lord of the blog

« French economics | Main | Heathrow »

Monday, May 30, 2005

Middle East politics

The elections in Lebanon build on the success of the elections in Palestine and Iraq.

I suspect Hizbullah and Hamas will continue to build on their political success as long as they avoid the reputation for corruption that so damaged Fatah.

So watch this space for moves towards political dialogue especially with Britain. In Northern Ireland quiet contacts developed with Sinn Fein and the Unionist paramilitary groups and became more formalised when they entered the democratic arena.

Dealing with terrorist groups is always difficult and gets very messy when they create both a political and military wing but it also provides a real opportunity to move away from violence.

In my mind, we cannot enter into negotiations with terrorists while they have the financial and military support of foreign governments. Iran, Syria and Pakistan should be made accountable for their support for terrorism and human rights violations, but perhaps this time we can do real diplomacy without resorting to aerial bombardment with DU-tipped mega-tonne explosives.

Terrorism - "The uses of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" [Oxford English Dictionary]

I'm confused. Will "Britain" (by that I assume you mean the barely elected and demonstrably unrepresentative group of war criminals that currently governs this country) be persuading Hamas, Hizbullah and Sinn Fein to refrain from violence or will it be the other way around? Given that you've killed more people in the past two years than these groups have killed in their entire existence, it's hard to tell. Estimated deaths from the 16 year Lebanese civil war were in the region of 44,000 - a figure surpassed by your friends well within a year of invading Iraq. Adding civilian casualties in Afghanistan doesn't help your case much. By what measure is "Britian" the good buy in any of this?

Also, to link elections in Palestine and Lebanon with the largely boycotted event that took place in Iraq in Januarys is the kind baseless nonsense. Apart from regional proximity, there is no link. I know you may want to draw one to help explain all this killing, subscribing as you do the Rumsfeld "Better Government Through Carpet Bombing" doctrine, but mentioning them in the same sentence doesn't constitute a link. Palestinians had to vote because Arafat died/was murdered. The Lebanese voted because their government dissolved itself after public demonstrations following Hariri's murder, an act which the Syrians would have been certifiably insane to have sponsored. What's the link?

Uzbekistan Clive. Uzbekistan? Remember Uzbekistan? Failing states, violent despots etc. Why doesn't Uzbekistan qualify for your unique analysis?

Dan - who's supposed to hold Iran, Syria and Pakistan to account and for what? On what moral authority? What are these countries guilty of that hasn't been practiced by the US for decades?

S.

"Someone": I know many Iranian refugees. I know one Iranian who was tortured so badly he can no longer walk properly, he has three or four fits every week because the interrogators beat him around the head and he endured genital mutilation at the hands on his guards. That is the reality of the Iranian regime - it is no different from the Karimov dictatorship you deplore.

How is Iran different from the UK? The fact is that we in the UK and the US can openly criticise our leaders, form political parties, publish newspapers and websites, write weblogs and even talk of revolution without fearing for our lives. We can demonstrate against Guantanamo Bay and the internment of Muslims under the insane anti-terrorism legislation. We can vote for George Galloway and his Respect Party, or we can vote Conservative, without fearing that this will result in a threat to our lives. But in Iran, being a member of a particular ethnic group, tribe or family is enough reason for you to be arrested, tortured and killed.

Who should hold them to account? The international community, me, you, Clive, Jack Straw. On what moral authority? The moral authority of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, of which Iran and Syria are signatories. Yes, there is little difference between Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Karoon Jail in Iran in terms of human rights, so we should object to both in equal measure. The problem with the British far-left is its apologism for fascism in the developing world.

Clive

When will you come clean on who precisely funds Future Heathrow?

Dan - I wasn't suggesting that the Iranian regime was innocent of human rights abuses. I come from a family that escaped torture and prison in a Middle Eastern dictatorship. I need no lectures on "fascism in the developing world". I'm also a little amused that you take me for some ragtag Socialist Worker salesman.

My point concerns the UK/US governments, and the way their crimees are viewed in comparison to those of the Iranian regime. That we are free to do the things you mention is not by some benevolence of this or any other government but by hard won freedoms achieved by ordinary people. That the British government plays a fascilitatory role in mass killing overseas doesn't make them cleaner than an Iranian guard who castrates his victims. At least he has the guts to do his own dirty work.

I'm not suggesting that you believe otherwise, and you clearly state that we should condem all such crimes equally, but I don't believe that we do. The proof is that we still preserve words like "terrorism" for the actions of "others" (usually dark and foreign, but the Irish will still do), despite the fact that the actions of the UK and US governments constitute far greater acts of terrorism than anything attributable to the regimes mentioned above. You also regard Straw and Soley as legitimate voices against human rights abuses abroad, despite the mass murder they are both a party to (however small you may believe their role to be), and the covering up of abuses in countries that support the current drive for US hegemony (Uzbekistan rings out loud and clear). I wonder whether you'd be so polite to Bashar Asad, who's yet to commit acts that even begin to compare with what British MPs have committed in Iraq.

To that extent, and to the extent that we are supposed to be responsible for these governments, we have a duty to speak up as loudly and as often as possible about the crimes of our own governments. That is not apologism for "fascism in the developing world". It is taking responsibility for what we are morally accountable for. The real apologism is the kind that allows Blair, Straw and Soley to get away both legally and morally with what they've done.

That doesn't prevent us from speaking out about abuses where ever else they may occur, but I see far too much selectivity in the abuses that are worthy of mention and those that can be swept under the carpet or explained away by "difficult" or "complicated" circumstances. If all abuses are worthy of equal mention, and their perpetrators and supporters are equaly worthy of blame, then lets act like it. I'm game if you are.

I wince when I hear people like Clive speaking about human rights abuses while still remembering his comments about Fallujah (a crime that will be remembered as one of the worst of this invasion - easily on a par with the Mi Lai massacre in my opinion, and with far greater casualties). Until the word "terrorism" can be commonly used to describe the crimes against Fallujah as easily as a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, the apologism is all one way my friend.

S.

Hi Clive,

'The elections in Lebanon build on the success of the elections in Palestine and Iraq.'

28% turnout in the first round, that does not sound like a successful election to me.

Regs, Andy

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: