 |
| Blog |
 |
| Archive |
|
|
|
|
| Blog |
| To find an archived article, simply click on Index and scroll the subject titles, or do a Ctrl-F search |
TALLRITE BLOG You can write to blog@tallrite.com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MARCH 2003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ISSUE #34 - 30th March 2003 [107]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kurds, Turks and Northern Iraq Kurdistan is the name given to the area, divided between Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, where mainly Kurds reside. The Kurdish part of Iraq, in the north and bordering on southern Turkey, is in danger of generating its own distinct conflagration because of a complicated confluence of factors.The Iraq crisis and other constituents have thrown Turkey into turmoil, which it can ill afford after four years of dire economic performance and a devastating drop of some 70% in the value of its currency. Let’s start with the Iraqi Turkomen, a nomadic people who form a sizeable minority in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is where Kirkuk lies – one of Iraq’s largest oil provinces. Turkomen are ethnically and linguistically linked to Turkey which feels a protective responsibility for all Turkics. According to some – not least Turkey – the Turkomen are oppressed by the majority Kurds. As I reported a few weeks ago, this part of Kurdistan, protected from Saddam since the Gulf War under the UN’s northern no-fly zone enforced by the US Air Force, enjoys are large degree of autonomy and prosperity, with its own parliament and other institutions. This is a unique experience amongst Kurds. And it is watched jealously by the Kurds of Turkey, Iran and Syria who, since the end of the Ottoman empire, have periodically and violently rebelled against their respective governments, in pursuit of Kurdish rights, autonomy and/or independence. This rebelliousness means that those same governments regard all Kurds, as does Saddam, with extreme suspicion and exert as much persecution as they can get away with. The Turkish twist begins just a few months ago. Fearing missile attack by Saddam in the event of an American invasion, Turkey appeals to its NATO partners for some Patriot anti-missile systems. For their own reasons, the French do their damnedest to stop this, and it is only through some pretty sharp footwork that the Americans outflank the French and get NATO to supply the Patriots. Turkey has a little oil in its southeastern – Kurdish – part, but looks longingly over its border at the oil riches of Kurdish Kirkuk.
But then here come the Americans wanting to use Turkey for their own invasion of Iraq from the North, promising a huge $6 billion aid package and reminding the Turks of how they helped them over the patriot missiles.
Meanwhile, the Turks have also angered both the EU and the UN by failing to strongarm stubborn Rauf Denktash, the president of Turkish Cyprus, into agreeing Kofi Annan’s peace-plan to re-unify the island, a plan supported not only by the Greek Cypriots and Greece but by most of the Turkish Cypriot population. As a result, the rich Greek half of the island will join the lucrative EU leaving the impecunious, ostracised Turkish half to languish outside. Turkey’s own accession to the EU slips further over the horizon as it now has two veto-wielding adversaries – Greece and Greek Cyprus – instead of one. So let’s sum up this mess. In an admirably democratic manner, albeit with unintended consequences, Turkey has managed to make enemies of the USA, EU and UN. It is suspected, probably wrongly, of wanting to invade Iraq and seize the Kirkuk oilfields under the pretext of preventing a humanitarian refugee crisis and protecting Turkomen, and it has de-facto supported Saddam by refusing to facilitate the American forces. In the worst case scenario, one can imagine Turks, Americans, Kurds, Turkomen and Saddam’s Arabs all fighting each other with no clear idea of who is on whose side. However, Turkey’s new-found foes do nevertheless have an abiding interest in an economically dynamic, stable, secular, and increasingly democratic Turkey incorporated into the West, an example to the rest of the Muslim world. This is an interest that matches Turkey’s own, and it badly needs the support of its wealthy and powerful (temporarily ex-)friends. So I believe a more benign outcome is likelier. Turkey, recognizing its own best interests, will stay within its own borders. America will invade Northern Iraq by air (it has already started), eject the Saddamites, bring in humanitarian aid and remove the need for Iraqis to flee. It will install a representative regional administration that protect the Turkomen and other minorities. The area will end up well positioned to form part of a new federal Iraq once the rest of the country is liberated. Meantime, in a quieter moment, Turkey will engineer the agreement of Turkish Cyprus to the UN peace-plan and pave the way for EU entry of a united Cyprus federation. Or is this all just wishful thinking ? We shall see.
How beautiful, stunning are the Churches, inside and out, that pepper Rome, which I had the good fortune to visit again last week. The columns, the arches, the marble, the paintings, the statuary, the gold, and the precision - they just take your breath away. And everything fashioned by human hand. A few examples below.
And such architectural masterpieces are replicated throughout Europe, in glory if not in density. Think of the awesome Saint Bavo cathedral in Ghent, Notre Dame in Paris, St Vitus's in Prague, to mention but a few. Nearly all were built around the middle of the second millenium, some taking several centuries to complete; the Saint Bavo took almost 900 years. But how were they paid for ? It is inconceivable that such opulent structures, lacking a concomitant revenue stream to provide a financial return, would ever be built in a Western country today. Indeed, recently built churches are much more modest, utilitarian affairs, usually paid for out of parish collections. Yet Europe in the Middle Ages was, by today's standards at any rate, dirt poor, and what little money there was was confiscated by rulers and warlords if not squandered on perpetual warfare. The vast majority of the population eked out a subsistence existence of hard labour, malnutrition and death by 40. According to Oxford University's Robert Allen, daily pay during the mediaeval period when church construction boomed was typically 7-10 grams of silver equivalent, which would just about keep a family hovering around the poverty line on 2,000 calories a day. To get a sense of comparison, current GDP per head in the EU is around €21,000 per year and silver sells at around $4.40 per ounce. This roughly translates to an income per head of some 390 grams of silver equivalent per day. So we are 40 times richer than our unfortunate forebears. The issue therefore was -
It could never have happened except in a feudal society where big men run the show and the peasants are kept down and poor. But think how the social welfare of our antecedents might have been wonderfully better, and the course of European history quite different, if the labour that went into church construction were used instead to grow more food, to manufacture, to trade, to learn, to get educated. Or would it have just spelt more official kleptomania and warfare ? I think not. There is today an example of similar church-building money-squandering folly. The oil-rich countries of the Middle East are rife with magnificent mosques, still being built to this day, each costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Each emir vies with the next to show off his piety by the grandeur of his Grand Mosque, and assure himself of paradise in the hereafter. Again, such whimsy is possible only in an autocratic society where big decisions are taken by a big man. But today it is fed by oil wealth rather than by keeping the population in grinding poverty. But it is still frittering away people's birthright without bothering to ask them. And in Middle Ages Europe as in the Middle East of today, those commissioning these buildings think an ever-grateful and obsequious God will forgive them their other earthly vices and grant them eternal bliss. I'm not aware that either Jesus Christ or Mohammed offered such a deal or demanded these edifices.
According to the New York Post, a pro-Saddam Iraqi reporter at a press
conference recently asked Secretary of State Colin Powell, "Isn't
it true that only 13% of young Americans can locate Iraq on a map ?"
While waiting in costume at one convention, he met former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. “I shook his hand, and someone said ‘I have got to get this picture !’” he said. Mr Haleva uses the photo in his firm's marketing brochures with the caption, “If we can make this happen, how hard can your issue be ?” Mr Haleva said his resemblance has been good for business. “It opens doors...and I have a lot of fun with it.” He also relishes the irony of being a pro-Israel Jewish activist earning money by making fun of the Iraqi leader.
The Center for Consumer Freedom in Washington DC has announced
the winners of its 2002 Tarnished Halo Awards to America's most notorious
animal-rights zealots, environmental scaremongers, celebrity busybodies,
self-anointed “public interest” advocates, trial lawyers, and other
food & beverage activists who claim to know what's best for you. Lucky winners include :
Quote : “No-one has killed more Muslims than Saddam Hussein” Lt-General
John Abazaid Quote : “Please bring on the war. We are ready. We have suffered long enough. We may lose our lives but some of us will survive and for our children's sake please, please end our misery.” Ken Joseph Jr, an exiled Assyrian Iraqi, quoting messages
from
Not everyone agrees with me - “You are pretty much full of the crap you have imbibed from the religious fanatics and the right wing political extremists ...”. See Letters. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ISSUE #33 - 23rd March 2003 [104]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A New & Disturbing World Order I recently read a long and fascinating essay by commentator Ed Harris called, “Our World-Historical Gamble”, which set my mind spinning. It proposes that 9/11 has brought the West face-to-face with an entirely new world threat unparalleled in history and requiring a radically different approach. You should read the whole article, but meantime let me try and summarise its main thrust. Since
the dawn of history until the last century, each country or nation or
state -
call them what you will - has been defined by just two characteristics
:
Through history, these two characteristics have not only resulted in the formation of countries. It has also led to empire-building when one nation has proved better at them than another one who has attractive, expropriatable resources, such as gold, land, slaves. It was a rough world but, vitally, it produced a universal sense of what is realistically available, which transcended all cultures and boundaries.
What changed in the 20th century was the Western liberal idea that might is not necessarily right. The fact that I am able to steal from you doesn't make it OK to do so.
The effect of this on the mindsets of the peoples of these new countries is especially stark in the oil-rich Middle East. Countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait were created by Westerners drawing lines on the map, which happened to include vast oil reserves. Westerners then helped them to extract the oil and then paid to buy it from them. Suddenly, with no creativity or effort and no ability for self-defence, they became extraordinarily wealthy nations, as if by magic, secure in the knowledge they would not be invaded by the powerful but liberal-minded West. This permitted them to buy whatever they wanted just as a spoilt child might be given everything he demands. The most pernicious result was the creation of a fantasyland mindset -
If I want a dream house, I just write a cheque and I have one. No sweat - literally.
When such a fantasy is then linked to an ideology - such as a perverted belief that Islam demands that the West be destroyed - and is bolstered by possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), you have a truly poisonous brew. Suddenly, in unviable States, there are people able to wreak untold destruction, people for whom there are no limits to reality and who are driven by a fantasy ideology whose only goal is the destruction itself. They are not interested in forcing their victims to do their will. You need only think of the suicide flyers of 9/11, whose ability to kill and destroy was limited only by the two instruments (planes and buildings) they could get their hands on, neither of which they or their sponsor States were capable of creating. The orthodox approach to defeating such perpetrators, by bargaining or conventional war, doesn't work because they are not playing by any known rules or limits; their actions make no sense - indeed that is the essence of the fantasy. It is total fantasy to think that Western civilisations will accept and collapse under such attacks, but that does not deter the fantasists. That is what distinguishes them from adversaries such as the Nazis, the Japanese, the Soviets who all operated to an internal logic bounded by a sense of reality. The only apparent solution therefore seems to be the pre-emptive removal of the WMD. This may well necessitate the removal of the state apparatus that fosters or protects them, and replacing it with something judged more “reasonable”, for example a democracy. Afghanistan and Iraq spring to mind. It also means not shirking from necessary action for purely liberal ideas, such as avoiding airport searches of targeted groups in case people are made to feel unwelcome or it appears racist. Whether a particular course of action, including the use of unrelenting force if necessary, can be judged a success depends on
Teaching them respect for our values is secondary. The tough action envisaged should of course be undertaken by the world community as a whole, ideally via the UN, but by now so many countries exist as unviable creations that they will never allow the UN to start limiting their freedom to act in this way. That means the job must be left, in practice, to America, the only power strong enough to impose its will unilaterally on virtually any country of its choosing. In other words, America becomes the centre of world violence (in effect, the world's policeman) and we all rely on its - yes - double-standards to decide and to enforce which countries may be permitted what level of violence (up to WMD). This conclusion represents a quite extraordinary espousal of a world regime of double-standards and unilateral judgment, policed by an America armed to the teeth and willing to use its military might. This is analogous to the way a country's central authority already has a monopoly of violence and uses it to suppress wayward warlords. But it makes the world terribly dependent on the bona-fides of the USA. For this reason, it is imperative that other well-meaning countries be prepared to join it and thus influence it in particular campaigns. I recommend you read the full essay over a period of a few days.
France - or, more particularly, President Chirac - has provided everyone with a convenient excuse for the diplomatic failure over Iraq. His threatened veto “no matter what” of an 18th Resolution giving conditions and a deadline for war allowed the middle six countries to not have to take a position at all, and hence to avoid direct offence to anyone. It is a paradox that his threatened veto, by closing the one remaining door for avoiding conflict, is what made war a certainty. Looking back, his behaviour is especially bizarre.
The council did meet again and consider, in January and again February. Saddam failed to disarm. But the would-be 18th resolution, which President Chirac refused to endorse under any form, is the very resolution he had insisted on when negotiating the 17th. When the war is over, one can expect America to seek out imaginative ways to punish France economically and politically for its overt support of Saddam. It will not be listened to again in the Security Council for a long long time, which is what will probably hurt President Chirac the most.
Listen to this riveting radio exchange in the US between a peace activist called Andrea and Mohammed, an Iraqi exile. Notice how she is utterly unable to answer the simple question, “How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq ?” Wow !
In January, I wrote about the tremendous progress there has been in rebuilding Afghanistan one year after the war that deposed the Taliban. Under Taliban rule, all non-governmental use of e-mail services and websites was punishable by death. But earlier this month, Afghanistan achieved a symbolic milestone of boring normalcy : it inaugurated its first-ever internet country code - “.af”. The UN Development Program was one of the first to publish an Afghan website : www.undp.org.af . Similarly, there is now hope of some dull normality for Iraq, starting in just a few weeks time. This will doubtless include the return of millions of refugees, just as is happening in Afghanistan, the surest sign that things are getting better.
Shield Impressionable Teenagers from Shakespeare I had forgotten how shockingly violent and disturbing is Shakespeare's Macbeth, until recently reminded by Cathy Sweeney, a teacher of English literature. The action opens with Macbeth's defeat of the rebel leader where he “unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps”. Soon after, horrible images unfix Macbeth's hair and Lady Macbeth claims that she would, while feeding an infant child,
The violence is relentless. Duncan is murdered, Banquo is murdered, Lady Macbeth commits suicide, the witches chant about birth-strangled babes, Macbeth cries,
Macduff “was from his mother's womb / Untimely ripp'd” and his wife and child are brutally murdered on stage. For those who think violent movies and TV depicting evil and anarchy encourage violent behaviour on the part of modern teenagers, Macbeth and much else of Shakespeare should be immediately proscribed.
There is no telling what people will spend other people's research money on. Two outfits have recently published their own surveys of what it is that Americans can least do without. They come to the same conclusion. The humble toothbrush ranks well above your car, PC, phone. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology produce something called the Lemelson-MIT Invention Index which measures stuff like that. They asked 1,400 people which of five inventions they could not live without. The results appeared in the March 2003 issue of The Irish Dentist (which is not available online). CNN then conducted is own poll of 156,000 people. Here, to enrich your lives, are
the results of both surveys.
Richard Price of the American Dental Association commented, “It makes a lot of sense. Your teeth are always with you. You can always update your car or a computer, but you just can't update teeth.” But he says the oral health message is still incomplete. “I don't think many people will say dental floss is one of the great inventions of all time, but the toothbrush alone will not do the job”. It's been a long road to the top for the toothbrush. The first was built in 1498 by a Chinese emperor who had hog bristles embedded in a bone handle. The hog bristle toothbrush became popular in Europe, but because it cost so much, poor families would often share the same brush. It wasn't until 1938 that the pharmaceuticals company Du Pont introduced nylon bristles as a much cheaper replacement for pig hair. And a good thing they did, as it finally made personal toothbrushes accessible to all.
Quote : “President Saddam is certain of victory. He is relying on his deep faith in God, the justice of our cause and his deep faith in the Iraqi people. War could be avoided if Mr Bush went into exile”. Iraqi Foreign Minister Mr Naji Al-Sabri
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ISSUE #32 - 16th March 2003 [51]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here's a scary thought :
That's what some pundits, utterly unable to comprehend the conduct of President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, are postulating and citing a lot of plausible evidence in support. Personally I find the theory too utterly preposterous and cynical to believe. What about you ? Their bizarre behaviour certainly invites wild theories.
But one has to wonder whether a small coterie is mounting a conspiracy to make the UN Security Council - if not the UN itself - irrelevant.
Yet none of these eminent gentlemen is in the slightest doubt that
Therefore if war goes ahead without the 18th resolution, which now looks likely due to France's threat of a veto, those anti-war countries - and Mr Annan - will have to either
declare the war illegal (despite 1441) and thereby expose the impotence of the UN to to hold sway or authority over world events, so why should anyone bother with it any more. Make no mistake :
I very much fear that the anti-warriors will opt to destroy the UN under Option 2 simply because opting for 1 would entail massive loss of face for a few portentous individuals. The logical follow-on from Option 2 is that a new, non-UN world order will emerge whose agenda will be determined and carried through solely by America, who will see the need to consult only those who happen to support it on particular issues. Meanwhile, as commentator Dave Farber has put it,
and so it would remain for a long time. Peace. On Prozac. Many would consider all this a retrograde step, though doubtless far better than having a world order dominated by, say, a totalitarian state such as North Korea or China. But is it really what France, Russia, Germany, Belgium, the UN Secretariat and other anti-war entities want ? It will probably be what they - and we - get. Oh, and here is a question for those (such as France and Russia) who voted for 1441 but now claim that “serious consequences” is not a UN euphemism for war. For if it doesn't mean war, what can it mean ?
Don't make Saddam laugh ! Containment is Deadlier than War Which would be preferable ? A policy that kills 5,000 civilians in a single event or one that kills 5,000 per month ? That is the point posed by US foreign policy wonk Walter Mead when he compares the civilian casualties of the first Gulf War with those resulting from the policy of “containment” implemented when Saddam refused to comply with his disarmament promises that were a condition of the truce that ended that war in 1991. Containment comprises primarily sanctions, alleviated somewhat by the oil-for-food programme, perhaps backed up by inspections, perhaps backed up by threat of force. The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians. Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills an astonishing 5,000 Iraqi under-fives per month. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War - and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, of whom two-thirds are young children. So every year that Saddam is left in place and “contained” constitutes a new Gulf War. And though these civilians die solely because Saddam chooses to divert oil-for-food money away from food/medicines and towards his armed forces, cronies, palaces and personal accounts, they still die. Surely it is more humane to mount one more, decisive Gulf War, than an endless continuation of the abominable containment advocated by the global Peace lobby. You should read the full article in the Washington Post.
The normal effect of such public disloyalty would be instant sacking. This she would have expected and relished, because she could then pose as a martyr and further shoot her mouth off without the constraint of being in the cabinet. And then after the fall of Blair due to disaster in Iraq, she - vindicated - would rise like a phoenix. But Blair is being much more clever. He hasn't fired her. So her options are either to resign (no martyrdom there) or continue to show up in cabinet meetings, where you can be sure there'll be plenty of snubbing and snide remarks.
A policy of ignoring her is more painful for her than a martyr's sacking. After Blair has triumphed in Iraq, he will doubtless get rid of her. I expect she'll then sink bitterly into well-deserved oblivion. Her options are closed. On the other hand, Blair may himself be ready to go before too long. He is clearly
though he clearly relishes international affairs. So perhaps he is ready for new challenges as some kind of international statesman. He was once tipped as a possible EU President, by EU-wide popular suffrage, under the new constitution currently being drafted, though his testy relationship with Jacques Chirac means that that can no longer be a realistic expectation. You can be sure he won't leave the premiership voluntarily until he has something more interesting lined up.
Lack of Spouses for Chinese Men A recent article from UPI reports, with a hint of mirth, that within America,
The spouse deficit this creates for black women and Asian men is a social problem within the US, with no obvious solution, but it is no more than that. However, a spouse-deficit is fast developing right now in China, which
has the makings of a deadly time bomb that could have momentous consequences. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
