Turkey that bastion of secularism in the Middle East is facing a constitutional crisis, as popular protests and the army have indicated it will oppose Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's pro Islamist policies and his decision to put forward Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul for president. Secular politics have been central to Turkey since the establishment of the republic in 1923. Although Islam and state have been split in other Middle Eastern political orders, it has never been enshrined to the same extent as it has since Ataturk's reforms of the 1920s. Turkey's path to secularism contrasts to failed arab socialism, autocratic despotism, outright dictatorship and Islamist theocracy.
Another development - although it is unclear if it is or will be related - is US Congress' proposed resolution to officially recognise the Armenian genocide. Promoted by the not uninfluential Armenian -American lobby, Congress' move has drawn condemnation and threats from Turkish politicians. The sensitivity of the subject is a severe hindrance to Turkey's aspirations for EU membership and acceptance as a mature actor in international affairs. The Bush administration is treading carefully to avoid the G word, and as a vital regional ally politically and economically, this denial is to be expected.
The link, if any, is unclear between these two political conundrums, but I will update as it develops.
http://www.demaz.org/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0055&n=002467&g=
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=44644
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
http://www.guardian.co.uk/turkey/story/0,,2070022,00.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/04/29/2007-04-29_us_in_war_of_words_with_turkey.html
Monday, April 30, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Who's Right?
So am I of the left or right? Well, neither actually. The two terms have never really represented my political views, and elsewhere since the end of the cold war and even more so after the apolitical nineties, they have also lost their power to define most viewpoints. But there are swathes of opinions and activists out there who still stand proud under these respective banners, and there are others who claim no particular political perspective but for arguments sake fall into the left/right axiom. Nick Cohen's book What's Left? argues that Left/liberal/socialist/(it has many guises) thought has lost its way, ditch its principles, has been recently very wrong on certain issues, and without doubt needs reform. The core of his criticism lies in the Iraq war, and he argues that those who marched against war in February 2003 were misguidedly keeping a genocidal totalitarian dictator in power, something the left would surely be against more than anything else (historically). Post invasion, the left has put their desire to be vindicated over Iraqis desires for democracy, freedom from Bathist/Al-Qaeda terror, and successful re-construction. Beyond the Middle East, Cohen also critiques Chomsky, Said, incomprehensible academic scribblers, 1992-5 Conservative government Bosnia policy, George Galloway, Michael Moore, Virginia Woolf, WW2 Communist appeasers and others.
One chapter examines the heart of the Liberal-Left's inconsistency and weakness - the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. The root cause (an unfair Treaty of Versailles) was to blame; communists saw the real enemy as Churchill and his wartime Labour colleagues; the Soviet invasion of Finland (post non-aggression pact) was defended by Hobsbawm (Birkbeck's current president) amongst others. Cohen is exceptional in drawing solid comparisons between the war years and now, and also provides an enjoyable historical narrative to this troubling episode.
Now Nick Cohen is of the Left, is a consistent critic of Tony Blair, and unlike other Left-Right trangressives (Hitchens/Aaronovitch) presents his arguments in more reasoned terms than the usual descent into self-righteousness that this argument normally succombs to. And as reading this book, I found his arguments very convincing. Why should a totalitarian and homicidal regime be left in power, why do the SWP or others care little of who their Islamist allies are (and their bigoted right wing views), why do people care more about whether something was illegal under such and such international law or whether intelligence was caveated or not - when innocent civilians are being blown to pieces on a daily basis. Try this. Next time you listen to a debate on Iraq (if you don't turn off), listen out for the number of times that the blame for the violence is laid directly (where 90% of it is) at Bathists, Al-Qaeda, Sadrists and every other criminal roaming the land. Being right is more important than an innocent civilians life. Sadly after a while I've realised that the left have been deceptive as the right on this whole catastrophe. And as with other examples in the book, neither side has a monopoly on integrity.
Cohen's arguments do not convincingly counter the pacifist view that opposes all violence, nor do they incorporate the overwhelming view that Bush, Rumsfeld, etc inspired no faith in a nation building or democratic ethos prior, and rather that it seemed purely driven by vendetta. And Tony was jumping on the bandwagon. Hindsight has proven some of those arguments right and wrong, but at the time it was hard to trust such intentions. Islamism poses a far greater threat to the west than Bathism ever did, see also Sam Harris, but the overwhelming irony is that we have forced two enemies to unite. These arguments can and will continue. As I have never been of either left/right slant, this book was enjoyable and enlightening, so I am now going find someone who is one or the other (preferably left) and see if it has the same effect. Sadly I am not optimistic.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0743268091/ref=sr_1_2/203-8393331-7887958?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176671475&sr=1-2
One chapter examines the heart of the Liberal-Left's inconsistency and weakness - the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. The root cause (an unfair Treaty of Versailles) was to blame; communists saw the real enemy as Churchill and his wartime Labour colleagues; the Soviet invasion of Finland (post non-aggression pact) was defended by Hobsbawm (Birkbeck's current president) amongst others. Cohen is exceptional in drawing solid comparisons between the war years and now, and also provides an enjoyable historical narrative to this troubling episode.
Now Nick Cohen is of the Left, is a consistent critic of Tony Blair, and unlike other Left-Right trangressives (Hitchens/Aaronovitch) presents his arguments in more reasoned terms than the usual descent into self-righteousness that this argument normally succombs to. And as reading this book, I found his arguments very convincing. Why should a totalitarian and homicidal regime be left in power, why do the SWP or others care little of who their Islamist allies are (and their bigoted right wing views), why do people care more about whether something was illegal under such and such international law or whether intelligence was caveated or not - when innocent civilians are being blown to pieces on a daily basis. Try this. Next time you listen to a debate on Iraq (if you don't turn off), listen out for the number of times that the blame for the violence is laid directly (where 90% of it is) at Bathists, Al-Qaeda, Sadrists and every other criminal roaming the land. Being right is more important than an innocent civilians life. Sadly after a while I've realised that the left have been deceptive as the right on this whole catastrophe. And as with other examples in the book, neither side has a monopoly on integrity.
Cohen's arguments do not convincingly counter the pacifist view that opposes all violence, nor do they incorporate the overwhelming view that Bush, Rumsfeld, etc inspired no faith in a nation building or democratic ethos prior, and rather that it seemed purely driven by vendetta. And Tony was jumping on the bandwagon. Hindsight has proven some of those arguments right and wrong, but at the time it was hard to trust such intentions. Islamism poses a far greater threat to the west than Bathism ever did, see also Sam Harris, but the overwhelming irony is that we have forced two enemies to unite. These arguments can and will continue. As I have never been of either left/right slant, this book was enjoyable and enlightening, so I am now going find someone who is one or the other (preferably left) and see if it has the same effect. Sadly I am not optimistic.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0743268091/ref=sr_1_2/203-8393331-7887958?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176671475&sr=1-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euston_manifesto
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/18/berman-p.html
http://www.iraqmemory.org/EN/index.asp
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=8339
Monday, April 09, 2007
Quixotic Futuristic
To understand the future, we must understand the past, as the saying goes. And now we can understand the present, by understanding the future. A 90-page report published by the Ministry of Defence, with the aim of understanding the "future strategic context" facing Britain's armed forces, shows where we are in the immediate now. Some highlights:
New weapons
An electromagnetic pulse will probably become operational by 2035 able to destroy all communications systems in a selected area or be used against a "world city" such as an international business service hub. The development of neutron weapons which destroy living organs but not buildings "might make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world". The use of unmanned weapons platforms would enable the "application of lethal force without human intervention, raising consequential legal and ethical issues". The "explicit use" of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and devices delivered by unmanned vehicles or missiles.
Marxism
"The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx," says the report. The thesis is based on a growing gap between the middle classes and the super-rich on one hand and an urban under-class threatening social order: "The world's middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest". Marxism could also be revived, it says, because of global inequality. An increased trend towards moral relativism and pragmatic values will encourage people to seek the "sanctuary provided by more rigid belief systems, including religious orthodoxy and doctrinaire political ideologies, such as popularism and Marxism".
The Middle East
The massive population growth will mean the Middle East, and to a lesser extent north Africa, will remain highly unstable, says the report. It singles out Saudi Arabia, the most lucrative market for British arms, with unemployment levels of 20% and a "youth bulge" in a state whose population has risen from 7 million to 27 million since 1980. "The expectations of growing numbers of young people [in the whole region] many of whom will be confronted by the prospect of endemic unemployment ... are unlikely to be met," says the report.
Islamic militancy
Resentment among young people in the face of unrepresentative regimes "will find outlets in political militancy, including radical political Islam whose concept of Umma, the global Islamic community, and resistance to capitalism may lie uneasily in an international system based on nation-states and global market forces", the report warns. The effects of such resentment will be expressed through the migration of youth populations and global communications, encouraging contacts between diaspora communities and their countries of origin. Tension between the Islamic world and the west will remain, and may increasingly be targeted at China "whose new-found materialism, economic vibrancy, and institutionalised atheism, will be an anathema to orthodox Islam".
Iran
Iran will steadily grow in economic and demographic strength and its energy reserves and geographic location will give it substantial strategic leverage. However, its government could be transformed. "From the middle of the period," says the report, "the country, especially its high proportion of younger people, will want to benefit from increased access to globalisation and diversity, and it may be that Iran progressively, but unevenly, transforms...into a vibrant democracy."
Terrorism
Casualties and the amount of damage inflicted by terrorism will stay low compared to other forms of coercion and conflict. But acts of extreme violence, supported by elements within Islamist states, with media exploitation to maximise the impact of the "theatre of violence" will persist. A "terrorist coalition" including a wide range of reactionary and revolutionary rejectionists such as ultra-nationalists, religious groupings and even extreme environmentalists, might conduct a global campaign of greater intensity".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2053020,00.html
New weapons
An electromagnetic pulse will probably become operational by 2035 able to destroy all communications systems in a selected area or be used against a "world city" such as an international business service hub. The development of neutron weapons which destroy living organs but not buildings "might make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world". The use of unmanned weapons platforms would enable the "application of lethal force without human intervention, raising consequential legal and ethical issues". The "explicit use" of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and devices delivered by unmanned vehicles or missiles.
Marxism
"The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx," says the report. The thesis is based on a growing gap between the middle classes and the super-rich on one hand and an urban under-class threatening social order: "The world's middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest". Marxism could also be revived, it says, because of global inequality. An increased trend towards moral relativism and pragmatic values will encourage people to seek the "sanctuary provided by more rigid belief systems, including religious orthodoxy and doctrinaire political ideologies, such as popularism and Marxism".
The Middle East
The massive population growth will mean the Middle East, and to a lesser extent north Africa, will remain highly unstable, says the report. It singles out Saudi Arabia, the most lucrative market for British arms, with unemployment levels of 20% and a "youth bulge" in a state whose population has risen from 7 million to 27 million since 1980. "The expectations of growing numbers of young people [in the whole region] many of whom will be confronted by the prospect of endemic unemployment ... are unlikely to be met," says the report.
Islamic militancy
Resentment among young people in the face of unrepresentative regimes "will find outlets in political militancy, including radical political Islam whose concept of Umma, the global Islamic community, and resistance to capitalism may lie uneasily in an international system based on nation-states and global market forces", the report warns. The effects of such resentment will be expressed through the migration of youth populations and global communications, encouraging contacts between diaspora communities and their countries of origin. Tension between the Islamic world and the west will remain, and may increasingly be targeted at China "whose new-found materialism, economic vibrancy, and institutionalised atheism, will be an anathema to orthodox Islam".
Iran
Iran will steadily grow in economic and demographic strength and its energy reserves and geographic location will give it substantial strategic leverage. However, its government could be transformed. "From the middle of the period," says the report, "the country, especially its high proportion of younger people, will want to benefit from increased access to globalisation and diversity, and it may be that Iran progressively, but unevenly, transforms...into a vibrant democracy."
Terrorism
Casualties and the amount of damage inflicted by terrorism will stay low compared to other forms of coercion and conflict. But acts of extreme violence, supported by elements within Islamist states, with media exploitation to maximise the impact of the "theatre of violence" will persist. A "terrorist coalition" including a wide range of reactionary and revolutionary rejectionists such as ultra-nationalists, religious groupings and even extreme environmentalists, might conduct a global campaign of greater intensity".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2053020,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)