be the judge, as history shows peace deals in the Middle East are not very elastic or durable – unfortunately. The details of the recent agreement include:

“1. Ceasefire: Abbas said Palestinians will halt all violence against Israelis. Sharon said Israel will stop military activity against all Palestinians. Israel would also stop its controversial targeted killing operations against wanted Palestinians, as long as the Palestinians kept militants under control.
After Sharon's declaration of an end to military operations, the two sides would go back to operating as they did before the 2000 outbreak of fighting: In Palestinian-controlled areas, including most of Gaza and eventually most West Bank towns, the Israelis would coordinate with Palestinian security forces if they wanted to arrest someone.
2. Prisoners: Israel will immediately release 500 Palestinian prisoners as a goodwill gesture, with another 400 to be freed later.
3. Cooperation: They agreed to establish joint committees - one to determine criteria for the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, and the other to oversee the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian cities in the West Bank.
4. Ambassadors: Egypt and Jordan say they will return their ambassadors to Israel. The diplomats were recalled following the outbreak of violence in late 2000.” (source: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/09/1107890234982.html)

BACKGROUND NOISE

A number of reports have been circulating, at its worth spending some time reviewing them, and letting the reader determine how unpredictable extremists are.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Extremists-make-barbers-new-hunted/2005/02/08/1107625213521.html
- A report appeared that the insurgents in Iraq continue to target innocent civilians in their bombing and assassination campaign. This link records the details of a young barber that was murdered, for theological reasons!

- More reports have continued on Amar Ahmed Mohammed, a young man with down syndrome who was unwittingly sent to his death by the insurgents who strapped explosives to his body. http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Seduction-of-an-unwitting-suicide-bomber/2005/02/08/1107625213466.html

READINGS

We have received requests for book recommendations we suggest readers obtain in order to get an understanding of the Middle East.

There are many books we could recommend. And over the next few weeks we will provide an inclusive list. To start off with, the following are useful

1. Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, by Rohan Gunaratna. Probably, the most current, digestible, and detailed account of the entire operations and mindset of Al Qaeda.
2. The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold by Robert D. Kaplan. Kaplan is an authority on the Middle East, and this book provides a serious, and at times confronting sense of violence that groups such as Al Qaeda invest in.
3. Why Terrorism Works by Alan M. Dershowitz. The book details the history of terrorist movements, particularly that of the PLO, and clearly suggests that violence and politically driven terrorist acts has worked in achieving the aims and ambitions of terrorists. However sobering, Dershowitz does progress a number of enlightened and clever strategies to overcome the threats.

More to come in the next few weeks.

COUNTER TERRORISM TALK FEST, LOSING FAITH, THE UN AGAIN! & A THANK YOU

2005-02-06T20:15:00.000+11:00

COUNTER TERRORISM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
In early February, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is hosting the Counter Terrorism International Conference.

The Conference is an important development for the Kingdom, if in fact it is serious in managing its internal security fears concerning Al Qaeda and related groups operating in the Kingdom.

The issue for the Kingdom is that not only must it come to grips with its internal situation, but it must also show to the international community that it is in fact taking control, and minimizing the threat, not only to its own governance structure, but as a platform (financial, resources, philosophical) for the rest of the region.

As reported (see http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1107575179114) the Saudis have particular governance problems to overcome such as the lack of participatory democracy and transparency in decision making, coupled to particular people movement problems which make the issue of counter terrorism command and control increasingly difficult. In 2004 a report found that: “…Saudi border guards have detained nearly 1 million people attempting to enter illegally into the kingdom and seized more than 10 tons of drugs and 2,000 weapons. Some 30,000 men were detained in the Yemeni border area in July 2004 alone, the report said. In all, 19,000 smuggling attempts were foiled and 8,000 smugglers arrested, it said.”

LOSING FAITH
The London The Times reported about the fate of British Muslims converting to other faiths, in particular to Christianity. The Times wrote gravely that: “While Christians who turn to Islam are feted, the 200,000 Muslims who turn away are faced with abuse, violence and even murder.” (see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1470584,00.html)
The article goes on further: “While those who convert to Islam, such as Cat Stevens, Jemima Khan, and the sons of the Frank Dobson, the former Health Secretary, and Lord Birt, the former BBC Director-General, can publicly celebrate their new religion, those whose faith goes in the other direction face persecution. Mr Hussein, a 39-year-old hospital nurse in Bradford, is one of a growing number of former Muslims in Britain who face not just being shunned by family and community, but attacked, kidnapped, and in some cases killed. There is even a secret underground network to support and protect those who leave Islam. One estimate suggests that as many as 15 per cent of Muslims in Western societies have lost their faith, which would mean that in Britain there are about 200,000 apostates. … Muslims who lose their faith face execution or imprisonment, in line with traditional Muslim teaching, in many Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Yemen. In the Netherlands, the former Muslim MP Ayan Hirsi Ali had to go into hiding after renouncing her faith on television.”
The particular dilemma that this raises is that in Western multicultural nations, such as Britain, the US, Australia, Canada, the provision by the general community to enable minority groups to practice (in real estate speak) in ‘quiet enjoyment’, is one of the great achievements of Western political, democratic philosophy. However, if minority groups in their practical operations fly in the face of that philosophy and do not in turn allow their community members to make their own cultural and religious choices, places incredible pressures and strains on multicultural practice. In the end, the general community is faced with increasing and unavoidable choices: either ignore the ‘prejudice’ or ‘counter it’. By delaying the choice for action, to make it clear and plain that multiculturalism must be cherished and practiced by all society members, leaves dramatic positive change much more painful and antagonistic and leading to sectional resentment. In other words – don’t leave it too late!

THE UN AGAIN!
If the future of the UN has been predetermined by Islamist terrorists, it was certainly confirmed by the comments in a speech by bin Laden, citing the UN as "...an organization of infidel [countries] that shapes the nature of the relations between the lords of the veto, headed by America, and the slaves of the General Assembly, and then speaks mendaciously and distortingly of justice, equality, and freedom." (see: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP83704)

What more can be said!

THANK YOU
Thank you for all the people who have read and of course continue to read this web blog.

In addition, a number have forwarded on their email address in order to receive notification of updates to the blog.

The response to the blog has been much appreciated, and continues to grow. In the next few weeks, we will publish our web metrics outlining readership levels.

Should you wish to receive email notifications please email robertomelbourne1@bigpond.com

IRAN, CRIME & THE UN

2005-02-05T18:08:00.000+11:00

5 February 2005

IRAN

Is Iran developing a military enabled, nuclear armament programme?

The question is increasingly appearing to be redundant. The fact that the European Union 3, has been in active negotiation with the Iranians to publicly disclose the full nature and extent of its programme and developing capabilities is strongly suggestive that the Iranians are ‘up to no good’ on this issue. The lack of clear disclosure by the Iranian shouldn’t be unexpected or a surprise, as it is in line with many years of international deceit and deception in terms of its international statements and actions since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

The issue has obviously attracted the attention of the United States. Israel is of course in the background, and given its capability and history (re: the attack on the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme). But in a short time, the ability of Iran (if unchecked) to cast a nuclear shadow over the region as a political as much as military threat, will have to bring out the regional governments – the Saudis, Kuwaitis, the Gulf nations – to bring strong and persistent diplomatic pressure to bear on Iran to at best stop its programme or as a minimum at least disclose publicly what they are up to.

At face value, there are a number of questions that Iran has still to answer, even if there is acceptance that the nuclear programme they are developing is to meet purely civilian energy requirements and demands.

1. In a region resplendent in natural energy resources such as oil and gas, why the need for a nuclear programme?
2. How will the Iranians process their nuclear waste? Where will it be stored? What environmental audit and controls have they enacted with regards storage?
3. Iran regularly experiences earthquakes. What provisions (if any) have the Iranians implemented to minimize the impact from an earthquake on a nuclear reactor(s)?
4. From which country(s) will the Iranians be sourcing their unprocessed uranium?

Finally, concerning Bushes’ State of the Union address’ comments on Iran, the Iranian government controlled media made the interesting comment:
“Why is Bush only interested in promoting democracy in oil-rich regions?” (source http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12149830%255E2703,00.html) This is a very interesting comment, which has gone without comment. By asking why is Bush only interested in promoting democracy in oil rich regions, the Iranians have admitted that there is no democracy in that region. But it’s also interesting that in the recent State of the Union, Bush also in respect of US allies such as Egypt and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia said:
The government of Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in determining their future. And the great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.

Crime and Terrorist links
Paul McGeough prepared a fascinating article (see link http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/04/1107476802323.html) documenting the issue of crime and the insurgents in Iraq.

The suggestion that the insurgent/terrorists are fuelling their energies and activities on religious faith alone, has been long over due for refutation.

The terrorists have long used foreign exchange markets, the billion (USD) dollar trade in counterfeit goods, and the facility of the internet, to fund and promote their campaigns. The rampant theft that has occurred in Iraq provides significant capital funding and ready laundered cash.

The terrorist network that the West finds itself exposed to, is calculating and resourceful. The book Inside Al Qaeda by Rohan Gunaratna, provides an extensive audit of Al Qaeda and its financial and bureaucratic capacities. The terrorists, despite deriding the technological (and cultural) advancements of the West, find no moral or intellectual contradiction in using Western initiatives and resources to progress their cause – particularly United States denominated currency.

The UN & the Middle East
The United Nations has long had a troubled history in the Middle East. The recent public report into the UN’s handling of the Oil for Food programme in Iraq (a programme that involved the management of $US67 billion of related activities), is testament to a body that has probably reached the end of its working life.

The fundamental problem for the UN, goes beyond mere structural reforms, but goes to its very heart. The UN is just a body representative of national governments. In itself it has no power, no authority, and no internally driven capacity to enact change, to progress democracy, to furnish the advancement of human rights.

Those abilities rest with national governments, and the UN can only undertake those functions if commissioned by the General Assembly, and in particular the Security Council.

With regards to Iraq, the UN was found to be very, very wanting. In respect to the audit of the oil for food programme, the audit into the programme found that:
The oil-for-food program, which began in December 1996 and ended in November 2003, allowed Saddam Hussein's government to sell oil in order to buy humanitarian goods. It was intended to ease the hardship of ordinary Iraqis under UN sanctions, imposed in mid-1990.
But since the US invasion of Iraq, documents have emerged that show Saddam Hussein skimming funds from the program, illegally selling oil outside the program, often with the knowledge of big powers on the Security Council, and bribing a variety of officials around the world. (see The Age: UN official 'got oil kickbacks during aid program' Feb 5, 2005)
The other serious concern, still yet to be addressed by the international community is that ultimately the international Coalition that set about the liberation of Iraq were ultimately enforcing the resolutions confirmed by UN such as resolution 1441. The difficult for the UN was and remains that it effectively opposed its own resolution(s) when the international Coalition set about its mission in Iraq.

For more on the criticism of the UN, its worth reading the book We Did Nothing by Dutch journalist Linda Polman. Granted it’s not a terribly well written book (perhaps suffering from the translation into English) but nonetheless important comments and issues are raised about the activities, usefulness and future effectiveness of the UN.

Another Day

2005-02-02T14:13:00.000+11:00

The Sunnis
The issue of how best to integrate moderate Sunni leaders into the post election environment appears to be the all-consuming issue.

It is apparent that the Shia’s though embracing the election have used it to promulgate and support leading religious leaders into the political process. After all, Iran backed the holding of the elections. Rather ironic sine it has virtually excluded moderates from its own Parliamentary system.

Not much as been reported about the Kurds and how the election went for them.

The Sunnis are rather trapped as the buffer zone between traditional rivalry with the Shia’s and the Kurdish provinces that appear moving (slowly mind you) towards asserting a position of independence, which will inevitably drag in an angry Turkey.

The compounding issue for the Sunnis is indeed real internal pressures also within their community. There are the secularists versus the theocrats (insurgents? See the Muslim Clerics Association), and the Baathists/Saddam loyalists vs. the participatory democrats.

Will this all lead to civil war? My gut hunch is that it will not. At the end of the day, all three communities of Iraq need each other, structurally. The Shia’s have the manpower and access to oil reserves, the Sunnis the administrative and governance culture, and the Kurds the oil wealth of the north and the trade routes to Western and Eastern Europe.

Where there will be a ‘war’ of sorts is eventually to occur on and to the insurgents. The simple fact that their strategy of attacking military personnel has failed from a PR perspective, and has had limited military success. They then have turned increasingly towards maiming and killing innocent Iraqis whose only transgression apparently was standing in job queues, or shopping at food markets. And they have really struck a low blow (surely even their most committed of adherent would acknowledge) when they strapped explosives to the body of Amar Ahmed Mohammed who was 19 years old and had Down Syndrome and sent him to his death. http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Handicapped-boy-made-into-bomb/2005/02/01/1107228705132.html
And after all that, what have they achieved, but continued toi cause the Iraqi people continued missery, and hardship.

Beirut
Terrific article in the press about travel opportunities and tourist activities in Beirut. Since the end of the Lebanon civil war, Beirut in particular has flourished, with an extensive sea side building boom, restoring this great historical city to its once great beauty.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/28/1106850092882.html

Not intending to flame
A contributor – see link http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2987
wrote in a circumlocutory manner about…. Well, I still don’t understand what it was about! Please see the link above for the article. If someone could please explain it, please could you let me know!

I posted my comments in response.
Scott, lots of words mate, but at the end its still a piece of intellectual drivel.

How is Rushdie 'demonising' Islam? His work was that of fiction! Its purpose was ultimately literary entertainment, rather than a public exploration of Islam and its tenets. Is his reward for producing fiction, the imposition of a death penalty on his head which has still yet to be revoked!

The conjecture around the Huntington book is typical of people who have not read it. The supposition drawn from the title creates all types of conspiracy thinking. Since publication the Huntington book has declined in prominence in the West, as the assertion took hold that it was the predominantly Christian-Judeo (and can I add secular) West that was confronting Islamic societies. However, if you look at Al Qaeda they are the ones propagating the 'clash of civilisation' arguments. There response to the Iraqi elections is a case in point.

If you wish to be notified by email of updates to this blog, please email robertomelbourne1@bigpond.com with the text SUBSCRIBE in the subject heading of your email.

Your email address will not be disclosed to third parties.

To unsubscribe please email robertomelbourne1@bigpond.com with the text UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject heading of your email.

Thank you

2005-02-01T14:52:00.000+11:00

If you wish to be notified by email of updates to this blog, please email robertomelbourne1@bigpond.com with the text SUBSCRIBE in the subject heading of your email.

Your email address will not be disclosed to third parties.

To unsubscribe please email robertomelbourne1@bigpond.com with the text UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject heading of your email.

Thank you

POST ELECTION DAY – IRAQ (2)

2005-02-01T14:10:00.000+11:00

1 Feb 05

POST ELECTION DAY – IRAQ (2)
The news today continues with the post-election analysis, and what it means.

Overall, the response has been positive. The fact that the Iraqis boldly made the proclamation for themselves that participatory democracy was a ‘good thing’, is overwhelmingly encouraging.

There are still critics, mostly in the West it seems, who continue to dismiss aggressively the holding of the election. Their arguments are many. Often the arguments and assertions include cultural biases, such as the Iraqis are not culturally mature or ready to run participative democracy.

I guess the real issue to consider is that despite all the attention focussed on the limited and self-destructive philosophy of the insurgents, and given this background, the elections by any measure were even more resoundingly successful.

Fred Kaplan writing in Slate http://slate.msn.com/id/2112885/ writes eloquently about the success that the elections will have for Iraq and flow-ons to the rest of the region. Kaplan writes:
Few sights are more stirring than the televised images of Iraqi citizens risking their lives to vote in their country's first election in a half-century, kissing the ballot boxes, dancing in the streets, and declaring their hopes for a new day of democracy.
And yet, the challenges and uncertainties that seemed so daunting last week about Iraq's security, society, and governance are unlikely to turn less daunting next week, next month, or the month after.
Kaplan ends by writing:
Finally, imagine a Syrian watching Al-Arabiya, seeing Iraqi-born Syrians going to special polling places to elect Iraqi leaders, observing that no Syrians of any sort have the right to elect the leaders of Syria and perhaps asking himself, "Why?" It is not inconceivable that this flicker of democratic practice in Iraq could ignite a flame of some sort across the Middle East. To what end, and for ultimate good or ill, who knows. But something happened in Iraq today, something not only dramatic and stirring but perhaps also very big.

Gerard Henderson, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/31/1107020327547.html also writes about the achievement of the election, pointing out the foibles of the hard left that took a political position based on simple intransigence and sloganeering – ‘an enemy of America is a friend’. The question that must be asked is – but don’t expect a cogent reply – how will the hard left respond to the election, and will they continue their position of ridicule and conspiracy?

Al-Jazeera
There was a report http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/31/1107020330406.html recording that Al-Jazeera registered a global top ten position in terms of brand recognition.

The list of brands included:
1. Apple
2. Google
3. Ikea
4. Starbucks
5. Al-Jazeera
6. Mini
7. Coca-Cola
8. Virgin
9. eBay
10. Nokia

Al-Jazeera has been on the more remarkable media success stories in recent years. The ability to produce independent from government media commentary and analysis (particuarly focussing on the Middle East) is to be congratulated. Hopefully, the success of Al-Jazeera will enable governments across the region to enable Al-Jazeera and other media entities to establish services and continue to operate freely.

POST ELECTION DAY – IRAQ

2005-01-31T18:00:00.000+11:00

1 January 2005
POST ELECTION DAY – IRAQ
To quote Simon Le Bon, singing the song ‘Election Day’ from Arcadia’s long underrated ‘So red the rose’ album, "…Maximum big surprise, your smile is something new’.
Well, despite killing more than 37 innocents, the ‘insurgents’ failed to dissuade Iraqis that the election should be avoided. However they continue to post hysterical warnings, such as from the Zarqawi threatening: "For the last time, we warn that [Sunday] will be bloody for the Christians and Jews and their mercenaries and whoever takes part in the [election] game of America and Allawi." http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Defiant-Iraqis-brave-the-bombers/2005/01/30/1107020265345.html . Hey Zarqawi, haven’t you forgotten the Buddhists, the Hindus and Sikhs, Aethists and Agnostics that oppose what you are doing!

Despite this, the body administering the elections that the national turnout could be over 70 percent.

The Shia’s spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, congratulated Iraqis on turning out.

GW, said the obvious: "In great numbers and under great risk, Iraqis have shown their commitment to democracy. By participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists".
A synopsis of major and significant world leaders comments can be read here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Fear-and-hope-leaders-praise-Iraq-vote/2005/01/31/1107020295971.html

AMERICA IS NOT THE PROBLEM (AINTP)

2005-01-30T21:29:00.000+11:00

AMERICA IS NOT THE PROBLEM (AINTP)

USEFUL LINKS

2005-01-30T21:24:00.002+11:00

USEFUL LINKS

Crikey.com: Australia’s probably most talked about internet based political and business commentary. http://www.crikey.com.au/

The Economist: Probably the best international and most concise commentary. http://www.economist.com/

Slate: Left leaning, very interesting and varied commentary, with a wide range of contributors, including Christopher Hitchens. http://slate.msn.com/

Christian Science Monitor: US based e-journal of the hardcopy. Very good coverage, and don’t let the title put you off. http://www.csmonitor.com/

The Onion: Brilliant, satirical political and social commentary. http://www.theonion.com/

MEMRI: Provision of English translations of Arab language-based broadcasts and commentary on political matters. http://memri.info/

Other links to follow (30 January 2005)

WHAT IS THIS BLOG ABOUT – AND THE NEED FOR IT

2005-01-30T21:24:00.001+11:00

30/1/2005
WHAT IS THIS BLOG ABOUT – AND THE NEED FOR IT
My name is Roberto.

I’ve been mulling the idea for some time, of writing a blog, with particular focus on the Middle East, with direct reference to its politics and its history. Of course, the politics of the Middle East has incurred extensive media attention in recent years, arising from the consequences of September 11, 2001.
But the Middle East has certainly been the subject of other sporadic media attention, particularly coverage of events arising from the Israel vs. Palestine confrontation, the theocratic fascism of Iran, and the in clandestine subtlety of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s ‘closed-door’ governance.

I’ve taken a strong interest in Middle Eastern affairs in recent years, recognizing the beauty of its intellectual culture, its precise and rich history, and its people. However, in recent years, the Middle East is becoming (if not already be) virtually hostage to a theocratic, fascism murderous sect, known as the terrorists (or the euphemistically called the ‘insurgents’ Iraq) most notably known as Al Qaeda.

In analysis of this fundamentally complex issue, the common response is to somehow (and as often as possible blame the United States). The problems faced by the Middle East – and there are many – are only a result of Middle Eastern cultural responses, poor political and economic choices, and intellectual stubbornness.
Its time, not to point the finger of blame, but time to start to properly consider, appraise, and find solutions for the Middle East, and done in conjunction with the peoples of the Middle East, other wise the rest of the world (and I don’t limit it to just the West) to work strenuously and efficaciously to assist the peoples of the Middle East to work hard and fast towards a liberal democratic mandate, and inevitably peace.

I welcome your thoughts and views on any of the issues, comments and views expressed via this blog. I look forward to receiving your comments and views. Please contact me via the email address: robertomelbourne1@bigpond.com

Thank you.

2005-01-30T21:24:00.000+11:00

30/1/2005

IRAQ – TO VOTE OR NOT VOTE – PLEASE, PLEASE DO
I write this on the eve of the elections in Iraq. Unlike, many in the media, and I must say many of my friends, I’ve held the view that the elections will not end up the ‘disaster’ anticipated.

I only have a hunch, and I could be proved wrong, but I doubt it – I have too much faith in the common decency of the Iraq people and their inherent and obvious desire to make the quantum jump to representative democracy. It’s heartening to learn that 13 million people have registered for the election. Go guys.

While the elections serve to elect an effective representative body that will then go to work to develop constitutional and governance frameworks, it’s an important key step in the democratization project. Best of luck to Iraq. Let’s hope that it’s peaceful and orderly, and the Iraq people are allowed the decency to determine how they want to be governed and not lectured to via the indiscriminate targeting of car bombs and suicide bombings.

WALK DON’T RUSH
Henry Kissinger and George Shultz jointly co-wrote an article commenting on the Coalitions’ position in Iraq titled: “Don't rush the exit plan”. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12070796%5E7583,00.html

The article covers a number of important themes and issues, including the relatively new concern about the potential for a civil war, primarily between the minority Sunnis and the majority Shia’s.

Kissinger and Shultz state that: “A pluralistic Shiva-led society would indeed be a happy outcome. But we must take care not to base policy on the wish becoming the father of the thought. If a democratic process is to unify Iraq peacefully, a great deal depends on how the Shiva majority defines majority rule. So far the subtle Shiva leaders, hardened by having survived decades of Saddam's tyranny, have taken pains not to clarify their goals.”

Certainly all parties to the elections are using it for internal political purposes. The Shias, in the main, and looking forward to the elections in order to maximize their voter turnout to translate into directly held seats in the new assembly. The Sunnis, ravaged by the ‘insurgents’ are traumatized into staying away. The Kurds – why are they so quiet. I guess they may be viewing their own status as at least an autonomous impendent region of a federally structured Iraq.

But at least, the battle that must come in the reallotment of political power – from Sunni to Kurd and Shia – is best placed to occur through a ballot box, and not the gun.

Is a civil war otherwise likely in Iraq. Its certainly appears to the best bet laid by the usual suspect of journalists. But I take the view, that the mainstream media are running this line because at the end of the day they 1. don’t really know enough about the subject, and 2. fear sells papers, and advertising space on commercial television.

But the real issue is that ultimately, Iraq in civil war is in no one’s interest: not Iran’s, Syria’s’, certainly not Jordan’s, the Saudi’s nor the Kuwaitis. Imagine the size of the political black hole that it would create. However, rather than being a negative, it way be a positive for the West. Imagine, as per know, Al-Qaeda sucked into Iraq participating in an enduring civil war, leaving the West relatively free from their tentacles! It sounds harsh I know, but the West would strategically be better off if this was the case, even with the relative threat to oil supplies. To preserve their geographic integrity the Saudi’s and the Kuwaitis would reinforce their own internal anti-Al Qaeda campaigns flushing out the threat, leaving oil supplies relatively secure.

Money!!!
The cost of the US’s participation in IRAQ and Afghanistan is set to fiscally escalate, with the US President set to ask Congress for an extra $80bUSD. See http://www.theage.com.au/news/War-on-Terror/Cost-of-war-set-to-top-390bn/2005/01/26/1106415662315.html

The Sydney Morning Herald writes that: “If approved by Congress, the cost of the wars in Iraq - in which the bulk of the money has been spent - and Afghanistan, will exceed $US300 billion ($A390 billion) so far and more than $US100 billion for 2005. Congress agreed to another $US25 billion in new funding late last year. Administration officials said they seriously underestimated the cost of the Iraq war, which is now about half the cost in today's dollars of the decade-long Vietnam War.”

This additional outlay, will add minor, but nonetheless additional pressure to the US Government’s debt levels.

MMMM!: Did he really read it?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2112699/
An interesting article in Slate, about a book that GW has claimed to be an important analysis of Middle East foreign affairs. The article goes on to prove (I have not read the book) that the book in question, The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky's book, is quite critical of the US President’s position. See the article for further details. If the analysis is correct, which I don’t doubt, the counter argument needs to be presented by GW (or his staffers/advisers) what was in the book that warranted a Presidential recommendation. I’m sure there must be something, or things!!!

DFAT ON THE UK!
Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has updated its travel advice for the UK, urging Australian tourists to be alert to suspicious activities. Be alert in other words.

I’ve been to London many times for work and personal, and lived there for a year in 1991-1992, when the IRA were running about the place bombing military strategic targets like shopping centres and tube stations. But have DFAT gone overboard a little bit. The advice goes on to state: "Police have warned the public to be vigilant at cinemas, theatres, pubs and nightclubs and on all types of public transport, including the London Underground system and buses…Australians in the United Kingdom are advised to be alert to their own security… As you would in Australia, use common sense and be alert to suspicious activities."

Sensible stuff mum!

Bugger, where’s that fridge magnet when you need it. (For non-Australians email me for the punch line to this joke!) J

I-RAN, I-RAN SO FAR AWAY!!!! COULDN’T GET AWAY*
*From the Flock of Seagulls pop song.

Well IRAN continues to play silly buggers with the world, over its nuclear activities. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/dailyUpdate.html. What I don’t understand is that IRAN is only a bit better than a LDC – less developed country, sitting next door to the world’s largest oil reserves in the world. Why go nuclear guys???? Surely, its not just about legitimate use of the energy source for peaceful means. If it is, why so secret guys, why play the Europeans so tactically craftily? Where there is smoke there is fire – nuclear fire!!!

Any where are all the nuclear disbarment peaceniks from yesteryear – why aren’t they camped outside the embassies of Iran. Sorry, I forgot, it’s not politically correct to protest a third world, fascist regime, seeking to arm itself with thermonuclear weapons. After all, given that they are a third world, fascist regime, they wouldn’t listen.

FINALLY
I welcome your thoughts and views on any of the issues, comments and views expressed via this blog. I look forward to receiving your comments and views. I will also publish a selection of comments and views received.

The preparation of this blog is totally voluntary, with all costs paid for by the author. Should you wish to make a small contribution, please see the relevant link. Your contributions will assist the author with sourcing further materials for publication on this blog.

Please contact me via the email address: robertomelbourne1@bigpond.com