Brit Broadcasting Conservatism

ME news round-up

2004-09-30T14:44:00.000+01:00

Egypt to host meeting on Iraqi stability: On Nov. 22 - 24 the Egyptian government is hosting a conference on Iraqi stability to include representatives from the G-8, U.N., E.U., Iraq's neighbours, Organization of Islamic Conference and the Arab League. And the French/U.N. still want representatives of "resistance" groups to attend. They get their answer -

"At the moment, we don't know who are these groups. Are they hostage-takers? Are they the Zarqawi network groups," [Iraqi FM] Zebari asked, referring to militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's movement. "Are they ex-Baathists? ... They are individual groups, gangs or organized criminals really, in different parts of the country."

Zebari argued that the Iraqi electoral and political processes are "wide open for all those groups to come and participate."

Some U.N. diplomats and officials counter that the outside groups should be allowed to attend the conference, and they expressed concern that excluding the opposition and resistance groups could affect support for the election, which must be held by Jan. 31.

And as for the issue of the withdrawal of American troops been on the agenda? Well, as much as some of Iraq's much suspect neighbours would like it to be disucssed, that's a decision just for the Iraqi government to make.

Sudan accuses U.S. of training Darfur rebels - Not only is America only using the G-word about Darfur due to electoral politics and the Zionist lobby (as if it makes much difference anyway), but Bashir has now accused the U.S. of starting to rebellion in Darfur and continuing to support it! "There are many ways to resolve it, and the ways are known internationally, but those who lit the fire don't want to put it out," he said. Quite.

Syria to tighten Iraq border security, likely to get pass from U.N. on Lebanon - The U.S. is reporting that Syria has agreed to try to stop terrorists streaming into Iraq, but Syria hasn't commented yet - probably doesn't want to be seen to be co-operating with the Great Satan. Meanwhile, Powell hopes that the Sec-Gen's report on the occupation of Lebanon will be one "which makes it clear that the international community is expecting more compliance than we have seen so far." The rest of us hope the U.N. will stop moaning about the other "occupations" in the region quite so much and do more about this one.

Al-Jazeera gets Blair right - Interestingly, while many wire services detected an "apology" in Blair's Iraq speech to the Labour Party Conference, al-Jazeera gets it right, even if their suspicion of a Bush-Blair rift is incorrect.

U.S. and Israel: no nukes for Tehran. Both Israel and Bush have pledged that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons, whatever needs to be done. Israel suspects that Iran could have nuclear weapons by 2007, says the Arab News. "The question is what comes first, nuclear ability or regime change," said Israeli DM Mofaz. Meanwhile, Israel has purchased 500 "bunker-busting" bombs from the U.S.

Powell calls for end to intifada: In a telecast to the Arab world, Powell asks: "What has it accomplished for the Palestinian people? Has it produced progress toward a Palestinian state? Has it defeated Israel on the battlefield?" Meanwhile, the pacificiation of the Gaza Strip continues after the murder of two children by a rocket fired from there on Wednesday. IDF forces pushed deep into the Jebaliya and seem set to stay for a while.

Check out Chrenkoff's Iraqi news briefs and, if you haven't seen it yet, the latest installment of good news from Iraq. Winds also have a GWOT brief today.

Guinea's new tea craze

2004-09-30T14:29:00.000+01:00

In Mali and Senegal there's a popular type of tea called "Saddam" - and now, in Guinea, there's a new trend...

"When the beverage has boiled to a certain level, it sparkles and gives explosive-like rumbling sounds when you open the pot.

"This is why some call it B52, American bombardment, Bin Laden and others call it al-Qaeda," he says.

The maker boasts that it's "good for man's organism", and his customers seem to agree -

"I used to have frequent constipation. But since I started taking this beverage, my bowels are now free, I pass urine freely also, and everything's alright with my body," one al-Qaeda drinker said.

I wonder if it's any good for kidney disease?

Muslim women's group meets in Beirut

2004-09-30T01:01:00.000+01:00

Commentary in The Daily Star reports -

Leaders of organizations from 12 countries that form the first transnational women's network emerging from Muslim-majority countries, the Women's Learning Partnership (WLP), met this week in Beirut. On their plate were the challenges and opportunities they face as they strive to promote women's rights and decision-making nationally, regionally and internationally, and how to fortify relationships to help build a stronger support structure and an international network of civil society advocates.

The WLP network emerged in response to the challenges women face across the globe, but especially in Muslim-majority countries, in achieving an equitable role in decision-making and political leadership. The network grew out of a gathering held in 2000, where women from 15 countries met to discuss the status of women and possible strategies to bring about their fairer participation in the public sphere, and to redefine concepts of leadership and power.

Good. Bad -

Women comprise 14 percent of national parliaments worldwide, and they head only 12 of 180 governments. In most countries, women's representation in political parties, municipal bodies and local councils remains far below parity. The United States, though a developed industrial nation, ranks 59th in the world for women's political representation. In the Middle East and North Africa women's representation is significantly lower than the world average, comprising only 4.6 percent of the seats in national parliaments. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates still do not have universal suffrage.

This last line makes it sound like free and universal suffrage is commonplace in the Middle East. But, of course, the only countries with it are.. you guessed it, Afghanistan and Iraq. Damn imperialists and their patriarchy.

(Read the whole thing)

Markos @ The Guardian

2004-09-29T20:56:00.000+01:00

The owner of The Daily Kos has begun writing a weekly column in The Guardian. This is one of the reasons we find it hard to get sensible political commentary on the U.S. in British media - an over-reliance on commentary by the looney left.

NEWSFLASH: World changed on 9/11

2004-09-29T20:33:00.000+01:00

The Note believes that Kerry will bring up this article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "Cheney Changed His Position on Iraq". The beef is this -

In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait. [Emphasis added]

This can be nothing more than a sign of desparation from Kerry supporters, and Kerry would be stupid to bring this up tomorrow. This article is essentially critical of Cheney for changing his opinion on foreign affairs after 9/11. Yet this is exactly why people support the Bush administration and why no-one trusts a Kerry administration to defend America. All of Kerry's flip-flops on Iraq have taken place on a much smaller timescale and post-9/11.

The article goes on to describe how Cheney listed multiple possible problems with invading and occupying Iraq, ones which "foreshadowed a future in Iraq that is remarkably close to conditions found there today, suggesting that it would be difficult to bring the country's various political factions together and that U.S. troops would be vulnerable to insurrection and guerrilla attacks." Again, this misses the point. Yes, the occupation is difficult and will lead to violence, but the fundamental point is that we now deem it to be worth it, as we didn't over a decade ago. Kerry supporters not only display faulty thinking, they criticise other people for not displaying it as well! These people really are going to crash and burn.

Kerry drinks beer, watches football

2004-09-29T20:22:00.000+01:00

Is it just me, or are Kerry supporters really clutching at straws now? From a Daily Kos diary (via Pacific Views):

It all happened yesterday, when Kerry stopped in the charming town of Mt. Horeb which is about 25 miles west of Madison Wisconsin. First of all, he stopped in the "Main Street Pub," which is located on, you guessed it, Main Street. He bought beers for the entire bar, and ordered a 10-ounce Leinenkugel beer for himself and a cheeseburger with the works.

Which brings up my first point. How many times have the wing-nuts gotten on some 'news' talk show and yammered about "who would Joe 6-pack from Main Street rather have a beer with?" Somehow, these idiots always say the answer is Bush, a man who never leaves his bubble of privilege and who supposedly doesn't drink!

However now that Kerry has had beers with small-town folks (on Main Street no less) we now know the real answer is John Kerry. The cover of our local papers today had photos of Kerry having his beer with locals, while watching part of the Packers game.

When Kerry was ready to leave town there was an interesting exchange that I have only read a full account of in the ABC Note. Here is partial extract from the Note:
"...As the Senator approached the open door of his idling motorcade, the young man above the pub called out from above, "What's the Packers score?...Without missing a beat, Kerry relayed the score as he had last known it in the Main Street Pub. The young man nodded in concurrence, gave a thumbs-up, and confirmed, "You got my vote."

Well, guys, looks like it's all over for us. I for one salute our new liberal overlords.

Hindsight won't get you elected, Kerry

2004-09-29T14:10:00.000+01:00

From AP -

"We should not have gone into Iraq knowing today what we know," Kerry told ABC. "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, I would not have voted to support war."

I know this seems a bit petty, but to me this seems irrelevant. No-one is voting for Kerry because of what he'd think about his decisions a year and a half after he's taken them, they're voting for him based on the decisions he'd make about defending America at the time. The problem with a man like Kerry who changes his mind so often is that he can't be trusted to stick by what he does. The reason Bush is a good bet this November is because what you see is what you get, and it stays that way.

This is especially true with the war on terror. Anyone who thinks Iraq was just about whether Saddam had WMD has it wrong. The point was that we had no real way of knowing because he refused to comply with numerous UNSC resolutions, which emboldened other dictators to do the same. This is the main geopolitial fact that justified the invasion of Iraq, and it is as valid today as it was when we thought Iraq was teeming with WMD. The fact Kerry refuses to recognise this bodes ill for his ability to wage the war on terror.

Inside the mind of a terrorist

2004-09-29T13:39:00.000+01:00

Professor Raj Persaud has a theory on what drives the modern suicide terrorist: 'mind control and not psychosis'. Here's the money quote -

One obvious theory to explain the kind of behaviour committed against the American hostages is that it is the product of a non-rational, disturbed or psychotic mind.

This theory receives some support when you look into the psychology of people like Timothy McVeigh who blew up the Government Building in Oklahoma in 1995 killing almost 200 people.

McVeigh could have been considered mentally illMcVeigh, who bombed the building in revenge for the FBI's Waco raid, thought the army had implanted a computer chip in his buttock to track his movements, according to reports.

There is little doubt McVeigh was suffering from such a severe disturbance of mind he might well be labelled mentally ill.

Yet McVeigh is the exception that proves the rule - such attacks are mostly planned by a group beforehand and McVeigh acted practically alone.

Large scale terror acts, such as that on September 11th, are mostly a group activity and therefore ideas and forms of thinking are shared between group members, which normally precludes the kind of mental illness that McVeigh probably suffered from.

Having dismissed the possibility that modern terrorists are simply psychotic, Professor Persaud then jumps to the conclusion that suicide terrorists are 'programmed' to carry out their acts in a way that soldiers are trained. He compares suicide terrorists to suicide cults, American soldiers, and capos, saying in conclusion -

We know that a cult leader, Jim Jones, reverend of San Francisco's People's Temple, was able to "program" his followers to commit suicide, or to kill one another on his command; more than 900 American citizens did so in the jungles of Guyana.
Research by John Steiner (an Auschwitz survivor) indicates that most Nazi concentration camp guards were "ordinary men" before and following their years of perpetrating evil.

Many more examples could be culled to illustrate reasons why we should not see terrorists as an alien breed.

The sources of frustration and anger which drive people to do this need to be acknowledged.

But we should focus on a better understanding of the mind-control tactics and strategies that might make even good people engage in evil deeds at some time in their lives, and that might recruit new generations of impoverished young people into lives of terrorism.

As well as the inconsistencies (are these people driven by their 'frustration and anger' or 'mind-control tactics'?), Professor Persaud's argument seems to me to be misguided, bordering on apologia. He is right to say that terrorists are not totally 'mad' in the sense that they are incapable of rational thinking - the planning of 9/11 and many other atrocities is testimony to that. Where they are mad is in the soul. By buying into Islamism when they are not compelled to do so, they themselves make a personal choice about their worldview - no-one is employing 'mind-control tactics and strategies' on a wide scale.

Professor Persaud comments that 'to explain terrorism you have to explain why millions of people endorse this extraordinary use of violence against unarmed combatants.' He is of course right, but I doubt even he would argue that 'mind-control tactics' have been employed on millions in the Arab street. By conceding this he undermines the main thrust of his argument, because unless he thinks the Arab street has been brainwashed then he is faced with the uncomfortable reality that it is Arab society itself which is sick, and that suicide terrorism is a symptom of this illness. Wahabbism and suicide terrorism are not some transient suicide cult, but a death cult now hundreds of years old and still growing. 'Root causes' are indeed the problem, but not the ones liberals usually talk about.

Minister: DPRK has nuclear weapons

2004-09-28T18:29:00.000+01:00

From AP -

North Korea said earlier this year that it had reprocessed the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods and was increasing its "nuclear deterrent" but did not provide any details.

[Vice Foreign Minister] Choe was asked at the [UN General Assembly] news conference what was included in the nuclear deterrent.

"We have already made clear that we have already reprocessed 8,000 wasted fuel rods and transformed them into arms," he said, without elaborating on the kinds or numbers.

When asked if the fuel had been turned into actual weapons, not just weapons-grade material, Choe said, "We declared that we weaponized this."

South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck said in late April that it was estimated that eight nuclear bombs could be made if all 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods were reprocessed. Before the reprocessing, South Korea said it believed the North had enough nuclear material to build one or two nuclear bombs.

With the Presidential election looming, a solution to this problem is becoming more evasive every day. This, of course, is the intention of the DPRK, which sees a likely appeaser in Kerry and is fully aware of the reduced likelihood of any decisive action by Washington before the election. The DPRK has latched onto issues that really have no substantive bearing on the matter to try and divert attention away from their program (remind you of anyone's campaign?): South Korea's admission that it created 0.2g of enriched uranium in 2000 and supposed 'belligerence' by Bush towards the DPRK. Reports the Washington Post -

It remains unclear why Pyongyang is stalling. But the government has escalated its anti-American rhetoric since President Bush referred to North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, as a "tyrant" last month at a campaign rally in Wisconsin. The North Korean foreign ministry responded by calling Bush a "fascist tyrant," a "man killer" and "human trash."

Choe, meanwhile, warned Monday that the "danger of war is snowballing" in the Korean Peninsula as a result of the Bush administration's efforts to "isolate" Pyongyang. "The ever intensifying U.S. hostile policy and the clandestine nuclear-related experiments recently revealed in South Korea are constituting big stumbling blocks to the continuation of the talks," Choe told U.N. delegates. "The serious situation . . . makes us unable to participate in the talks aimed at discussing the nuclear weapon program."

The DPRK has also used the General Assembly as a platform to talk war (while simultaneously blaming U.S. belligerence for the stand-off). And they've also announced their attention not to resume the six-party talks until the two 'stumbling blocks' Choe refers to above are overcome. Neither can be, because neither are substantive problems, and the DPRK knows it. At least maybe without the chimera of the multiparty talks we can recognise fully that no compromise is possible with this regime.

Ralph Cossa has an idea on how Seoul might call the North's bluff as well as a refutation of the North's silly focus on the South's nuclear activities -

Is all hope lost for another round of talks? I think not, especially if Seoul and Beijing are prepared to directly refute Pyongyang's foolish assertion and instead challenge the North to follow Seoul's example of (admittedly after-the-fact) transparency. Unfortunately, while South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and Russian President Vladimir Putin have publicly called on Pyongyang to resume the talks at their recent Moscow summit - a call echoed by senior officials from Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul at their latest Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group (TCOG) dialogue - none seems willing to press Pyongyang on the issue.
The big differences between South Korea's admitted transgressions and Pyongyang's indirectly acknowledged violations of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regulations is that it was Seoul itself that revealed its most recent illegal actions - taken by a small group of scientists without government sanction, some four years ago - and then it welcomed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to investigate not only the 2,000 uranium-enrichment experiments but its long-canceled 1982 government-sponsored plutonium-based weapons program as well - a clandestine effort halted under US pressure, one should add.
Seoul has been disappointingly quiet in the face of the North's allegations - as it regrettably normally is - merely dismissing the charges and calling on the North to resume negotiations. A more appropriate approach would be to challenge Pyongyang to follow Seoul's example and invite the IAEA to investigate both sides' alleged transgressions, perhaps with representatives from both North and South accompanying each inspection effort.

When things are going badly... blame the Jews

2004-09-28T01:30:00.000+01:00

From Voice of America, Syria Blames Israel for US War With Iraq -

Syria's foreign minister has delivered a blistering attack on Israel at the U.N. General Assembly debate. Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara accused Israel of inciting the United States to go to war in Iraq.

In a harshly-worded speech, the Syrian foreign minister said Israel has contributed to "extremist and intolerant policies" that have been advanced in an attempt to find a new enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Minister Farouq al-Shara accused Israel of inciting the United States and the West to wage endless wars in the Middle East to promote the idea that the Arab/Israeli conflict is not the core of the region's problems.

"Israel bears an important share of the responsibility for intensifying and worsening the American predicament in Iraq by avoiding the resumption of the peace process despite the hand extended by the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese," he said. "Israel's course of action may come back to haunt it because its occupation of Arab lands is a major cause of the rejection of the American policies in the broader Middle East."

The Syrian foreign minister said Israel is building a 'racist separation wall' while at the same time refusing to comply with 40 Security Council resolutions and hundreds of General Assembly resolutions demanding Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories.

Saudi Arabian unrest

2004-09-27T23:18:00.000+01:00

More unrest in Saudi Arabia - and not even the French are safe! -

The "terrorist" murder of a French citizen in Jeddah and another shoot-out on Monday between suspected Islamist militants and security forces in the Saudi capital have again spotlighted the terrorism battle being waged in the kingdom, diplomats said.

The latest gunbattle ended early Monday with the Interior Ministry reporting the arrest of a suspected militant.

It followed a police patrol intercepting a suspect car as it "sped out of a site in Riyadh's Al-Shifa district," the official told the SPA news agency.

He said "no citizens or security men were injured," but security sources and witnesses said that an Asian taxi-driver was hit during the exchange.

Less than 24 hours earlier, a gunman shot dead Laurent Barbot, a 45-year-old employee of French defense electronics firm Thales, in the commercial capital of Jeddah.
That attack was the second on a Westerner in Saudi Arabia in 10 days, and the first targeting a French national since a deadly wave of violence erupted here in May 2003 blamed on Al-Qaeda.

Carter and Florida

2004-09-27T22:47:00.000+01:00

It's begun. Jimmy Carter has fired the first highly visible shot in the campaign to question the credibility of the Presidential election. Now that Democrats have got hold of the "Bush stole the election" meme, they're bound to employ it again. From the Washington Post -

After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.

The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.

Democrats are going to need therapy if they lose this election. And if it's close, they're going to have an excuse to foist all that angst on the rest of us...

Blair on Iraq; Bush

2004-09-27T22:07:00.000+01:00

In an interview with the Observer, Blair does a good job of the case for staying the course in Iraq -

'Obviously there will be people who have never been convinced about the original decision. But the fundamentals of the situation in Iraq are absolutely clear. You have a government supported by the United Nations. You have got massive reconstruction. You've got an attempt to bring democracy to the country and you've got these people trying to stop it. I can understand why people still have a powerful disagreement about the original decision to go to war, but what ever that disagreement, surely now it is absolutely clear we have to stay and see it through. Because the consequences of not doing so is that global terrorism will get a tremendous boost. By contrast, if we succeed and defeat these people and help the Iraqis to get what the Iraqis want, then global terrorism will suffer a defeat.'

He goes on: 'If the violence and terror stopped, Iraq would very swiftly - because it's rich in resources, it's people are intelligent - would make progress. So my point to people is: which side should we be on now? You might have disagreed about the conflict, but there is only one side to be on now, and that's the side of people who are trying to bring democracy and hope to the country, not trying to plunge it into terror and chaos.'

Don't you wish, just sometimes, that Bush could be as eloquent as Blair in interviews? He's getting better though. It's going to be very interesting to see how he handles the debates, although Kerry is likely to have been briefed to try to cut down on the nuance and hit Bush with uncomfortable one-liners. But Bush would do well to look at these few passages of Blair's above to have a list of positive developments to reel off. So overwhelming is the evidence when objectively described without the influence of Small Political Man Syndrome. Talking of which, from the Observer interview -

What about stroking his own base a bit more warmly- or at least not so offending it? Does he appreciate how infuriated natural Labour supporters can become when they see him holidaying with Silvio Berlusconi?

'I shouldn't see the Italian Prime Minister?' Blair can't see the problem. 'All of this nonsense. We spent the evening with the Italian Prime Minister. He is an ally of ours.'

The sort of "natural Labour supporter" who would get annoyed about Blair meeting Berlusconi no longer exists unless "natural Labour supporter" is defined as a middle-class liberal. Papers like the Observer need to recognise this if they want to understand the political realignment that took place under Thatcher. Sadly, it's probably going to take more visible political defeats for Old Labourites at the ballot box for them to even realise they're on the defensive.

Bush's service

2004-09-27T18:58:00.000+01:00

The LAT has a huge piece on Bush's guard service -

Over the [last] 18 months of his tour, the man who is now America's commander in chief paid little attention to his military duties, lost his flying status and was granted an early exit from the assignment that shielded him from combat in Vietnam.
A reexamination of Texas Air National Guard documents, Air Force regulations and accounts from former Guard officials and military experts depicts a capable young pilot who initially excelled, then barely scraped together enough credits in his final two years to meet the Guard's minimum requirements.

Give it up, guys. No-one really cares anymore, and besides - Bush volunteered for Vietnam.

Media bias

2004-09-27T18:36:00.000+01:00

It might seem that an article about media bias coming from the BBC is a bit rich, but it's actually fairly good - although like most of these BBC analysis sections it lacks anything like insight. But here are a few interesting facts -

About 29% of Republicans trusted Fox, while about 26% of Democrats did. Those figures make it the most trusted news source for Republicans - but among the least trusted by Democrats.

Overall, CNN remains the most trusted cable network - but only 32% of Pew respondents found it "highly credible", down from nearly 40% in 2000.

CNN has lost eight credibility points in four years, whereas

In 2000, 18% of Republicans and Democrats told the Pew Research Center for People and the Press that they tuned in to Fox regularly.

By this year, that number had risen to 35% among Republicans - but only 21% among Democrats.

Let's hope the rest of the networks are paying attention. Not only are they undermining partiality and good journalism, they're undermining their businesses as well. If they'd quit exercising the typical liberal assumption that the public are stupid and can be duped into believing anything, then they'd do everyone, including their shareholders, a favour.

Activist? Operative?

2004-09-27T14:57:00.000+01:00

Following the death of Izz El-Deen Khalil in Damascus, the BBC has an article referring to him as an "activist" and describe him as a "senior figure in [Hamas'] military wing". It's also interesting to note that they don't once mention terrorist activities in their profile of him. Meanwhile, the AP sees him as an "operative", whereas Reuters goes for "leader", and the New York Times favours "official". Meanwhile, one news corporation is getting it right, and pissing off Reuters in the process -

According to Mr. Schlesinger, members of Reuters' sales staff in Canada have asked CanWest to remove writers' names to conform to its guidelines for the use of "terrorist." Reuters has also asked that CanWest add its name to that of Reuters as the source of revised articles and to display that information only at the end of the articles. Alternatively, Reuters suggests that its name not be used at all.

By changing occurences of the word "fugitive", "militant" or "operative" to "terrorist" - in line with the sensible reasoning that a "terrorist" is someone who kills civilians - the Associated Press believes CanWest is being "unbalanced, unfair [and] inaccurate." Right.

Suicide bombers and kamikaze bombers

2004-09-26T13:13:00.000+01:00

Here's an interesting one from the LAT -

Three times during the final months of World War II, Japanese officers sent Hamazono off to die, ordering him to crash-dive a single-engine plane stuffed with bombs into an American warship.

Bad weather aborted the first mission, an oil leak the second. On his final attempt in April 1945, he encountered three American pilots over the sea off Okinawa. In the ensuing dogfight, Hamazono was burned and took shrapnel in his shoulder, but his plane limped home.

You could call him the luckiest man in Japan, though Hamazono didn't see it that way at the time.

"I was, of course, ready to die," says Hamazono, who instead has aged into a bent but dignified 81-year-old. Fate allowed him to see his hair turn wispy and gray. And fate made him part of one of history's strangest and most exclusive brotherhoods: "kamikaze survivors."

Most were still waiting for orders to fly when Japan surrendered to the Allies in September 1945. A few others were spared because they did not reach their intended targets — a failure Hamazono found intolerable at the time. He was on standby to fly a fourth mission when Japan capitulated. Denied the opportunity to redeem his honor, he felt disgraced.

"I wished I had died," he says.

In the postwar years, a traumatized nation treated the kamikaze survivors like pariahs. But in the last decade, their reputation has recovered. Publishers clamor for memoirs. Scholars pick over their backgrounds in search of an explanation for their willingness to die for a lost cause. Japanese nationalists buff and shine their memory like medals.

"Kamikaze" has ceased to be a slur in Japan. If the Japanese still can't agree on whether the pilots were victims or heroes, brainwashed conscripts or volunteers, they are at least prepared to honor their spirit of sacrifice.

Only the modern menace of the suicide bomber has emerged to spoil this sentiment.

Apparently, the exclusive group of kamikaze survivors resent being compared to suicide bombers -

The kamikazes attacked military targets. In contrast, "the main purpose of a suicide bomber is to kill as many innocent civilians as they can," Hamazono says. That, he says, "is just murder."

Read the whole thing. It raises interesting questions in that seemingly grey area in the laws of war. Despite the evil and fanatical nature of the Japanese regime during the war, I think these people have a point when they reject the comparison to Islamist suicide bombers. The sacrifice of life for your country is something we can at least vaguely identify with, when it is done against military targets. Counterforce attacks which lead to the death of the attackers are a staple of our heroic stories. The means of doing it makes little sense to us, but at least it is based on concepts we can understand: sacrifice, bravery, patriotism. Absolutely none of these things animate the minds of the cold-blooded child-killers of Hizbollah who pioneered the suicide-bombing technique.

Ken Bigley

2004-09-25T10:46:00.000+01:00

British hostage Kenneth Bigley's plight continues in Iraq, and the media reaction has been marked by spin. The Independent thinks -

That neither [Tony Blair], nor anyone else, can exert the slightest influence on the desperate situation he did much to precipitate is a measure of the impotence of all authority almost anywhere in Iraq. [Emphasis added]

Their evidence for this? The confusion over the prisoner release last Wednesday, which they choose to ascribe to a lack of sovereignty on the part of the Iraqi government. It takes some imagination to extrapolate genuine confusion in a government out to that government's impotency. Of course there will be dispute between some civil servants in the Iraqi government and the Americans over particular prisoners, but this whole thing would have passed unnoticed where it not for Zarqawi's demand for all female prisoners to be released - a demand which, of course, didn't specifically refer to Saddam's former scientists.

Kevin Toolis of the Daily Express has something rather bizzare to say -

No. Not. Never. Cannot. They are the favourite words of foreign secretaries, prime ministers and presidents when it comes to their public policy on negotiating with terrorists, even the bloodthirsty Iraqi fanatics who kidnapped the British hostage Mr Bigley. They are great sounding words - but often that is all they are.

If a terrorist group is ruthless enough and powerful enough to keep on bombing and kidnapping, then sooner or later every western government will start to negotiate with them. Beheading hostages is an appalling act, but, in a sexually repressed society like Iraq, now inured to sudden death and destruction, Zarqawi's demands do have some emotional appeal.

The daring daylight operation to seize the hostages, probably with some support from rogue Iraqi police, proves Zarqawi has more support in Iraqi society than we would like to think. If the Americans don't find him and kill him first, and he grows powerful enough, then, one day, George Bush, or whoever happens to be in the White House, will have to do what every democratic leader has done before and sit down and speak with the terrorist. [Emphasis added]

Apart from his bizzare Freudianism, Toolis is incorrect when he repeats the opinion that has been distressingly creeping into some opinion columns: that leaders "inevitably" have to bargain with people like Zarqawi. There is no inevitability behind it and there are certainly not "negotiations" going on behind closed doors. I of course don't have to repeat to you the total futility of negotiating with Zarqawi's ilk, but it seems the media doesn't quite get it. John Prescott made this point admirably when he juxtaposed the British reaction to hostage-taking to the American one -

Mr Preston urged British newspapers to take a "more muted" approach to the crisis.

He compared UK coverage of Mr Bigley's ordeal with coverage in the US of the fates of two American co-hostages, both of whom were executed.

He said: "They have not actually not reported it, but I think the Washington Post put it on page 27.

"That's the kind of mid-way I think we ought to be thinking about."

He added that the terrorists were using spin tactics and accused the British media of being "too easily manipulated".

It's good that a debate is emerging over just how this ought to be covered, because we're certainly not doing anyone in Iraq any favours by carrying on as we are. If the media instated a policy of not even reporting on hostage-taking then one of the main rationales for doing it would be obliterated.

No foreigner is safe in Iraq any more, which is ironic given that Zarqawi clearly doesn't give two hoots for the Iraqi cause. In fact, quite the reverse - his plan is to halt the reconstruction of Iraq and to create the terrible security and economic conditions that we are daily warned are emerging. His group targets people of all faiths and nationalities without discrimination, with the simple goal of driving anyone who wants to help the Iraqi people out of Iraq.

The IHT carries an article today entitled "When Even the French are Targets". This utterly misses the point. Wouldn't an article entitled "When Even the Egyptians are Targets", or "When Even the Turkish are Targets" be more appropriate? The fact Zarqawi is willing to kill anyone, including scores of Muslims, in his psychopathic quest to destroy Iraq should not come as a surprise to anyone. Kenneth Bigley will not be the first or the last to die at his hands. The appropriate response is sadness and a reaffirmation of our determination to get the bastard.

Kerry and Iraq. Again.

2004-09-24T18:10:00.000+01:00

There really is no going back for John Kerry now. He's made The Last Flip-Flop, and he'd better hope it was the right one. In Philadelphia today, he said -

"The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, al-Qaida," Kerry said in a speech at Temple University. "There's just no question about it. The president's misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement of the war in Iraq all make the war on terror harder to win."

Kerry said Iraq has become a haven for terrorists since the war, and he offered a detailed strategy to contain terrorism while drawing a sharp distinction between his and the president's views on national security.

"George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden the priority," Kerry said. "I will finish the job in Iraq and I will refocus our energies on the real war on terror."

The battlelines are finally being drawn. Now Kerry has relaunched his campaign and appears to be sticking fairly consistently to his point of view. Our gut reaction might be to be fearful of this, because it would have been so much easier to win the election when nothing even remotely interesting was issuing from the Kerry campaign. However, I propose that we're actually better off having Kerry speaking his mind and showing his true colours. If he continues like this he's going to get defeated anyway, with the added bonus that it will not just be a defeat for John Kerry but for the ideas he is espousing. Glenn Reynolds might well have a point when he says that Kerry or his aides now expect to lose, which is why his campaign is starting to look more and more consistently demented.

Kerry is making this election essentially a referendum on the Bush Doctrine. That's what he and his Party wanted from the start, and at least now they're being honest about it. I suggest that as well as getting rightfully indignant and being dissapointed when Kerry disparages our allies and denigrates the Iraq mission, we also allow ourself a little smile. Because it's going to make him lose, and those ideas are going to lose with him. Then in the next four years, the unfolding reality of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan will put the nail in the coffin. With the bankruptcy of the Left's ideas on foreign policy and terrorism exposed, it'll be time for them to do some reconstruction of their own.

Meanwhile, Arthur Chrenkoff sums up brilliantly what's wrong with the Left at the moment and their inability to do anything but criticise -

I really despise the condescension of spoiled, comfortable, middle class Western brats who have no idea of life and realities outside their comfy liberal cocoon. If blogs were around some fifteen years ago, somebody like "sipples" would have been writing the oh-so-hilarious commentary on the struggle of post-communist countries to build a better, normal life for themselves: "Have you read about this collective farm outside Grodno? The peasants decided to privatise it and divided all the land and property among themselves. The only problem is... there aren't any cows left. HA HA HA!"
Face it, you and your merry company are just a pimple on the ass of an asterisk in a footnote of the history of progress from tyranny to freedom.

But read the whole thing (as if you couldn't after that last line).

P.S Has anyone noticed how frequently the Kerry campaign has been calling their opponents "un-American" recently? I thought the Left considered that phrase to be, well, "un-American"?

Tax the rich and reward the environmentally friendly

2004-09-23T14:05:00.000+01:00

The Liberal Democrat conference is finally over, and it's time to examine the innovative policy proposals that have emerged from it. Cheeky Charlie and his cohorts have made massive strides in the field of sheer economic populism, pledging to reduce 70% of people's taxes while increasing income tax on earnings over £100,000 to 50p in the £1. With this money, they plan to "axe top-up fees, replace the Council Tax with a new local income tax and give the elderly free personal care. " Why has someone not thought of this before? I demand an enquiry. Impeach Blair!

Talking of which, that's exactly what the Lib Dems want to do. Jenny Tonge MP showed 'clear emotion' while claiming that Blair "endangered our children". "I am angry, angry to the point of I don't know what," she said. Yet another field in which the Lib Dems are miles ahead of their ignorant US counterparts: they admit they're irrationally angry rather than having us infer it from their demented opinions. Delegate Donnachadh McCarthy showed a similar progressive spirit when he declared openly that the U.N. should be the final arbiter of our policy, nay who our leader is: "Surely in the light of (UN secretary general) Kofi Annan's statement (that the war was illegal) it is time for Blair to go." (Yes, the BBC found it necessary to explain who Annan is. Shouldn't we all know the identity of our Great Leader!?)

The BBC thinks the Lib Dems are getting serious, and Kennedy thinks we've entered a new age of three parties. On balance, the BBC comments page on the issue seems to bely their claims - and remember, this is the BBC comments page. If the Lib Dems want power, they'd do well not to focus on Iraq too much. The sort of attacks they launch against America and against their own country - accusing Bush of launching the war due to "family business" - show their utter immaturity in foreign affairs and their incapability to wage the war on terror. Britain faces a problem if it is to continue standing by America's side, a problem of our liberal media and cultural elite constantly spitting on what our allies try to accompish. The bigger voice given to these people in politics, the more they are able to influence the terms of debate, the further a generally apathetic public will drift from the truth. And when that inevitable attack finally comes, an electoral shift to the Lib Dems would be us doing a Spain.

It's important for Blair and Howard to forge a consensus on foreign affairs, to remove the war on terror from the realm of political debate. The war is not a political club to be used to batter the opposition with, it is a national calling that all should be agreed on. The voters need to understand the dangers involved in the age of terror, and why Kennedy's party is guilty of a huge abdication of responsibility. Impeaching Blair would be a foolhardy move, discouraging all future Prime Ministers from acting to defend this country and the Western world as we have proudly done in the past. Kennedy is the symbol of national decline, and to vote his party in would be an admission of defeat.

Kerry's scare tactic

2004-09-23T01:38:00.000+01:00

We on the Right are getting sick of hearing pundits criticise Bush for "playing the terror card" or "using 9/11", as if the constant threat of terrorist attacks was something brought about by President Bush rather than a grave problem he sincerely wishes he didn't have to face. Unlike Le Monde and the Michael Moore Democrats, we never forgot. If you think that a candidate alluding to 9/11 with sadness and a determination that it not happen again is using a scare tactic, then you clearly have forgotten the lessons of that day.

In fact, it is not President Bush who is guilty of scare tactics. It's John Kerry. Reports ABC -

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the war in Iraq and other trouble spots in the world, raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush.

This claim is so disingenuous that it is difficult to regard it as anything other than a grope in the dark to try and push a button - any button - that might rattle up some support. Kerry went on to promise that he himself would not bring back the draft. What Kerry fails to appreciate or explain is that the decision to bring back the draft would effectively not be made by America, but by America's enemies. Since the end of the Cold War the American military has been designed to fight two major regional contingencies at different points in the world - when this strategy was designed, it was assumed one theatre would be the Middle East and the other Korea. This basic goal has not changed, but Donald Rumsfeld has spearheaded reform of the DoD which makes it less labour-intensive. If any President finds himself in a situation where he must reinstate the draft, it will be because his hand has been forced by outside circumstances.

If Kerry accepts that it is a legitimate national goal to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, then he must surely accept that if a draft be necessary, a draft must be instated. The chance of this being necessary is highly unlikely, and would be made even less likely if Kerry would quit undercutting troop morale (and having the concomitant effect of discouraging people from joining the military). If one of the world's troublespots blew up, then maybe the U.S. would need a draft. A President Kerry is hardly more likely to stop this happening than President Bush.

Kerry has accused Bush of "avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran", hence making the need for a draft more likely. Given Kerry's constant favour for the use of multinational institutions and diplomacy to solve problems, who can honestly believe that Kerry would have taken a tougher line and discouraged the DPRK or Iran from their present course? And given that diplomacy will never work in these cases, how would a President Kerry have dealt with the problem without the need for military force and maybe even a draft? If Kerry were a serious candidate, then the American people would deserve answers; as it is, I think they're better off not having their intelligence insulted.

Freedland loses the plot

2004-09-22T14:14:00.000+01:00

Frustrated by the uselessness of their candidate, Euroliberals now seem to have a new plan - demanding they themselves get a say in the U.S. election. Johnathon Freedland argues that beause the U.S. election affects us all, we should all get a vote. It is hard to take this seriously, but Freedland apparently considers it a "modest proposal" necessary to make up for the fact that "postwar multilateral arrangements have broken down". Despite the fact that practical considerations make this proposal utterly laughable, and in fact because it is clearly impossible, the fact it has been suggested at all is indicative of two frequent fallacies of liberal thought.

The first is the idea that private resources can be placed under communal control without some correspondant decline in their utility. This is the central premise behind socialism, and is exploded best of all in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. If you think I'm making too big a leap of imagination in applying this principle to globalism, then consider this. How long are the American people going to tolerate their nation's power being put at the disposal of the Euro-elites, never mind the impoverished third world? Like the capitalist who loses the desire to innovate and develop his business when he knows the extra benefit will only accrue to the state, Americans would become the world's slaves and would come to hold the work ethic of slaves. And who could blame them?

The second fallacy is the one Robert Kagan highlights in his book, Paradise and Power. Kagan notes that throughout history, legalistic multilateralism has almost always been the doctrine of the weak. Since the end of World War II, Europe has groped continually to establish and validate a system of legalistic restrictions on American action that have been motivated not in part by the green-eyed monster. Direct participation in American elections - which means direct control of America's national resources - is the ultimate form of legalistic control of America, removing the need for any messing about with diplomacy and multilateralism. But just because America is strong and its decisions affect the world, this does not mean that the American people lose their right to self-determination. The rest of the world already places ludicrous strains on America - for instance, the fact America provides the majority of the U.N.'s funds but is villified by the institution - because everyone knows America is big enough to cope. The idea that the American people can be continually pushed into being the world's slaves without ever reaching a breaking point is a dangerous one. It is also one that belongs more to September 10th than today.

British hostage

2004-09-22T13:57:00.000+01:00

Tawhid and Jihad have renewed their threat to kill Kenneth Bigley, but the Iraqi Justice Minister has claimed that the (only) two female prisoners they hold are set to be released, one on bail imminently and another in a few weeks. As they're being held by US forces, this would involve their complicity. The Iraqi Justice Minister says the decision has "nothing to do with the threat made by kidnappers". But even if the release of the prisoners was under consideration, then surely it would be a grave mistake to do so now and watch al-Zarqawi milk it for all the publicity he can. And what are the chances it will actually save Kenneth Bigley's life? And what about the dozens more who will die if we encourage acts such as this?

UPDATE: The U.S. is now saying that there is no plan to release Rihab Rashid Taha, who Iraq had said would be released tomorrow.

Saudi Arabia and religious freedom

2004-09-19T15:05:00.000+01:00

The State Department has released its annual report on international religious freedom, as is required of it by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act. It will make unpleasant reading for the leaders of a number of countries, not least Saudi Arabia. However, a careful reading of the report will show that it is not much different to last year's comments on the Saudi Kingdom. What's new is that Powell has announced the designation of Saudi Arabia as a "country of particular concern" under the 1998 Act, and that this law allows the Secretary to pursue action including sanctions.

Here's the money quote on the state of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia -

Freedom of religion does not exist. It is not recognized or protected under the country's laws, and basic religious freedoms are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam. Citizens are denied the freedom to choose or change their religion, and noncitizens practice their beliefs under severe restrictions. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims. The Government limits the practice of all but the officially sanctioned version of Islam and prohibits the public practice of other religions. During the period covered by this report, the Government publicly restated its policy that non-Muslims are free to practice their religions at home and in private. While the Government does not always respect this right in practice, many non-Muslims engage in private worship without harassment. As custodian of Islam's two holiest sites in Mecca and Medina, the Government considers its legitimacy to rest largely on its interpretation and enforcement of Shari'a. Consequently, the Government has declared the Koran and the Sunna (tradition) of Muhammad to be the country's Constitution. The Government follows the rigorously conservative and strict interpretation of the Salafi (often referred to as "Wahhabi") school of the Sunni branch of Islam and discriminates against other branches of Islam. Neither the Government nor society in general accepts the concept of separation of religion and state.

Saudi Arabia is one of only two countries in the report, the other being North Korea, of which the statement is categorically made that "[f]reedom of religion does not exist". These two countries are the two best examples in the world of regimes who cannot allow religious freedom without fundamentally changing the nature of what they are. The official state religion of Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, defines itself in violent opposition to all other forms of Islam. Originating in the central Najd region of the country (of which Muhammad said "From that place will come only earthquakes, conflicts, and the horns of Satan"), this atomistic and intolerant ideology was imposed on the rest of the country by force.

The violent attitude of Wahhabism to non-Muslims is of paramount concern to us, but also of particular interest is the attitude of Wahhabism to other Muslims. There are millions of Shi'a living in Saudi Arabia, especially in the large Eastern Province. The Shi'a in Saudi Arabia are forced to accept state-imposed names, many are banned from leaving the Kingdom, and they face arbitrary imprisonment for the mere crime of being Shi'a. Saudi Arabia also busily exports its intolerent brand of Islam all over the world, trying to recreate the ummah in its own image. To refer to this brand of Islam as "Salafi" (from the word Salaf, meaning the successors of Muhammad) is an insult to all decent, moderate Muslims.

Whether this report and new the designation will lead to any direct action in the near future is doubtful, as Powell was quick to appear on Arabic TV playing its significance down. However, if even State is starting to accept that reform of the Saudi Kingdom is a crucial issue for global security, then a more vigorous debate may be stimulated on the issue. But in terms of concrete changes emanating from Riyadh, don't look for much more than small incremental change in a number of specific cases.

Blogging break

2004-09-13T23:14:00.000+01:00

I'll be in London until Saturday and probably won't have time to do any updates. Take care blogosphere, and keep pounding Dan!

Holy lax security!

2004-09-13T19:17:00.000+01:00

A member of Fathers 4 Justice, the group that threw flour at Blair in the House of Commons in May, has managed to get into the grounds of Buckingham Palace and get onto a balcony, where he remained for five hours. The Queen was not in residence, but this is still a ludicrous breach of security. Even worse is this quote from the BBC report on the incident -

[Met. Police Commissioner] Sir John [Stevens] said police made a split-second judgement that Mr Hatch was not a security risk because of the way he was behaving and the clothes he was wearing - and for this reason they did not open fire.

What would have happened if an al-Qaeda agent had decided to dress as Batman and get into the Royal grounds? Won't the lax reaction to this incident encourage them to do so? The police were also inconsistent - they reportedly threatened to shoot an accomplice to Batman, Robin, but let Batman remain in the palace for five hours before he was removed by police in a cherry-picker.

Sadly, royal security breaches are not new. But since 9/11 you'd have thought the whole matter would be taken more seriously. It's true that in the past breaches have sometimes been comical: such as when the naked American paraglider landed on the roof of Buckingham Palace in 1994. But since September 11th there's been nothing comical about breaches in the security of important and probable terrorist targets. Today we've shown al-Qaeda a target that they would gain a lot of prestige from hitting, and which is as "soft" as any nightclub or train.

As for the group that carried out this "protest", Fathers 4 Justice, this isn't the first high-profile act of "civil disobedience" they've carried out in the last year. Today was the day of the trial of the man who threw flour at Blair, and Robin said he'd literally just come from the trial. On Saturday, a man dressed as Spiderman brought the London Eye to a standstill after climbing to the top of it. Another one of them is on hunger strike and another one is on trial for causing danger to roadside users during a protest near Plymouth. They campaign "for equal parenting rights and a legal presumption of contact for parents and grandparents following separation or divorce," but have so far failed to stimulate a national debate on the issue.

Bush the flip-flopper?

2004-09-13T16:45:00.000+01:00

The AP may as well stop pretending it's an unbiased news organisation and start distributing moveon.org ads instead. Today a classic report has been filed - "Both Candidates Often Shift Positions". And it's even worse than the title sounds, because the article mentions only one flip-flop by Kerry, while citing oven ten alleged ones by the President. "If he is a flip-flopper, Kerry has company," declares the report, before wading in with multiple instances of Bush's apparent fickleness, from opposing nation-building in 2000 to allegedly losing interest in Osama.

This rather raises the question of why it couldn't just be that Bush is capable of some, well, nuance. All of Bush's so-called flip-flops fall into two categories: ones that were necessary in the course of his consistent policy (nation-building) and ones that are simply created by a media that chooses to misinterpret his remarks or overblow insignificant ones ("I'm a peace President", "the War on Terror can't be won"). Nor is the Kerry flip-flop ("I actually voted for...") mentioned in the article by any means the most telling or important; Senators employ legislative tactics like this all the time, and as we can't be sure what Kerry was thinking, it's a slightly dishonest (if effective) trick to hit him with this repeatedly. Kerry's important flip-flops are about foreign policy and the war on terror, not to mention the fact he seems to simply lie to interest groups to get their support (does John Kerry own an SUV?)

It's clear to anyone not in cuckoo land that Bush is inordinately more decisive and consistent than Kerry. And there's good news in the AP report, and news of which they should themselves take note -

Far more voters give Bush high marks for being decisive than they do Kerry. Three-fourths, 75 percent, in the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll said the president is decisive, up 7 percentage points from August, while 37 percent said Kerry is decisive, down 7 percentage points from a month ago.

I wonder why.

John Kerry speaks to a reporter!

2004-09-13T10:34:00.000+01:00

Having not spoken to a reporter on the campaign trail for a month, Kerry apparently has a new tactic: ringing up his buddies at the Times for a private chat! Says the Times -

Senator John Kerry on Sunday accused the Bush administration of letting "a nuclear nightmare" develop by refusing to deal with North Korea when it first came to office.

In an interview, he argued that President Bush's preoccupation with Iraq let the North Korean crisis fester to the point that there were now indications that the country might be preparing to test a plutonium bomb. He presented his charges in a 15-minute telephone call he made to The New York Times.

Kerry goes on to complain that the six-party talks have been a failure because the Bush administration "haven't put anything real on the table." Apparently his voice was shaking - shaking - with anger. I'll admit I'm surprised, but Kerry obviously doesn't read Brit Broadcasting Conservatism. I discussed this yesterday - diplomacy has not worked with North Korea before and it is unlikely to do so in the future. But it gets better. When asked what he would do, Kerry described the question as "hypothetical" -

When Mr. Kerry was pressed about how he would handle the threat of a North Korean nuclear test if he was in the Oval Office, he declined to be prescriptive, other than to say that the issue would probably have to be taken to the United Nations Security Council. "Hypothetical questions are not real," he said, arguing that North Korea was a case for preventive diplomacy, and that Mr. Bush's "ideologically driven" approach had kept him from truly engaging North Korea.

"Ideologically driven"? That means he has beliefs that are translated into consistent policy. That's why people like George W. Bush. It's quickly becoming clear that John Kerry doesn't have any policies or even any beliefs, apart from the belief that everything in the world will suddenly be perfect if John Kerry is in office. The appeal to "preventive diplomacy" and to "probably" take it to the UNSC is just admitting that he doesn't have a clue. The NYT reporter probably offered him a list of options from the standard liberal checklist -

Reporter: Well sir, we could a) 'engage' the Koreans at the UNSC, b) leave it to the French, or c) doctor some photographs of Bush snorting cocaine with the Dear Leader.
Kerry (voice shaking with anger): Don't waste my time with hypothetical questions you miserable wretch, it's Sunday, there's windsurfing to be done!

Having been to Vietnam (hadn't you heard?), you'd think John Kerry might understand Asian politics a little better than he does. A policy of "engagement" with North Korea would not work because "engagement" requires someone willing to engage. The Security Council will achieve nothing because, well, do I even have to justify that statement?

Kerry is right. It's time to do something about the DPRK. This something is not to run to the Security Council where a China interested in the status quo would block any constructive action, but to send a clear message to Pyongyang that would also be audible in Iran: the United States will not tolerate rogue nations acquiring nuclear weapons.

In other news, the explosion last Thursday in the north of the country was apparently part of a project to construct a hydroelectric dam which involved blowing up a "mountain". The South is investigating this claim further and British minister Bill Rammell, who is currently in the country, has asked to visit the site to see for himself. If it was part of a legitimate project, then questions remain. Why did it take so long for the DPRK to come up with an explanation? Shouldn't we have known this was coming? Why is state TV in the country silent? More as this develops.

UPDATE: The request for access to the site has been accepted, and visits may take place as soon as tomorrow.

More on Beslan

2004-09-12T19:55:00.000+01:00

The New York Times is carrying an article today which is headed "Chechen rebels driven mainly by nationalism", but it is worth a read for the sheer amount of evidence it provides to the contrary. In its fundamentals this title is correct, as Chechens themselves are not much interested in the global Islamic jihad. However, the influence of jihadists on Chechen tactics must be well noted. After 1996 jihadist interest in Chechnya blossomed - like in Bosnia and Kosovo, they arrived after the serious fighting had stopped. Saudi Arabic has attempted to push Wahabbism in the former Soviet Union before, in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. We should be under no illusions that the Chechen problem is one that can be boiled down into a simple issue of nationalism.

The NYT article suggests there may be as few as 12 foreign fighters in Chechnya. This is ludicrous. Money flows into Chechnya from all over the world to aid the Chechen battle against Moscow. Saudi Arabian money has historically only usually been provided where some sort of control came with it. Attempted Wahabbi-isation is almost always the aim. Wahabbism seeks to spread itself by seeking out discontented Muslims and arriving to ferment radicalism. In the Balkans and Central Asia they have been singularly unsuccessful in converting Sufi populations, yet they keep on trying. The goal of Saudi Arabian investment would be the same, as it was in the Balkans.

Anyway, read the article. It's a very interesting look at how the global jihadist movement operates and how inter-connected it all is (you may not have known that none other than Ayman al-Zawahiri was once arrested and held by the Russians while in Chechnya). And don't buy the quote at the bottom about al-Qaeda been too disrupted to be involved in this - al-Qaeda is increasingly a misleading term for the vast international complex of jihadi organisations and financiers.

"Diplomatic pressure"

2004-09-12T18:48:00.000+01:00

Iran has again reiterated its intent to pursue nuclear technology, throwing into sharp relief for the third time this last week the futility of "diplomatic pressure" in crises. Faced with rogue nations determined to pursue their ends - be it Iran and North Korea seeking nuclear weapons or Sudan carrying out genocide in Darfur. The machinations of international diplomacy, conducted in the open in a series of slow, ponderous proceedings, merely give the Kim and Bashirs of this world the chance to hoodwink the world while pretending to act in a conciliatory way.

North Korea practically admits what it is doing, whereas Iran is not so bold as to be so openly defiant. But both regimes are pursuing nuclear weapons so as to upset traditional balances of power, and to attempt to bully their neighbours and fend off the United States. They need to be stopped. Indeed, James Bolton has stated that "we are determined that they are not going to achieve a nuclear weapons capability." But an observer would be forgiven for wondering exactly what the USA intends to do about it. Right now the strategy is to bring Iran before the Security Council, although this might not even lead to the imposition of sanctions. In the meantime, Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons while issuing threats against Israeli and U.S. troops.

Iran is a sworn enemy of the United States, a state sponsor of terrorism, and an obstable to much-needed reform in the region. It aspires to leadership of the ummah and would gain great prestige and influence in the region by developing nuclear weapons, under the protection of which it could oppose U.S. interests even more flagrantly. Bolton is right that this situation cannot be tolerated, and if we are to stop it coming about we must act quickly. North Korea has become such a pressing problem because we no longer know for sure that they don't possess nuclear weapons, which makes the cost of action against the regime markedly greater. If we do not act while we are sure there is no Iranian bomb, the risks of doing so will become much greater as time passes.

Words will not stop Iran and North Korea. It was not words that stopped Libya from following the path further into international illigetimacy, it was action - first, the invasion of Iraq, and secondly, the proliferation security initiative. The invasion of Iraq taught Libya that America is serious about nonproliferation, and that regimes which have defied the west for years cannot keep on getting away with it for ever. Other regimes took similar lessons from Iraq, but they drew different conclusions. Iran and North Korea decided that unless they changed the way they conducted their domestic and foreign policies - which they couldn't without changing what they fundamentally are - they would have to protect themselves. This is not a view that accuses the U.S. of aggression. It is these outlaw regimes which are guilty of aggression against American interests - what they are reacting to is America's belated moves to defend herself.

North Korea: no rice, plenty of mushrooms

2004-09-12T14:23:00.000+01:00

A large explosion which was visible from satellite and produced a cloud 4.5km wide has been reported in North Korea, up near the Chinese border. Although State has said that the explosion was non-nuclear, it is much larger than anything that has previously occured in the country. It is not known yet whether it was accidental or happened by design - it is near a military installation which houses ballistic missiles, but North Korea is littered with military installations.

This ought to focus our minds. This whole sorry saga began fourteen years ago. I here quote extensively from an article called "Confronting the Korean bomb" that I wrote over on everything2 last year (or read a more detailed chronology of diplomacy) -

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, North Korea was finding itself increasingly isolated as subsidized trade from the Soviet Union and China was cut off. It seemed that North Korea would have to improve relations with the Free World, and some people permitted themselves to think the Korean diplomatic winter might be over.

In 1991, North and South Korea signed the "Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression, Exchanges and Cooperation and the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" and North Korea submitted itself to inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. While they commited to this in word, it was never translated into actions. North Korea repeatedly blocked visits to its facilities during 1992-3 and when the IAEA referred the issue to the United Nations Security Council and the Council passed Resolution 825 which -

"1. Calls upon the DPRK to reconsider the announcement contained in the letter of 12 March 1993 and thus to reaffirm its commitment to the Treaty;
2. Further calls upon the DPRK to honour its non-proliferation obligations under the Treaty and comply with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution of 25 February 1993;"

North Korea rejected the request a day later and again refused IAEA inspectors access to their sites. Tensions mounted as the North cut off negotiations with the South, and to get them restarted South Korea and United States Forces Korea had to agree to stop carrying out 'Team Spirit' exercises. PATRIOT anti-ballistic missile batteries were deployed to the South and the North threatened war should sanctions be imposed on them by the international community. The Defence Secretary of the United States noted that he thought this was rhetoric, but that it would be foolish to act on this premise. It was hard to say what an already starving country which was dependent on international aid might do were it to be removed.

Even back then, South Korea eclipsed its Northern rival in almost every arena. Analysts estimated that South Korea could easily over-run the North with only a small increase in defence spending, although the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ (it is within long-range artillery range) meant that the city might well be destroyed. Even so, United States Forces Korea upped its readiness and began an exercise to designed to prepare them to respond to a sudden invasion from the North. As they are being now, various limited strikes were discussed - it was hoped the operational effectiveness of North Korea's nuclear program could be severely reduced, if not destroyed.

There was no invasion of the North. China said it would send 50,000 - 75,000 troops to assist North Korea were it invaded by the South and the United States, but that would provide only nominal assistance in the case of North invading South. There was a period of high tension and finally an Agreed Framework was signed at Geneva in 1994. It was agreed that North Korea would freeze its graphite-moderated reactors (which would be replaced by light-water reactor power plants supplied by an international consortium led by the U.S.), the U.S. would ship 500,000 tons of heavy oil to North Korea anually. Most importantly, the U.S. promised not to use nuclear weapons against North Korea, and the North Korea agreed to work towards a non-nuclear Korea and "strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime." The United States and North Korea were to move towards normalized relations.

The construction of the LWRs was delayed as concessions to the IAEA were demanded in exchange. North Korea denied the IAEA some historical data but co-operation was forthcoming on the canning of spent fuel rods and their disposal. But on August 31, 1998, North Korea tested a Taepodong-1 ballistic missile, which the United States saw as a destabilizing act. Former Secretary of Defence William J. Perry was charged with conducting an enquiry into U.S. policy towards North Korea and producing a comprehensive report along with recommendations. It suggested that the U.S. would make concessions to North Korea to remove pressures that the DPRK regarded as threatening if they removed the threat of their long-rang missiles, and that the U.S. would move to normalize relations if North Korea chose to take this "positive route." But -

..."If, however, North Korea refused to go down this 'positive path,' "the United States and its allies would have to take other steps to assure their security and contain the threat."

In some ways this situation is similar to the Iraqi disarmament saga. However, Kim Jong-Il is clearly a more desparate leader than Saddam Husayn was. IAEA inspectors have seen and measured the material North Korea could use to make a nuclear weapon, and most serious observers of the situation consider it only a matter of time before Pyongyang has nuclear capability. We have to face the fact that unless we act decisively we're going to end up with a hostile and money-hungry power that has nuclear capability. If we buy them off with another round of concessions like Clinton did, that will only delay the problem by a few years. This may seem like an appealing prospect while there are so many other things on our plate, but we would be making a pact with the devil. Not only would a precedent be established that it's okay to bribe the international community into sustaining your dictatorship, we can hardly count on the DPRK to keep its word either. As they explained when they withdrew from the NPT, these guys really want nukes. Besides, their hand will always be stronger in negotiations if they have nukes - just look at the stir they're creating by the possibility they might have them in the future.

Nor is this an isolated incident. Over the last week a pattern has been emerging which suggests that the DPRK is stepping up the pressure. After it was revealed that Seoul experimented with fissile materials back in 2000, the DPRK suggested it might pull out of the six-party talks on disarmament; the regime also announced its intention to ratchet up the program after this revelation. U.S. officials have also observed a heightened level of suspicious activity in the country over the past week, suggesting that preparation for a test might be underway. The timing is significant for two reasons. Firstly, and less seriously, the DPRK might be trying to undercut Bush and get Kerry elected (Kerry must have more supporters abroad than in the United States). This strategy is pretty clearly not going to work - only the radical left sees Bush as the reason the world is so frustratingly complex and adverse at the moment; most see him as imposing a sense of order and purpose on this chaos. Dictatorships pursuing anti-American foreign policy will lead to the election of Bush, not Kerry.

But secondly and more seriously, the DPRK is likely to be using the lull in major initiatives coming out of Washington before November as a window of opportunity to move forward. The six party talks will continue to achieve nothing while quietly (or not so quietly, as today) Pyongyang gets closer and closer to possessing nuclear weapons. Although North Korea has hardly been mentioned in the election race, the winner in November is going to have to move quickly on this issue. We need firm, decisive action that sends the message that the United States will not tolerate rogue nations possessing nuclear weapons. This is not necessary just to combat the huge problems a nuclear North Korea would produce, but to discourage such adventurism elsewhere in the world.

AP: no Arabs at Beslan

2004-09-09T22:22:00.000+01:00

The AP reports on the hostage-takers:

None were Arabs, despite the government's contention that Arabs were involved in the hostage-taking last week in the North Ossetian town of Beslan, which ended in gunfire and explosions that killed more than 350 people, many of them children.

Six were Chechens and four were Ingushetians, according to the report. But the AP's contention that none were Arabs, which would bely Russian claims that the Beslan school siege was the work of international terrorists rather than concretely rooted in the Chechen conflict, comes from the fact that authorities have not mentioned Arabs since last week. However, as the report also states, so far only ten of the terrorists have been identified. Canada.com news notes that on the issue of Arab involvement Russian officials have begun to "backtrack".

Given that these reports come from officials in the Kremlin who have spoken on condition of anonymity, perhaps we shouldn't attach too much weight to them. No doubt the official line will always maintain that Arabs were involved in the attacks as this fits in with Putin's narrative. And even if Arabs weren't directly responsible for actually carrying out the attack, it has all the hallmarks of Wahabbi terrorism - a Middle Eastern import to Chechnya.

Darfur: where next?

2004-09-09T17:39:00.000+01:00

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the most practical contribution we can make to the security of Darfur in the short-term is to increase the number of African Union monitors. That will require the cooperation of the Government of Sudan.

In the intermediate and long term, the security of Darfur can be best advanced by a political settlement at Abuja and by the successful conclusion of the peace negotiations between the SPLM and the Government of Sudan.

This is how Powell concluded his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, and so another potential milestone has in practice been reduced to just more words. Powell made a point of emphasising that the application of the term 'genocide' will change nothing in U.S. policy towards the region, and stressed that whatever you call it, "[t]he reality is the same: there are people in Darfur who desperately need our help." And so the focus remains on reactive rather than proactive measures, with only the following preventative measures currently on the table -

Sanctions. Sudan has an oil output of 320,000 barrels per day, and sanctions "including with regard to the petroleum" sector will be proposed if the government has not complied to the demands of the new resolution in thirty days. However, more diplomatic and political pressure will need to be brought to bear on Sudan's allies within the UNSC for this to be feasible - another thirty days' deadline and the use of the g-word by the UN might help. But even this watered-down sanctions threat has drawn skepticism from some quarters: "I think the U.S. approach is what I would call stick-based rather than carrot-based," one council diplomat said. "We feel now is not the time for sanctions."

The new draft resolution demands a ban on overflights by Sudanese military aircraft in the Darfur region, to make way for overflights by international aircraft to determine what is happening in the region. Sudan will likely argue that this is a curtailment of its sovereignty.

An expansion of the AU monitoring force in Darfur, which is currently the focus of discussion between the government and rebel leaders in Nigeria. The suggestion is to increase the size of the monitoring force (currently comprised of 80 observers and 300 troops protecting them) to 3,000; observers have commented it would take 5,000 troops to bring anything like security to this region the size of France.

The new resolution also calls for Kofi Annan to set up a commission to investigate who is responsible for war crimes and to punish them; needless to say, this will likely produce a lot more heat than light.

The Security Council has begun debating the new resolution today, and it is likely that some watering-down will occur before it is passed. The passage of another month might increase the pressure for action, but in that month anything other than piecemeal improvements in the situation on the ground are unlikely.

Powell: "genocide" in Darfur

2004-09-09T15:27:00.000+01:00

Secretary Powell has declared that "genocide" is taking place in Darfur. Transcript will be available from here. Meanwhile, the Sudanese government declares such actions counterproductive.

WP editorialises: USA must do more in Darfur.

No word yet from British FM on what comes next, but meanwhile the UNSC will begin debating a new resolution proposed by the USA. It stops short of using the word "sanctions" and provides another 30 days for the Sudanese government to comply.

Anyone else noticed how the number dead which is being reported (30,000 - 50,000) has remained static since the first deadline was set? This despite the fact only 180,000 of the 1,000,000 displaced have arrived in neighbouring Chad. Maybe the Powell transcript will provide new insight.

Also: how you can help.

UPDATE: Powell's written remarks.

French hostages

2004-09-08T20:36:00.000+01:00

The Islamic Army of Iraq denies it set conditions or a deadline for the release of French hostages. The French must be kicking themselves - now they have nothing to surrender to.

Kerry: so nuanced even the NYT can't explain him

2004-09-08T14:59:00.000+01:00

From today's NYT -

Deconstructing Mr. Bush's statement on Tuesday shows that as has often been the case as the two sides fight over Iraq policy, there is a basis for his assertions about Mr. Kerry, but also that the president ignores statements by Mr. Kerry that flesh out his position in ways that make Mr. Bush's claims less persuasive.

What are these statements that the President has been ignoring? If you want to know the answer to that question, you won't find it in the rest of the article, which goes on to lay out in some detail the major Kerry flip-flops over Iraq. Starting in May 2003 -

Mr. Kerry, speaking before it became clear that no stockpiles of banned weapons would be found so far and that the United States would face a prolonged insurgency, replied that he "would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

So far so good. But those first few lines don't bode too well, do they?

In January, during the Democratic primary season, Mr. Kerry appeared on the MSNBC program "Hardball" and was asked by the host, Chris Matthews, "Are you one of the antiwar candidates?"

Mr. Kerry replied: "I am. Yes. In the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promise to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was, and we should have done it right."
(Nuance...? Looks more like waffle to me....)

In the exigencies of primary politics, when the Deanster looked like hot property, Kerry changed position again. He might almost be forgiven, or get off with just a little slap on the wrist. Then -

Mr. Bush's assertion that Mr. Kerry had taken a new position on Iraq this week was based on a statement Mr. Kerry made about the war on Monday. "It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," Mr. Kerry said.

That statement came less than a month after Mr. Kerry had said he would have voted in the Senate to give Mr. Bush the authority to invade Iraq even if he knew then the United States would not uncover unconventional weapons or establish a close link between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda. "I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Mr. Kerry told reporters in Arizona on Aug. 9.

So, in the article's own words, Kerry has completely changed position in the space of a month. The get-out clause earlier - that Kerry had been "speaking before it became clear that no stockpiles of banned weapons would be found so far and that the United States would face a prolonged insurgency" in May 2003 is invalidated by his comments of a month ago. Unless the insurgency has him surrendering - in which case the message is "I'll defend America, but only when it's not too costly".

The facts of the Kerry campaign speak for themselves so much that even the NYT can't put a positive spin on them. Sobering thought, eh?

Omar Bakri Mohammed

2004-09-07T20:49:00.000+01:00

Reuters UK has an article on Omar Bakri's upcoming celebratory conference on 9/11, which has been advertised by posters proclaiming the 9/11 hijackers as 'The Magnificent 19'. He defends himself by saying he doesn't actually "incite people to kill anybody", although his comments earlier this week seem to bely this. The fact Omar is involved in these sorts of activities shouldn't massively surprise us, but why have only the tabloid press been involved in reporting it? (kudos to the Telegraph for breaking this trend) Respectable broadsheets need to bring this man to the public's attention.

And here are some facts the Reuters report neglected to mention - The conference is entitled "The Choice is in Your Hands: Either You're with the Muslims or with the Infidels," and Omar has referred to 9/11 as the "operation that lifted the head of the Muslim nation". The question is, why am I having to learn this from an Israeli news source? The media in this country needs to pull its finger out and start reporting on radical Islamism in our own borders. If political correctness stymies the national debate on these issues, then we will wake up one morning to discover that the time for debate has passed.

Kerry campaign

2004-09-07T19:11:00.000+01:00

Mark Steyn has an excellent piece in the Telegraph on the Kerry campaign and why Americans favour Bush. It's worth a read - if only our own British literati would listen to its conclusions.

Anatomy of a 'Guardian'

2004-09-07T17:00:00.000+01:00

Today I engaged in a masochistic ritual that I practice roughly every few weeks: I purchased a Guardian. Madness, maybe; but occasionaly it helps to have a little look into the mind of thy enemy. Let's delve a bit deeper...

David Aaronovitch has reached what amounts to a shocking conclusion for the left: 'You don't have to be dumb to vote for Bush' he declares in a column today. He observes -

[S]uppose, for a moment, that [American voters] aren't so dumb. Suppose, first, that they don't buy the economic prospectus unwittingly along with the social populism, but consciously because they actually agree with it - because (and this hurts) it does actually tie in with their concrete experience.

STOP THE PRESSES! The New York Times, Noam Chomsky and the Dems have been searching for the secret of Republican success for years, but as usual we enlightened Europeans beat them to it. Up yours, Keller! It's sad to think that this probably represents the pinnacle of what we'll get from our liberal media if Bush is victorious. The deus ex machina of the right-wing hate machine, funded by corporate interests and capable of stealing elections, is easily foisted on people here in the UK because so little intelligent discussion is had about the reality of American politics.

One oft-repeated commonplace is the connivance of the whole American media in right-wing domination. This assumption lurks subtly behind the Guardian's analysis of the Swift Boat controversy -

The timing of Mr Kerry's conversation with Mr Clinton reflects the concern within the Kerry camp and among Democrats in general that the party lost precious ground to the Republicans during August, and was badly damaged by attack advertisements from a small group of Vietnam war veterans virulently opposed to Mr Kerry.

The charges in the ads, though largely discredited, tarnished the most heroic chapter in Mr Kerry's biography - his service in Vietnam as a young navy lieutenant. The Swift Boat Veterans' allegations also prevented Mr Kerry from laying out his agenda on Iraq or the economy, miring his campaign in a debate about a war that has been over for 30 years.

(Don't you just love that "though largely discredited" bit? Ann Coulter would've.)

Right. So it was the Swifties who bought up Vietnam, not Kerry, was it? The true narrative is this: Kerry tried to run almost entirely on his Vietnam record (for those wondering, it was his record in combat, not the part where he called American soldiers war criminals), and the ridiculous notion that his war credentials alone made him fit for command was soon deflated. Now he's been forced to change tack by his former comrades-in-arms. However, the liberal narrative, will be this: Kerry ran on a platform of opposing the evil Bush II and making the sun shine again in the USA, but vicious attacks on his patriotism and war record by the right-wing hate machine made him focus on countering their slanderous lies and obstructed normal debate (this despite widespread concern that Kerry has only 'taken the gloves off at last'...) Watch this become media orthodoxy in the coming weeks.

Casting their eyes east rather than west, the Guardian managed to report something worthwhile from Beslan, without drawing the proper conclusions: Ossetians are getting mighty angry with a) their government and b) the Ingush. A man from Beslan described what would be the result of the school attack -

Yet Aslan said any revenge attacks would probably not be targeted at specific relatives of the militants. "It will probably be just attacks against normal Ingush people. The Ingush have already all left the [nearby] Prigorodny region. They are moving out.

"I won't do anything on my own - that'd be pointless. But if my people get into a war, I shall fight." Again, his two friends nodded at another inevitability.

al-Qaeda operate by trying to ferment cultural conflict between West and East and between the three Abrahamic faiths. This was the meaning of the Church bombings in Iraq and the synagogue bombings in Turkey, and of numerous other attacks. If Ossetians march into Ingushetia and start shooting, this will be a victory for al-Qaeda. Hatred and violence will spread, and God knows the North Caucasus has enough of it already. Local authorities and the federal government have both been discredited by the outcome of this tragedy and will struggle to stop people taking the law into their own hands. What we have witnessed, like we did in Madrid, is the power of a single act of terrorism to change history dramatically: let's not forget this as quickly as we did Madrid.

Of course, this isn't what the Guardian reflected on in their editorials. It hosts an article by Ahmed Zakaev, who was deputy PM in the Chechen government elected in 1997 and now lives in the UK. As I've already blogged, we can't forget the condition of the Chechen people: but what might be about to explode in the Caucasus, and the Russian reaction, could have very grave consequences as well. Guardian editorials about internationalising the situation and putting peacekeepers in Chechnya (is that these guys answer to everything?) don't really add much to the debate (nor do German ones).

And that, folks, is why I rarely buy a Guardian.

Europe

2004-09-07T00:23:00.000+01:00

Will Hutton highlights some interesting facts about the current situation in France and Germany even if he draws the wrong conclusions (that's the best you'll get from me, Will). But if the situation in France and Germany is like Britain in the '70s, or at least the sense of national crisis is the same, the question is: Do these two countries have alternative national traditions to tap into? Thatcher was able to 'save' Britain because people got thouroughly fed-up with all that Keynesian social democracy lark and wanted to try something else, something that had worked for us before. Where will the French and Germans turn?

David Kaspar has some thoughts and an amusing (and very British) graphic.

BBC vs. blogosphere

2004-09-06T20:16:00.000+01:00

The BBC seems far from the mark in its analysis of Putin's reasons for not leaving Chechnya, showing once it again that it doesn't "get" the war on terror. Some people just can't shake off old assumptions about how geopolitics and security works. Dan Darling at Winds of Change can.

Britain-based cleric supports targetting children

2004-09-06T19:24:00.000+01:00

London's Telegraph reports the words of Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has previously urged British Muslims to jihad against Israel -

An extremist Islamic cleric based in Britain said yesterday that he would support hostage-taking at British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.

He goes on to say that every Brit is a legitimate target because of our 'terrorism' in Iraq. This is the same Omar Bakri Mohammed who warned back in 2002 that Britain faced "September 11"-style attacks if we got involved in Iraq. And it's the same Omar Bakri Mohammed who is involved in the "celebration" on the 9/11 anniversary in London this month. And it's the same Omar Bakri Mohammed who we have hosted in this country since 1985. Maybe we need to a) rethink this decision and b) rethink the general policy of hosting extremists that even Saudi Arabia didn't want.

Scale of Russian challenge

2004-09-06T18:32:00.000+01:00

Amidst the pictures and reports of the people of Beslan laying their dead to rest, the Kremlin now needs to look to the future: and consider just what the scale of the terrorist challenge is. Although the chaotic and incomprehensible nature of the attack and the way it ended might seem to suggest an encouraging stupidity among the terrorists, we probably shouldn't comfort ourselves with such thoughts. As details emerge, it seems the attack on School No. 1 was carefully planned: weapons had been stashed under the floor of the school prior to the attack. Not only that, the terrorists carried gas masks, comms equipment, and wore NATO fatigues. The terrorists had also learnt from the 2002 siege of the Moscow theatre by taking steps to counter a possible gas attack: they smashed the windows of the gym.

Russian society might look like ours, but it's not. We call states that lose the monopoly on the use of violence within their own borders 'failed states': and isn't this precisely what Russia is in danger of doing? The twentieth century was the century of Empires, and that century taught us that eventually cultural conflicts rip empires apart. As this article in the Moscow Times suggests, perhaps it's time for Russia to confront some uncomfortable truths about the Muslim peoples to its South. Radical Islamism is a disease that feeds off oppression and violence: this is why President Bush is addressing the root causes in the Middle East. This is what Iraq was about. However, if we are to be wise as well as firm, we must recognise that just because a fascist terrorist endorses a cause, that cause does not immediately become null. The moderate people of Checnya could be an ally in the war on terror, if only Moscow would let them. Violent and implacable extremism is more easily destroyed if isolated.

French hostages: more...

2004-09-06T18:10:00.000+01:00

Diana West offers some interesting thoughts on souring Franco-Iraqi relations. One of the most striking things about her article is the intelligence and reasonableness of Iyad Allawi's comments - comments that did not recieve wide dissemination in the Western media, who have typecasted him as a Vladimir Putin and are doggedly sticking to their guns. I will try and track Allawi's comments and personality over the months running up to the elections.

Hostages

2004-09-06T17:50:00.000+01:00

The 'Islamic Army of Iraq' which is holding two French citizens has issued a list of demands and demanded a $5 million ransom. Their demands are -

Accept a truce between France and Osama bin Laden as offered on April 15 (and here was me thinking there was a de facto one anyway!)
France should stop engaging militarily or commercially in Iraq. I wouldn't think the first would be too hard, but the guilt of dealing with a totalitarian didn't stop them doing the latter before, so what will now?

Of course, the ransom must definitely not be paid, but I do not think even Paris would entertain this thought. Giving money to anti-coalition forces in Iraq for whatever reason amounts to an act of war against the UN-mandated multinational force, not to mention the USA.

Meanwhile, a group holding Turkish hostages lays out the iron logic of Islamists -

Al-Arabiya TV station broadcast a video in which a group calling itself the Islamic Resistance Movement - al-Noaman Brigades called for the lorry driver's employer and other Turkish companies to withdraw from Iraq within two days.
"We demand that the two companies stop these acts, which make it necessary for those carrying them out to be killed," said a statement read out on the channel.

Well, there isn't much to add to that.

Chrenkoff's Euro news update

2004-09-06T17:40:00.000+01:00

Another one of Chrenkoff's excellent Euro news round-ups is out.

Update: Izzat Ibrahim

2004-09-05T20:07:00.000+01:00

Middle East Online casts doubt on the capture of Saddam's former aide...

Arab 'mercenaries' at Beslan?

2004-09-05T18:48:00.000+01:00

I was just reading this editorial in Lebanon's Daily Star when I came across the phrase 'Arab mercenaries'. Why are the barbarians of Beslan been referred to as mercenaries? Mercenaries get paid money for rendering services and have a tradition in Europe that dates back to the old Italian condottieri. That isn't what these Arabs were doing in Beslan. Despite their demands for Chechen independence and the release of prisoners, they cannot be said to be Chechen nationalists if they're Arabs.

We'd be wise to remember a fact from the 9/11 Commission Report: when Mohammed Atta and the Hamburg Cell first travelled to Afghanistan, they intended to go and fight in Chechnya, not to commit terrorism against the USA. By calling the murders of Beslan 'mercenaries' we somehow imply that what happened in Beslan is not part of the global war on terror, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. The 'Wahabbi international' that was first developed in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and then turned to other ends after the end of the Cold War may be a loose-knit set of organisations and to some degree heterogenous; but whether they strike in Bali or Beslan, the same philosophy of violent exclusivity and hatred is behind it, and the same hatred of the secular West. It may hijack other secular causes. But it is the same thing that we are fighting, as assuredly in Beslan as it was in Afghanistan.

France and Iraq

2004-09-05T17:31:00.000+01:00

Most logical people would deduce from the kidnappings of French citizens in Iraq that there is no accomodation in the war on Islamism, and no possibility of truce. Not so the French government. But wait! Maybe they have a point. Now the French have even managed to get Wahabbis defending them. Reports the AFP -

A senior cleric with influence among extremist Sunni Muslim groups, Sheikh Mehdi al-Sumaidaie, told AFP Sunday that a US-Iraqi raid Saturday on the town of Latifiya had "disrupted the process of their release."

However the cleric, who adheres to the austere Wahhabi current in Islam, also said he had issued a fatwa -- or religious ruling -- "urging the group to immediately free and not to harm the two French reporters, in recognition of France's position on Iraq."

Muslim leaders have been quick to come out and condemn the kidnapping of the French journalists, because of the support France gives to Arab and Muslim causes. The French even managed to secure the disapproval of Hamas (apparently only non-French infidels are fair game). Iyad Allawi, meanwhile, perhaps understands the realities of extremism a bit more than most, as he wrote in Iraqi newspaper the National Accord (via BBC) -

Chirac, who wants to present himself as fair, must take his share of responsibility for the kidnapping of his two compatriots as he opposed all international resolutions aimed at restoring Iraqi's security

Slightly pointed words maybe, but fair nontheless. Now, maybe a sign of further deteriorating relations between Iraq and France, the French have cancelled a visit by Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawar (the BBC doesn't make it clear that it was the French who cancelled it, but AFP does).

It is hardly surprising that the French should come under fire from a people whose oppression they were for so long complicit in. It is equally unsurprising that when they invoke the sympathy of violent extremists and terrorists, those opposed to terrorism and extremism (i.e. 'civilisation') will start to regard them with some suspicion. Maybe the hostage incident will encourage the French to change their views; but I doubt it.

At least it looks like Iraqi foreign policy is in safe hands.

Saddam vs. justice

2004-09-05T17:17:00.000+01:00

In further news that things are moving along in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is to go on trial imminently:

Iraq's toppled leader Saddam Hussein and his top aides will go on trial within weeks, Iraqi Minister of State Kasim Daoud said on Sunday.

Daoud told a news conference in Kuwait City after talks with top officials that "Saddam Hussein and his band will stand trials within a period of weeks."

This means that despite widespread speculation to the contrary, the trial will be well under way by the time of Iraq's elections next January. The bringing to justice of former regime elements in what is seen as a relatively fair and most importantly an Iraqi process (Daoud also ruled out any involvement by the USA) is an important hearts and minds operation for the new government, so let's hope it runs smoothly and Saddam can be humbled slightly more than he was at the last hearing.

Iz zat Ibrahim?

2004-09-05T15:19:00.000+01:00

The Iraqi Defence and State Ministries are reporting the capture of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, currently the most wanted man in Iraq. However, the U.S. military say he is not in their custody. Whether he is captured or not, a significant controversy remains over exactly what his involvement in the insurgency was or is. Al-Jazeera thinks that he didn't play a role and quotes someone citing his illness as a reason, and even thinks his capture could be a boon for the resistance: they can no longer be tainted by association with him.

But, if it IS Izzat, then what was he doing surrounded by 70 to 150 armed followers who were willing to fight to protect him? Isn't their a teensy possibility these men might have been aiding and abetting the insurgency? The insurgency won't suddenly be stopped by the arrest of one man (even if he was "Saddam's second in command" -- but wait, how many people have we heard the media describe as that?), but victories like this - especially by Iraqi forces - are a propaganda boost, and we could do with more of them. The fact the dismantling of infrastructures (think how much chaos 150 insurgents could cause, especially in light of Beslan) will save innocent lives is yet another reason to celebrate. Let's hope that iz Ibrahim.

Beslan

2004-09-05T01:47:00.000+01:00

It is depressing to consider that individual acts of Islamist terrorism no longer instantly disgust the media because they have become routine and we have become cynical towards them. What is even more depressing is that yesterday Wahabbis managed to surpass themselves in barbarity, such that the entire world took notice in a way it has perhaps not since 9/11.

It had been a particularly bad ten days for Russia, as the twin airliners were brought down and then a 'black widow' exploded herself outside a Moscow metro station. The toll: around one hundred dead. The verdict: expected terrorism in the aftermath of the questionably-democratic Chechen election. Had it stopped there, the world might have said little. But it did not stop there.

Viewed objectively - cold-heartedly - what happened in Beslan is not out of kilter with the usual actions of Islamist terrorists. Neither the casualty count nor the suicidal methods nor the complete disregard for human life are new. Dozens die in the streets of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv and the media barely bats an eyelid. But terrorism is not about objective cold-heartedness. It is about terror - terror inflicted and terror emphasised with. Terror deals in emotion, and the emotional impact made by the terrorists of Beslan is far greater than anything else to have occured recently.

Insofar as it is possible to divine exactly what impact they intended to have, it is likely that they intended to attract maximum media attention. Beyond this, they highlighted the weak security of Russia and tried to cause the maximum amount of fear. This was also the reason for a number of 'distributed' attacks across Russia recently rather than a focus on one big one, according to TIME. One thing they have definitely been successful in is grabbing the attention of the world.

Putin's reaction needs to be measured. Although this will ensure us a strong ally in the War on Terror, we also need to consider the effect Putin might have on the legitimacy of the war. We certainly need to consider how this effect will be displayed in a media where Abu Ghraib is worth more reporting than all the good news from Iraq. I think we'd be wise not to underestimate the possibility that sympathy for Russia in an on-going battle against terror could evaporate if he is seen to be taking action that is considered too tough in Chechnya. Of course, there is no political solution to a battle with Wahabbi extremists - but there isn't with the most militant Palestinians either. The trick is that not everyone recognises this.

Here's a round-up of the most interesting comment and analysis to come out of the British media Saturday -

A Guardian editoral comes up with the usual answer of liberal internationalists to, well, anything - 'an agreed, collective, non-violent, international response.' The fact of Putin going to the Security Council is interesting to reflect on because of what it says about Russian internal politics (he needs the panacea of legitimacy, help, etc.), but I won't join this journalist in thinking it'll change anything on the ground: you'd have to think the UNSC was an effective/powerful institution to believe that.
BBC Monitoring has a round-up of Russian press reaction to the siege.
The Telegraph editorialises intelligently about the need to balance sympathy for Russia with concern that her actions in Chechnya may be pathological. This raises the important question of: Is the support of Putin's Russia ultimately going to help or hinder the war on terror? Bush's strength is an asset because it is moderated by wisdom and humanity. Can we say this about the ex-KGB officer from Leningrad?
An LSE prof at The Times is entertaining a chilling prospect: there seems to be no solution to the Russo-Chechen conflict, so it's likely to escalate. And with the spread of WMD, escalation is going to mean many more deaths. Includes some historical context, which is much-needed in this situation.

In all, the events of the last few days encapsulate the global war on terror in microcosm. Violent and fanatical fundamentalists who cannot possibly co-exist with the civilised world have hijacked what might seem to the casual observer to be at least understandable causes and are using them as a springboard for mass murder. It hardly need be stated that an ideology that straps bombs to women and uses them to blow up children cannot be reasoned with, cannot be bargained with, and cannot be dealt with in any way but through force. This is the real challenge facing the civilised world right now, and Beslan made it plain on our TV screens for one dreadful day.

New blog

2004-09-04T21:54:00.000+01:00

Welcome to my blog. I'm Andrew Gawthorpe and I live in the United Kingdom. I intend to use this blog to give a counter-balance to the often liberal media in the UK and consider transatlantic and intra-European politics, as well as how they bear on global security.