Friday, March 07, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 11:13 AM
Mr. Sentinel Goes To New York
Carla and I will be in the Big Apple for a few days and unable to update IS, see you next Thursday
The dynamic duo behind Sentinel will be taking a week off. Carla and I are going to NY (we'll produce a videoblog to celebrate the event), just to prove that we don’t hate America. We will be visiting the UN and see if we can convince people to vote for a second resolution that will make everybody happy (everybody, that is, except Saddam).
Carla will probably do her bit in the patriotic effort of helping the US economy recover, through excessive use of her credit card.
I doubt that we will be able to update IS until next Thursday. Have a good week and see you in 6 days.
So long.
posted by Mooraq at 11:13 AM
International Support Are Not Empty Words
Despite what some people think, international support is vital for the US and for the Administration itself
Waging war in a democracy is as much about deploying the troops as convincing people - most of all voters – that war is the right thing to do. Even forgetting all about the problems of a US solitary war on Iraq and a US solitary re-ordering of the world, if such thing is feasible, international support is crucial for US internal purposes.
A comment on the FT by Linda Bilmes (public policy professor at Harvard) reminds us how vital is Tony Blair's role and his support for the present Administration. Obviously this is not about the 30 thousands Britishh troops in Iraq, it’s about the political weight of Mr. Blair, increased by his being on the opposite of the political spectrum to Mr. Bush. It is fortunate that Mr. Blair was never made to meet Rummy. A close encounter with the Secretary of Defense could have shattered even the rock-hard certainties of the British Prime Minister.
posted by Carla Passino at 10:51 AM
‘No Legal Basis’ to Wage War on Iraq
A group of international law experts tells Blair that only a second UN resolution can legally justify a strike against Iraq
A group of British lawyers warned the Prime Minister today that there is no ground in international law to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iraq without a second UN resolution.
Britain could not wage war on the basis of individual self-defence because ‘the evidence doesn't seem to show’ that Iraq represents a real and present danger to national security, according to International Law Professor, Phillipe Sands. Therefore a UN resolution authorising collective self-defence is required. Without that, a war ‘will seriously undermine the international rule of law.’
Especially ‘worrisome’ is Blair’s declaration that he would be prepared to go to war even if members of the UN Security Council vetoed a new resolution. 'The idea that one state can unilaterally determine the reasonableness or not of another state's veto takes us into very dangerous new ground,’ Mr Sands told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme (audio link).
Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that the United Kingdom will push for a compromise resolution, which may give Iraq more time to disarm. ‘The principle we were holding firm to and that is that it is incontrovertible that Iraq has failed in the final opportunity that it was offered,’ he said, ‘but of course we should within that context strain every nerve that we have to see whether even at this late stage it is possible to resolve this peacefully.’
However, the extra time granted to Saddam Hussein is likely to be less than a week, according to a report by Reuters.
posted by Mooraq at 9:57 AM
Sentiments Running High
On why the world is currently angry at the US
Two comments from the NYT. In the first one Krugman explains why Mexicans are angry with the US. In the second Kristof quotes some interesting polls about how Canadians, Irish, British (to say nothing of the rest of the world) are angry with the US. Do you notice a recurrent theme?
The US Administration had better smarten up and realize the damage it is inflicting to itself - and to the US people -. I notice a big sense of denial (check some of the comments on this site) about the causes of this all.
Thursday, March 06, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 3:34 PM
An Exercise Of Wishful Thinking
Kicking Saddam out will not do much for the Middle-East
Good analysis on the Time about the real issue in the Middle East: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush’s hope that toppling Saddam will bring peace in the region is wishful thinking to say the least. A more cynical observer would dare to lump George W’s words with the others smoky arguments that are mustered to justify the war on Iraq (like the “presumed” links to Al Qaeda). The US would have done better at sticking to the original (and correct) story that Saddam is a threat, that he is defying UN resolutions and has been doing so for the last 10 years. Everything else consists of fluffy arguments that could be used to justify war on about 50 countries around the world at any given moment.
In any case, the real node that will need to be solved if we want peace in the Middle East (and less terrorism at home) is the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The belief that removing Saddam will solve the issue is naïve at best. Given the recent developments (quick summary: more terrorism, more military retaliation, Sharon installing a Government leaning on the right side of Pat Robertson and Arafat sitting pretty in his Ramallah compound) there is no hope that peace will be achieved without strong international political and economic pressure on both sides. If we are serious about peace in the Middle East we should start thinking more about Sharon and Arafat and less about Saddam.
posted by Mooraq at 1:39 PM
Humbly Arrogant Or Arrogantly Humble
What does the US want to be?
In one of his very few foreign policy statements in the 2000 campaing, George W said: “If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us. If we are a humble nation, but strong, they will welcome us”. How correct he was. This should be required reading for the neo-cons and Rummy.
One thing that the US is currently failing at completely, is selling its ideas to the world. Coming from a nation that gave us Hollywood, Coca Cola, Nike, MJ and McDonald, it astonishes how incompetent the present Administration has been at its PR job. The recent resignation of Charlotte Beers underlines the impossible task of selling the current US foreign policy to the world at large, let aside the Muslim population.
The way the war on Iraq has been presented and pushed by the US Administration has succeeded marvelously in moving moderates around the world firmly in the anti-US camps. To use the George W’s words, the US is behaving arrogantly: no wonder the world resents it.
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 2:01 PM
Horror Continued
The Israeli-Palestinian faida part X
Just yesterday I was stressing that almost two months had passed since the last suicide bombing in Israel. A relapse in violence greeted on the Israeli side with increased military operations (and Palestinian deaths) in Gaza and the West Bank. The “so called occupied territories” to use the words of Donald Rumsfeld – probably the US Secretary of Defense thinks that Israeli tanks have been formally invited by Palestinians to shell their homes – are now locked in a permanent military occupation.
Response from the Palestinian side, as usual, has been wholesale massacre of Israeli citizens. Extremists on both sides rejoice. Far-right Israelis will propose turning the military screw on Palestinians, which in turn will prompt Palestinian terrorists to step up their attacks on Israel. A so on, and so forth, while the economic, social and personal prospects of both people are going down the sink.
Until Israeli and Palestinians recognise that their real enemies are not necessarily on the other side of the fence but are those who, for political or religious reasons, have an interest in seeing this war go on forever, I am afraid there will be no peace for Israel and no country for Palestinians. It is not by chance that the person who made the most to advance the cause of peace between the two people was assassinated not by the other side but by its own.
posted by Carla Passino at 9:41 AM
Life in Kabul
Italian reporter Pino Scaccia is back in Afghanistan and finds the country has somewhat changed, but not enough
Italian journalist Pino Scaccia is back in Afghanistan to report for news programme TG1 and has set up a blog to chronicle his days in Kabul (in Italian, excerpts follow).
Compared with last year, a structure is starting to emerge in Afghan public life, according to Scaccia. "The police still doesn’t have a uniform, or rather it has too many and therefore none, but you see that a lot of steps forwards have been made to guarantee security. The checks and the rules are now in place, sign of a State that is surfacing."
On the other hand, very little has changed in Kabul’s everyday life. Poverty remains overwhelming. Children rush round foreigners begging for spare cash, which they call bakshish. And women continue to wear the burka – no matter that the Talibans have long gone.
"The conditions women live in don’t seem to have changed at all. They all keep wearing (wearing?) the burka, with some rare exceptions,’ writes Scaccia. ‘And for as long as they will be nullified by that ignoble garment, for so long as they will only be walking beings rather than people, Afghanistan will never be able to call itself a civilised country."
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 4:52 PM
Wacky Theories On The War
Conspirator theorists and their followers
I am never surprised by the wacky theories that people seem to be able to put together. The last couple of years have seen a fair share of them. I have heard idiocies like that the Twin Tower were never hit by two planes, that the CIA organised it all, that the Mossad was responsible etc. etc.
I accept all these stories as part of the Internet folklore. I accept that there are some wacky people around, most of them fairly innocuous. What scares me is when (apparently) rational people start abdicating their neurons and subscribe to them. What Calpundit reports seems to be one of those cases.
Actually what scares me most is not so much the wacky theory per se. It’s more these guys inability to understand why somebody could be opposed to this war on Iraq, as if you need some crazy theory like that to explain the French (and German) point of view. It just goes to show how poorly the whole issue of the anti-war front is understood by many US pundits. Maybe these guys should stop eating freedom fries and rationalize a bit more over a good French Chardonnay.
posted by Mooraq at 2:04 PM
Democracy In The Middle East
US plans to spread democracy in the Middle-East may sound hollow if Israel’s hawks are not reined in and the US takes a new, good look at its own policies
It has been about two months since the last Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel. In the meantime, Israel, far from restraining its army, has intensified the military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. With the world’s attention focused on Iraq, the new far right Sharon’s Government is living up to the worse expectations of every observer. How on earth will be peace achieved if, in a two-month interlude without terrorist attacks, Israel increases its military pressure instead of easing it? I suppose if Israelis are happy with it, so be it. But the international community, and that means the US in particular, cannot stand silent and then hope that the Arab world will be convinced to embrace an idea of democracy that sounds very much like a proxy for US interests.
The same goes with some of the plans I have heard about a post-war Iraq, where a former US General will be charged with basically running the country. This is not WWII, Iraq is not Germany and Japan, and the people in the Middle East will not look kindly upon a US protectorate in Iraq. If the US hopes to send a message of hope and democracy it should help set up as quickly as possible a local Government (albeit a friendly one, not unlike the one that Amid Karzai heads in Afganistan) and forget all ideas about McArthurian ideals of Rumsfelfd redesigning the map of the world’s democracies.
The US should also look long and hard at its own policy in the region. It’s true that some of Middle East dictators are in the US baddie-list (Syria and Iran in particular) but in many others (Egypt, Jordan and, above all Saudi Arabia) the US actively supports and has supported autocracies as repressive and dictatorial as any other regime. Some of these links go back to the cold war and some other (Saudi) are still “justified” with the need for oil. But unless these links are severed and strong pressure is exercised on these regimes to modernize, the US claim to fight for democracy will sound hollow indeed.
posted by Carla Passino at 12:03 PM
Labour's Love Lost - Maybe
Why Labour's dreams of Blairless Britain could turn into a Blair for President nightmare
Tony Blair’s hawkish policy on Iraq has plunged his approval rate to 31% - the biggest drop in popularity since he came to power six years ago, according to the MORI Political Monitor. While he needn’t worry about the opposition taking advantage of this – Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith continues to prove remarkably less popular than Blair – he must watch his back from within Labour.
The parliamentary party - which has recently been at odds with many of the Prime Minister’s choices, from Iraq and super-hospitals to the reform of the House of Lords and university top-up fees – has long been expected to mount a fresh challenge to replace Blair with a more palatable leader.
The Guardian fired the first salvo yesterday when columnist and former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Lord Roy Hattersley claimed that ‘only Gordon Brown offers the radical inspiration Labour needs’, although Blairite commentator David Aaronovitch responds on the same paper today that Brown really isn’t an alternative to Blair, as their political programmes are pretty much alike.
Will the rebellious Members of Parliament (MPs) succeed? Not according to The Sunday Times’ political commentator John Humphrys, who jokes that Blair will triumph in 2005 and simply dismiss his MPs because they have ‘become a hindrance to good strong government’ (link requires registration for UK users and subscription for overseas users).
But has the Prime Minister got the right to overturn his party’s manifesto commitments? ‘Tradition has it that there are two big constraints on a prime minister: parliament and his cabinet. The reality is that a prime minister with a decent majority can usually tell parliament to go to hell,' says Humphrys. 'Here we are, then, in an era of presidential politics but stuck with democratic institutions designed for the age of party. The solution is staring us in the face. We need a president.
‘We need not call him or her that if it offends royalist sentiments. He could still be prime minister. The difference is that we would elect him directly. That way he would owe his allegiance directly to the voters. Nobody could deny his democratic legitimacy.’
This is – of course – very unlikely to happen in a country such as Britain, which is fiercely conservative when it comes to its 'constitution' (see Tim's comment below). But it is true that Blair, although far removed from the average Labour member, is closer to the electorate at large – except on his handling of the Iraq crisis, but, as Humphrys notes, a British Prime Minister doesn’t need Parliament or indeed the people behind him to wage war because ‘he has the royal prerogative tucked in his back pocket.’ And it is true that there is no Labour personality capable of threatening his leadership.
Plummeting popularity rates notwithstanding, this may well be a case of Prime Minister Blair is gone, long live President Blair.
Monday, March 03, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 12:38 PM
Life After Turkey
Turkey’s vote gets in the US way, what next?
It is ironic that the only Islamic democracy – the very same concept that the US wants to spread around the Middle-East – has democratically voted against US troops deployment in Turkey.
The result did not surprise me too much. Without paying too much attention to Turkey’s internal sensitivities – for instance on the Kurdish issue – the US has been quite arrogant so far in assuming Turkey’s aid for granted, as if Turkey were just a US protectorate. Hurting anybody's national pride is not the best way ot their hearts. In the discussion about sending NATO troops to Turkey, the US has used it as a bait to attack France and Germany, without even asking first what Turkey actually wanted. No wonder the vote didn't go well: the Rumsfeld charm offensive has worked its magic in Istanbul as well as it did in Paris or Berlin (and Rome, London, Madrid, you name a city….).
Not that Turkey’s vote will jeopardize the war effort, I expect a second vote to be called soon and won, but it will probably cause a delay of a couple of weeks in the existing plans. In the end, it makes sense for Turkey to support the war and be richly rewarded for it. It is in everybody’s interest to keep the Iraq conflict as short as possible and opening a north front could do just that. At the same time the US Administration could do well to eat some humble pie and send some of its component to diplomacy 101, it will need it. Every time I see some new estimates on the cost of war and post-war, the price seems rising and the US will need some big help in picking up the tab.
posted by Carla Passino at 9:09 AM
Red Terror Rears Its Ugly Head in Italy
A terrorist dies and another is arrested in a train shoot-out which sees a policeman killed
A policeman and a terrorist were killed during a shoot-out which took place on the Rome-Florence train on Sunday morning (link in Italian, summary follows). Another terrorist was arrested. Both belong to the New Red Brigades, a communist terrorist network heir to the Red Brigades - a radical Marxist group which carried out terrorist attacks throughout the Seventies and Eighties - and were wanted in connection with the murder of labour affairs consultant Massimo D'Antona, who was shot dead in 1999.
Three policemen were carrying out random ID checks aboard the train on Sunday morning when a man and a woman took out their guns instead of handing in their documents. They pointed the guns at the neck of the most senior officer, Maresciallo Emanuele Petri, demanding his team's weapons. Then the man shot and killed Petri, wounding another policeman. As other passengers hid under their seats, more shots were fired. The male terrorist was wounded and later died in hospital, while his companion was arrested and taken to Florence for questioning. According to eye witnesses, another woman disappeared from the train, although it seems it was a shocked passenger running for her life, rather than a third terrorist attempting to escape capture.
Police thinks that the couple, later identified as Desdemona Lioce and Mario Galesi, were plotting to assassinate a Labour Ministry undersecretary, who lives in the town of Arezzo, where the terrorosts were heading. A video camera was found in their luggage, which was to be used to film their 'target'.
 |
|