Turkey - A Crisis on the Horizon

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

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

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

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

Kristatos and the monks

It might seem like an inpenetrable fortress in the film, requiring super-human climbing skills from a septegenarian Roger Moore, but the ascent is fairly moderate. Agia Triada is one of six monasteries in the Meteora range in north west Greece, base for villain Kristatos in Bond film For Your Eyes Only, but more importantly the spiritual home to monks since the 11th century. Rather than relying on shoe laces or using Q's latest gadget, it required a 30 minute climb via a path carved into the side. Another monastery is the Varlaam, founded in the 16th century, by an anchorite monk, where you can buy incense, CDs of Byzantine music, and a short book "what is orthodoxy?". The Meteora region is stunning, no doubt: a range of rock pillars that dominate like giant granite collossus on the edge of the Hellenic plain. At dusk, monastery bells sound off in sequence, humbling the inhabitants of the town below. The monks themselves were naturally elusive. The largest of the monasterys - Megalo Meteoro - is a complex of living quarters, kitchen, refectory (where preserved plates, goblets, candlesticks are on display). This monastery has a larger museum than the others, with wider Greek history, in particular military atire and paintings from the Balkans wars (1912-13) and the campaign against the Axis (1940-41). A Nazi soldier is seen falling down from a pillar, these monoliths were totally impregnable once. The museum also holds Byzantine scripts of early philosophers: Plato, Aristotle. To round it all off, the in house ossuary holds nearly 100 human skulls.

http://www.greecetravel.com/meteora/monasteries.html

The birth of democracy?

So to truly maintain the historic side of this blog, I have travelled to the birthplace of modern intellectual thought, where advances in science, democracy and philosophy put down markers for the whole of western civilization. Pretty impressive eh? Well I will fail to encapsulate the whole magnitude of Athens' history, partly due to my limited time here - partly due its lengthy importance to Greek, Roman and Byzantine empires that spanned 2,000 years. The Parthenon, built in the 5th century, towers over the city, as a flag bearer for democracy - Athenian democracy. Considering western Europe has had this source of democracy for 2,500 years, we should be hasty when analysing other parts of the world who have experienced it for a mere 25 years. Like modern day democracy, the Greek model was not flawless. Whether this implies that it is a fallible ideology like any other or that it requires maturity is an interesting question. Fukuyama may have it as the final answer, but man's corruption will corrupt any ideology no matter how perfect it is. I will be visiting the Parthenon tomorrow and I will tell you whether democracy is an ideology for all history or one of purely temporary and modern success....well, Athens like democracy is a bit of an evolving building site. Thankfully they completed their 2004 Olympics schedule on queue (London 2012 take note) but sound of construction is quite prevalent. None less than at the top of the Acropolis, although it is only re-construction, the works there show that supposed perfection will be damaged, deliberated over and rebuilt. Democracy needs re-construction they say. So towering over Athens, surrounded by the white roofed pastures, the Parthenon tries to rise above modernity but is also reliant on it for preservation.

Trident - the reckoning

So the inevitable renewal of the Trident missile system - supported 409 MPs to 248 by the House of Commons - has updated Britain's nuclear deterrent, protecting us from 21st century threats, investing billions and giving no reason for any rogue state to suspend their nuclear programmes. On the face of it and with strong arguments, renewal makes sense: Britain is a potential target for any nuclear nut, we live in uncertain times, proliferation exists in many respects unchecked, and our status internationally depends on it. Britain is not a demoralised South Africa of the late 1980s or a coerced Libya of 4 years ago; we are Great Britain, former colonial overlords / the United States right hand man / a watchtower for global governance. Most states would consider Britain a naive laughing stock if it gave up something oh so powerful. Renewal was never going to be unrenewed, but at same time renewal or non-renewal isn't really the issue.

Historians will probably pinpoint about 2 or 3 years post Soviet collapse as a point where something approaching unilateral nuclear disarmament was possible. That window is long gone, French tests in the mid 1990s; Pakistan - India nuclear brinkmanship; North Korea's status seeking detonation; the list will continue. Pandora's box, doomsday countdown, armageddon: destruction has plenty of spiritual evocativeness - peace is a quaint lost snapshot of wishful thinking.

Besides this doom, the politics is also cagey: Blair relies on Cameron; Brown will rely on Cameron; Campbell relies / will rely on the Labour backbenchers. The electorate will rely on whoever has the finger on the button to not do the wrong thing. Blair has another tick on his legacy card. Any angle make this situation seem worse.
For the record, I oppose all nuclear weapons and any means, intention or capability associated with them. But I sadly admit that this is something that is going to be lived with and coped with rather than diminished. I am looking for some solutions, any suggestions welcome. As if this isn't bad enough, an even greater crisis has just erupted - Blue Peter admits that it lied to its viewers over the result of a phone-in competition. If the bastion of youth TV educationalism cannot be trusted then what future does mankind have?

Forgotten soldiers in a forgotten war

Although the Korean war (1950-53) has the unofficial title of the "Forgotten War", the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s is probably ranked second, both in misunderstanding its context and its horrific side effects. World attention focused on Iraq's invasion of Kuwait two years after its ceasefire, condemning it to a hidden history where few remember who started it or how many died, and some don't even know the difference between the two protagonists (sharing the same first three letters is confusing I know). But it was a war that created conditions for the current Middle East conflict, both in terms of US involvement in the region and Sunni-Shia strife.

Nearly one million Iranians and Iraqis died over the period, but beneath these numbers few stories have been revealed. A series of films at the Barbican depict fictitiously and by documentary some of the stories. In Living in the Clouds, the lives of a group of Iranian soldiers in the Iraqi Kurdistan mountains are caught in painstaking detail. In a desolate region, soldiers boil down snow, re-construct shelters, call patiently for supplies, but apart from the odd gunshot seem distant from any conflict or any political authority. A soldier politely contacts his base for fuel, simply concerned with survival in a remote outpost. The enemy is mentioned, but is almost second priority to self preservation. True, for many soldiers on the frontline, death was only an instant away, but for every battlefield casualty there is a casualty elsewhere. Extreme cold is exchanged for Iraqi tanks. Either way is pointless. In Captive Waiting, Iraqi prisoners of war wait for their freedom. The final release was not until the eve of the 2nd Gulf war. POWs normally expect a release some time close to a war's conclusion, but 15 years on only adds to the bitterness. This is worsened by false dawns when Iraq fails to bring Iranian POWs in exchange. Not only are these soldiers imprisoned for crimes not committed but when the rest of the world can move on, they are trapped in this historic limbo.

Rendition - the silent partners

Whilst the Bush administration have pursued policies that test international standards of human rights and re-write international law in their fight against militant Islam; European nations have been considered as a rational counterweight, maintaining international norms and responsibilities. Well, until last week's European Parliament report, which accused several EU states of turning a blind eye and admitting flights operated by the CIA for illegal transportation of detainees. The key element of extraordinary rendition is transportation, and for the policy to work it needs other countries to act as end states where interrogation (and often torture) takes place, but also, given geographical distances, as transit states where refueling, recuperation or anything else required can take place. Just as the supply chain from drug producers to drug dealers cannot operate without innocuous middle men, rendition requires willing accomplices. Also, as the states most likely to undertake rigorous interrogations are in the Middle East or North Africa rather than closer Latin America, a leisurely stopover, or to use the correct terminology "layover", in European city makes perfect sense.

European states that could be generally considered liberal with solid human rights records have been implicated, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Of these Sweden, prone to Scandinavian passivity in foreign affairs, has also been ruled against by the UN for violating a global torture ban. The EU report also names Poland and Romania - who are both accused of deeper involvement in the process and hosting secret CIA prisons.

The standard governmental response is that these flights are either legal or that they do not exist. Rendition has still not caught public attention as other WOT contraversies, but the use of European sites for an American anti Al-Qaeda Gulag touches a nerve. Whilst America claims to be a legislatively precise society; Europe considers itself legislatively wiser. And the backlash has begun. Germany have issued warrants for CIA officers involved in rendition, and Italy (that staunch ally circa 2003) has ordered 26 CIA agents to stand trial for the kidnapping of an Italian citizen. Whilst justice systems tend to act autonomously of government; with a political issue as contentious as rendition, it is hard not to see a link. Sadly it is the courts pushing the politicians into action, not vice versa. A solid campaign by NGOs over the last 3 years has added the moral structure to the debate. Despite this opening, a secret war remains out there, virtually untouchable by the courts, media or human rights organisations. The release of Guatanamo pictures in January 2002 was a smokescreen in this regard, shocking us, but distracting from the larger picture.

So in the dock: the CIA; Bush administration policy and complicit governments in Europe and elsewhere. The response. Well, the response is denial, since any admission or justification simply would not stand up. Rendition has been used for over a century, but this enhanced and extreme version - extraordinary rendition - is on very thin ice legally, according to investigative reporter Stephen Grey. The author of the groundbreaking book Ghost Plane interviewed several CIA officers who disapproved of the policy, but were aware of the reality of its benefits in a dirty war. Speaking at SOAS this evening, Grey also explained that European complicity was borne out of the need for counterterrorist intelligence and concern at being out of the loop on possible threats, plots, etc. As for Middle Eastern states, where the suspects are usually tortured, there is the benefit of added intel on internal threats; hard cash ($10m is the going rate per suspect); and diplomatic credibility (although not fully received in Syria's case).

It was vice president Cheney, who said shortly after 9/11 that this would be a dirty war, although a man of few words, there is resonance to most of those he utters. Plots will be interrupted, but intelligence gained under duress is often flawed. Ask Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who fed false information to CIA interrogators that was included in the US' case against Iraq. The CIA has a history of flawed programmes to gain intelligence, please watch these pages for a fortcoming essay. As for rendition, this issue isn't going away and it's only going to implicate governments further.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804522/

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-050406-feature-eng

What happened to the French?

As arguably the weakest member of the UN security council and having experienced a slow decline in world status since the 1950s, France has rightly developed an inferiority complex. Ever since the 1962 defeat in the Algerian War of Independence and the painful decolonisation process, France has sought to re-capture its lost historical eminence. Its international status was boosted as it carved a globally popular position against the US-UK alliance in 2003 before the Iraq war. On top of this, France retains it position on the security council often acting as a balance between Atlantic powers and Asian; is at the heart of the European Union; often contributes to peace-keeping or NATO operations whether in the Balkans or Lebanon; yet its influence and world position is still fragile.

This week's retraction by Jacques Chirac over comments about the possible threat from a nuclear armed Iran, may be the side-effect of a leader nearing the end of his tenure. But combined with his potential predecessors lack of foreign policy adeptness, seen by Socialist presidential candidate Segolene Royal's recent gaffes and centre-right rival Nicolas Sarkozy's tentative forays into the foreign policy arena when visiting Britain last month, reinforces the impression that France is struggling to find itself internationally, once again.

France's recent internal problems have shifted the focus of political debate overwhelmingly to the domestic. The last two years have seen the worse civil unrest since the 1968 student riots exposing deep social racism; unpopular labour legislation resulting in more protests; economic stagnation and an unprecedented identity crisis. The final insult being uncovered documents revealing that in the 1950s, Britain and France discussed the possibility of uniting with Queen Elizabeth II as France's head of state. With such insecurities, connected with the rest of world with coherent policy isn't easy.

But historically, and despite the acrimony prior to the invasion of Iraq, France has a role. Last summer's war in Lebanon led to France taking a primary diplomatic role and providing peacekeeping troops. France's historical ties to Lebanon during the 23 year mandate period, and Britain's discredited Middle East position, created an opportunity to mediate. France's demographic structure gives it a diplomatic advantage with the largest Arab and Jewish populations in western Europe. So in April this year, France will elect a new president and maybe a renewed foreign policy. Britain will also have a new leader by the summer, so a shift in European foreign policy as a whole could be upon us.

Algeria - an unfinished war

After a new front opened in the Horn of Africa earlier this year, and completing another little jihadist historical cycle, Algeria's militant GSPC group have adopted brand bin laden, changing their name to the al-Qaeda organisation in the Islamic Maghreb. A signed statement posted on the internet confirms fears that Al-Qaeda's influence is slowly spreading across North Africa, and that Algeria's civil war of the 1990s is not quite finished. How serious are either of these developments? The brand has been widely adopted by various jihadist groups of varying capability, but this does not necessarily imply an operational partnership. Know-how is widely available via the internet and thousands of Islamists in Algeria's civil war gained vital experience during the Afghanistan war against the Soviets. So the expertise and potential is there. But, a direct line between Pakistan's North West frontier and the Maghreb is probably pushing it.

More likely is that this represents another legacy of one of most brutal and forgotten wars of the late 20th century. Up to 200,000 Algerians died in this near ten year conflict, between Islamist and government forces, that erupted after the 1991 the FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) election victory was cancelled. Within the context of Islamic political history, this was a seismic event. The compatability of Islam and democracy can be debated, but the war certainly shows Islamism's determination to gain power rather than adhering to democratic principles, the lengths authoritarian regimes will go to block it, and in the context of the 1990s - the ever increasing proliferation of militant Islam.

The FIS initially held a moderate leadership, and after their disbandment in March 1992, retreated to northern Algeria's mountains to conduct a guerrilla war. The resistance split into competing factions with different tactics, military/government targets or civilian. The violence evolved into an internecine conflict as hardline Islamist group the GIA (Armed Islamic Group), waged a brutal campaign against the government; previous allies FIS, who were considered collaborators; and thousands of civilians. Both the FIS and GIA sought an Islamic state, through democratic or violent means, but neither succeeded. Atrocities reached their peak in 1997. The GIA proved too extreme for most Islamists, and former members created the GSPC - which although not quite as extreme is constantly active.

Algeria fits neatly between Afghanistan and Iraq in the militant Islam chronology. Factionalism, fanatical commitment to overthrowing the state, and use of extreme violence are the common factors. A low level war is ongoing, but given that GSPC is numbering about 300 fighters, it is a low priority. Algeria's war is hopefully finished, and considering WMD trends across the region - Algeria and Jordan are looking to initiate nuclear programs - having one more state becoming unstable could have devastating consequences.

Big Brother: The end of an Empire

This blog looks at current events from a historico-political angle with a degree of high brow prose, so I am not dumbing down in any respect in this next post, but this concerns the latest media fed social-cultural experiment on wayward modern British attitudes in a very bizarre house. Aka (it's difficult to type this): celebrity Big Brother. I am not remotely interested in who is a racist, what it says about the British working classes or whether Channel 4 should be scrapped. The important issue is Britain and its history with India past, present and future. If Jade et al had victimised someone of another race, then the impact I think (this is controversial) would not have been as acute. Firstly they probably wouldn't have, but Indian culture despite integrating fully into British society, is misunderstood, patronised and, in the case of the witches of Elstree, feared. The relationship between the two has not overcome its mixed history and sadly it has taken a bit of TV as crass as this to show it. The Raj, the Jewel in the Crown, represented the best and worst of the British Empire. Between 1858 and 1947, Britain governed India and traded off its wealth, the success of which is remarkable given how diametrically opposed the two cultures are. Post World War II, the inevitable partition left an ugly stain, as it did in all former colonies. However the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 might be considered a turning point for British history - creating the conditions for a multi-cultural Britain. Given that this process began 45 years ago, attitudes like those on display are startling (to most liberal semi intellectual people), but where there is ignorance there is prejudice. The fortunes of both countries have been mixed since we parted 60 years ago this year. India took a long road to possible global domination (economically at least); Britain has taken a long road to global subservience (politically at least). Gordon Brown, caught in a storm of protests during his visit to India, puts the subcontinent as a key player in this century. And these events have probably done his political future a good turn, raising his profile and vision indirectly. Brown praises India and calls for a new world order, but thankfully Jade etc won't be part of it.

Who were the Safavids?

In another blow to Sunni-Shia reconciliation, yesterday's gruesome execution of former Ba'thist judge Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, was described with historical resonance as "the grudge of the Safavids" by his son-in-law. A misjudgment in the length of rope required to hang Saddam Hussein's half brother led to his decapitation, a scene thankfully not released by the Iraqi government to date. From the Yemen, Azzam Salih Abdullah, claimed that the beheading was an act of revenge by the newly empowered Shia leaders. Reference to the Safavids is significant, as it was this Iranian dynasty that established Shia Islam in Persia, creating the first Shi'a state. Originally from Iranian Azarbaijan, the Safavids built an empire between 1501 and 1736 that stretched eastwards to Kandahar, and bordered the Ottoman Empire along the Euphrates. Baghdad was sacked as part of an early campaign, and constant invasion by both the Safavids and Ottomans led to the city's decline until the 20th century. History in the Middle East enjoys cycles and the peoples feed on it and cherish it. History pays back them in return, and often with added tragedy.

The new Saddam..

2006 was a good year for ridding the world of the 20th century's worst dictators. In March Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic died in his cell in the Hague; Chile's General Augusto Pinochet departed after heart failure in December; the extremely eccentric President Niyazov of Turkmenistan passed before Christmas and Saddam Hussein was executed 2 days before the year's end. So far in 2007, Fidel Castro is on his death bed according to latest reports. The term dictator might now slowly become a thing of the past, reserved simply for politics students and the historian establishment. Globalisation, the spread of liberal democracy, and global appeals for equality in human rights have been chipping away at despotic principles the world over. Slowly peoples resist and dictators are exposed for what they really are. So who is left? The majority based around Africa, Middle East and South Asia and new additions do pop up occasionally (Thailand being a latest). http://www.arthuredelstein.org/worlddictators/
You would need to ask the peoples involved, but I would struggle to believe that all of these are in the Saddam, Milosevic category. Swaziland and Oman are, as far as I know, peaceful places where democracy isn't a priority but repression isn't the done thing either. But old favorites Mugabe, Kim Jong il, etc obviously fit into the classic definition. However the counter argument says that the international system is not advanced enough for a tyranny free world. Imbalances of power from poverty, post-colonialism or militarism prolong an international dictatorial presence.
Dictators often use history as an inspiration; Stalin's cult of personality inspired Saddam and Jong-il; and Saddam in turn provides a model for Burma's General Than Shwe. So whilst these ambitions to be added to the pantheon of meglomaniacs continue to exist and motivate in the Third world, dictators are going to be with us a little while longer.

Black Hawk Down: the sequel

Just when all the attention is on Iraq and the Bush administration's new strategy, US airstrikes have hit suspected Al-Qaeda targets in Somalia. The Horn of Africa has been simmering since the infamous Black Hawk Down disaster of October 1993, with no satisfactory political resolution, an ever increasing Islamist presence, and the recent conflict with Ethiopia. How connected the Islamists in Somalia are to those in Iraq is unclear. But if Sudanese fighters can be arrested in Baghdad, then why not Somalians? With both African states (Sudan and Somalia) experiencing greater penetration by Al-Qaeda related groups and exporting / importing similar ideologies, the region has become a little bit smaller (and dangerous). When you consider how close Somalia is to Saudi Arabia, maybe a new front might be opening in the war against Al-Qaeda. A short boat journey and the jihadist circle is squared once again.

But this might simply be unfinished business. The scars of Mogadishu 1993, Al-Qaeda's first significant attack against Kenya and Tanzanian embassies in 1998, are still there, despite being on Clinton's watch. For all the talk of preventive strikes in the wake of the Bush doctrine, only 1 similar attack has occured in the Yemen 2002. So given the low priority of these suspects, I would suspect that wider geopolitical goals are under consideration here. A new conflict could be emerging and the US wants to get an early blow in.

Bulgaria nEUw year...

Well I've just spent the last week in Bulgaria, eating casseroled rabbit; drinking local grappa and sharing entry into the EU. Bulgaria, no differently to any other Balkan state, has a very mixed past: wars, foreign occupation, political assassinations and ethnic tensions. Pretty average for the region, but Bulgaria has emerged smiling. With a population of 7 million and roughly the size of Liberia or Iceland, it's never going to change the world, but it has carved its own image as the responsible Balkan. No mean feat given, the region's history.

Entry to the EU may be considered a poisoned chalice to the sceptics, but it will ease investment restrictions, develop further its infrastructure (Bulgaria isn't short of building sites - most of which are idly waiting for that extra bit of cash to be injected). It also benefits the EU, in its eastern expansion (the Black Sea has been touched at last - Turkey further bordered) and circles its neighbours allowing a good view of EU offerings, making ascension more irresistable.

But Bulgaria has a long way to go. Whilst the metropolitan generation is upwardly mobile and reaching out to Western Europe, its political class are treated with cynicism and its rural classes isolated and uninterested. However the contrast to 17 years ago and also to the economic crises of the 1990s is uplifting to most Bulgarians. Whereas Czech and Hungarian entrance to the EU mainstream was swift, Bulgaria has been slow but it is better for it. Bulgaria has lived under two of history's greatest empires - Ottoman and Soviet - only to feel at home once again under another dominant structure.

Saddam - never forgotten...

Just got back from Bulgaria, so a little late on the biggest news story of the year - damm!

In the same way, that he tormented Iraq during his rule; baffled and mocked in his trial; and divided and embarrassed in his execution, Saddam has once again left an indelible mark on Iraqi society's psyche. Given the events of the last 3 1/2 years, who could expect a humane civilised end? The brutality that cuts across all things Iraqi was here in abundance. The execution reflected all that is bad there: cold violence; sectarian vengeance; chaotic disorganisation.

But Saddam cared little for his victims, so why should he receive any favours? One fundamental rule that has always been missing, whether at Abu Ghraib, in distribution of reconstruction contracts, or suppression of the insurgency, is a sense of moral altitude. Act like we as civilised nations expect to; not accept any method to achieve our aims. American society isn't too blame by any means, but gung ho military culture; marriage to corporate interests; "liberal" use of the death penalty; and ambiguous definition of human rights in Bush administration has all fed into this ugly disaster.

Iraq has moved on now. The insurgency that Saddam played a minor role in forming has outlived him and outgrown him as a threat to both the country and the region. Thousands died during his time, but were there executions, death squads, suicide bombers? He invaded two neighbouring countries, fired scuds at a third and threatened others, but WMD proliferation was contained, terrorism limited to domestic targets, and Shia-Sunni rivalry only seen along the Iraq-Iran border. Once Saddam was arrested and on trial, he appeared weak and lacked any menace, especially as new fears emerged, but to both his supporters and enemies he will never be forgotten.

How bad are the Saudis?

Last week's decision to suspend an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into corruption between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems during one of the largest defence deals in UK history, raises old concerns about who our allies are and what we are prepared to indulge of them. The deal was undoubtedly beneficial to the UK in economic terms; Saudi Arabia is a key ally against international terrorism, especially when sharing intelligence; and of course there is the oil. But against these obvious positives in the relationship, we have allied with an undemocratic state with a poor human rights record, who wrongfully torture British citizens and plays host to Wahhibist extremism exported to Iraq, previously to Afghanistan and for a certain15 individuals to New York. With friends like these, who needs enemies - is the cry. In the world of realpolitik, yes this relationship is acceptable, in the same way that the UK and US have supported authoritarian regimes in the past. But remember those Bush words about states that harbour terrorism. Well the Saudis funded and recognised the Taliban, previously funded mujahedin that would form Al-Qaida, preside over a collection of charities that fund Hamas, so without going in to Michael Moore territory, this is all a bit dubious.

Regardless of their questionable actions and obvious excesses, what does the future hold and can the Saudis reform or will they implode. Parallels with the Shah and Iran exist, but the ruling family retain popularity and critically wealth. Poverty and unemployment are low, but any revolution won't be for another 40 years or at least while the oil revenues keep coming.

But the main point that Britain should consider is the human rights question. Human Rights Watch's analysis: "Saudi law does not protect many basic rights. The government does not allow political parties, and places strict limits on freedom of expression. Arbitrary detention, mistreatment and torture of detainees, restrictions on freedom of movement, and lack of official accountability remain serious concerns." This description would not be out of place for a Third world dictatorship, rather than a vital economic influence. But when Britain is prepared to be accused of double standards over economic and strategic interests, a spiral of antipathy will only continue. 15 of the 18 hijackers were Saudis for this reason.

The Clinton doctrine?

There was such a thing? Well any one leading a superpower in a turbulent period that was the 1990s, would have created some sort of foreign policy. His detractors believe that no doctrine existed.

To say that a Clinton doctrine was absent over the period 1993-2001 is not fully correct. From inauspicious beginnings, a range of foreign policy doctrines emerged but they often lacked coherence, or were flawed in their implementation. Three strands of foreign policy doctrine developed, directly influenced by the condition of the international system: enlargement; interventionism; containment of rogue states. However Clinton’s personal failings, plus difficulties within his administration; domestic factors and the practical implementation of these doctrines led to an often incoherent and ineffective foreign policy.

Clinton’s administration, elected three years after the end of the Cold War, was born in an international system described as unipolar and also uni-multipolar – one superpower and several major powers. The United States was pre eminent in this new era, in terms of economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological and cultural power. Major regional powers below held limited pre eminence but lacked the US global reach. Below this, lay secondary regional powers. A similar interpretation shows the United States, at the top level, as unipolar militarily; multipolar at an economic level; but below this, power is dispersed across borders and outside control of governments. Regional and ethnic conflicts could be included in this bottom level. Conflicts that had been simmering in the Cold war but fitted in rigid alliance structures had greater potential to develop under these new conditions. Lines in conflicts would be drawn between civilizations with threats from the Middle East and West Asia. The period also saw further globalisation and interdependence between states; the rise of non-state actors; transnational actors (multinational corporations, NGOs) and international actors (United Nations, World Trade Organisation, European Union).

Despite historic events – the collapse of communism and the Gulf War – taking place in the previous three years, the 1992 US election focused on economic issues. Foreign policy was an element of Clinton’s campaign and in televised debates he exhibited a tough stance on Bosnia and China, but domestic policy was his priority. Faced with inherited and emerging international issues but with no desire for active foreign policy, the Clinton administration was hesitant in adopting a strategy.

This is an abstract from my first essay of the year.

Pinochet - another dictator escapes justice

With the exception of his dedicated hardline supporters and Margaret Thatcher, the world will shed no tears at the death of General Augusto Pinochet today, aged 91. His death could be the second of three this year for notorious dictators: Milosevic died in March; Saddam is due to be executed before the year is out. But none of them are perceived to have received the justice they deserved or has at the least received a reciprocal of the injustice they gave out. Sadly all three had the foresight to cover their murderous tracks and make future criminal proceedings difficult and controversial. Secondly the international justice system has not developed sufficiently to prosecute dictators and war criminals with efficiency. The protracted Milosevic war crimes indictment and deeply flawed Saddam trial showed the difficulties in either form of justice.

Pinochet is the last client state leader of the Cold war to pass, on the US side at least. Castro and Kim Jong-il remain for the Soviets. The General who came to power on the other September 11th, in 1973, represented all that was bad under Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy. Project FUBELT, the codename for the CIA operations, against Allende's democratically elected government, created an environment for him to seize power and torture at will. Kissinger's motivation for sanctioning this action is beyond patronizing: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

What lessons can be drawn? Well, it was the same policy in 1973, that extended to Iran and the Shah, was also seen elsewhere in Latin America and also Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. That is, support for geo-politically strategic allies over human rights considerations. Despite the positive influence of the United States in ending the cold war, the side effect can be seen in anti-Americanism that developed after. Latin America has rejected American values in recent times, but on a political-economic level. However support for dubious leaderships in the Middle East during the Cold war has led to the current well of antipathy seen there today.

Litvinenko - local hero

Orginally broken by the Sunday Times 2 weeks ago, initially thought to be poisoned by toxic chemical thallium, then not, tabloid photos follow (with crass headlines), radiation poisoning due to unknown capsules develops, then his sad death on Thursday evening, with stinging accusations and state sponsored assassination seen as a highly probable cause of Alexander Litvinenko. All along there have been denials from the Kremlin, titbits of information from acquaintances of the Russian dissident, and British government trying to keep as much distance as possible. Truth is stranger and sharper than fiction, for all involved.

So who did it? No other question seems to matter at the moment. The main culprits proposed so far have been Putin, Chechens, former FSB colleagues, fellow dissidents and suicide. Given his obvious contacts with various underworld and intelligence figures, I believe that it could be none of these and is in fact an unknown individual that he had dealings with, under very covert circumstances.

If this had been a conventional murder, it would be mid level news, but murder by radiation is totally unprecendented ... anywhere. Polonium-210 as a radioactive substance is not easily obtainable. On the wider international relations question, where is Russia heading: assassinations of critics, ongoing wars, sales of missiles to Iran and shifts towards being a fascist state. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2470215,00.html http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005629014
Are we seeing a new threat emerging here? Russia has yet to be fully incorporated in the post Soviet world, and it probably won't. 15 years ago, Russia was still considered a serious threat to international security. Will all the talk of the Middle East as primary zone of conflict, everyone has forgotten that inter-state conflict is still always possible.

Closer to home Litvinenko actually lived in Muswell Hill, where this blog is from.