Tripoli - Palestinians forgotten northern refuge

Lebanon's second largest city Tripoli has been the focus of an unexpected escalation of factional clashes in the last few days. In the worst violence since the end of the 1976-1990 civil war, Lebanon's army have fought radical Palestinian off-shoot Fatah Al-Islam. In the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp north of Tripoli, the militant group with supposed ties to Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syrian intelligence amongst others, has opened new fissures in Lebanon's multi-confessional matrix. Tripoli is one of the most northerly fringes of the Palestinian diaspora, and has particular resonance for Lebanese Palestinians. PLO leader Yasser Arafat withstood an Israeli onslaught during the siege of Tripoli in December 1983 before an exodus to Tunis, enhancing his legendary status amongst the Palestinian people. Arafat would survive and Israel's primary objective to eradicate the PLO had failed, although their presence ended in Lebanon. PLO-Fatah absence from the occupied territories allowed Islamists to flourish - Hamas played a key role in the 1987 intifada - creating the factional conflict now seen in Gaza.

Although we should be careful about viewing 1980s Palestinian resistance through rose tinted shades. There is a contrast to the radicalism of today that selfishly hinders their nation's progress, with the more noble resistance of Fatah - although they were accurately described as terrorists at the time. Hamas are creating problems but their popular mandate is thin, only 44% of voters chose them in the 2006 election with turn out under a quarter of the total Palestinian population. And now in 2007, as rockets fire at Sderot, splinter groups battle in the north and Hezbollah wait and re-arm, another summer of war seems highly probable once again.

Read on here in this excellent article: http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-debate_97/report_gaza_4632.jsp

Algeria - the long road to democracy

Fifteen years after the military junta cancelled the democratic process paving the way for a brutal civil war, voters return to the polls today for the latest step in Algeria's torturous democratic process. Although parliamentary and presidential elections have been every few years since 1995, underlying tensions remain. Recent terrorist attacks by Al-Qaeda linked militants have added an extra edge, and despite a reconciliation process, the return to the dark days of the 1990s is not far from the minds of weary Algerians. The development of Algerian democracy is an often cited case, as it was one of the first attempts to bring popular representation to the region. The victory for the Islamist movement - FIS - and subsequent military coup show what can happen when democracy and Islam combine, and what can go wrong. As the seminal Islamist electoral success story, FIS bitterly divided Algeria. Opinion of the movement ranged from fear of the imposition an undemocratic Iranian style theocracy, to representing vital salvation after years of decline under socialist rule. The leadership symbolised the dilemma facing Algerians and international observers at the time. Abassi Madani projected a moderate image - promoting democracy as the best way of ending Algeria's economic and social decline. Ali Belhadj, his deputy, led the salafi radical wing who rejected democracy - “Democracy is a stranger in the House of God. There is no democracy in Islam” - but at the same time encouraged Algerians to use democracy to end FLN rule. These contradictions did not inspire confidence and the international community's perception of “One man, one vote, one time” - meant that there was little condemnation of the 1992 coup. A similar situation to the Hamas victory last year, but FIS had not been designated as a terrorist group, making the silence less understandable. How democratic FIS would have been in full power is debatable. The extreme level of resistance in the civil war to the military junta firstly by the AIS (Islamic Salvation Army) and then the GIA, shows how militants had the potential to dominate FIS' political agenda. The salafi wing of FIS rejected democracy as it conflicted with the Islamic concept of Tawhid, but for moderates like Madani - FIS had a nationalist and pluralist agenda that looked to create economic and social reform through democracy.

The Age of Brown

After yesterday's long awaited farewell and the flood of era-ending analysis, we have now moved into new territory, unchartered waters, the land of Gordon, the age of Brown. He has had approximately 13 years to make this speech and you cannot doubt his intent by the following statement: "I want to build a shared national consensus for a programme of constitutional reform that strengthens the accountability of all who hold power; that is clear about the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen in Britain today; that defends the union and is vigilant about ensuring that the hard won liberties of the individual, for which Britain has for centuries been renowned round the world, are at all times upheld without relenting in our attack on terrorism." His opening gambit in Knebworth was overshadowed (literally) by a misplaced autocue screen. But maybe this was deliberate, we have had far too much presentation in the last decade and Cameron has the same obsession. The image isn't important, it is the substance and this organizational blunder has inadvertently highlighted this. The second major speech of the day included a few Nixon and Reagan jokes, maybe created a bit of early distance with Republicanism? Opinion polls on tonight's Newsnight show him a fair way behind Cameron, but having played second best to Blair for so long, and having an obviously lower media profile has meant that the electorate just don't have an informed view of him, even though he has been the country's number 2 for 10 years. There won't be a snap election so Brown has a free run for the next few years to change those views - or not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6646349.stm

The Hand of History

The ten year anniversary has just past and the announcement has been made today, it is time for the hand of history to give Blair the judgement he has been waiting for. Blair has an ambiguous relationship with history: he uses it when it suits - to justify decisions; but is overtly conscious of his historical place within Labour party and British history. "Historic third term" and "legacy" have been Blairite mantras since 2005. So prepare yourself for a political cottage industry as despite our apolitical tendencies, the last ten years will be trawled over in the finest detail until you're wishing that John Major won a second term in 1997. Standby for a barrage of Blair's soundbite gems ("shoulder to shoulder"; "elected as New Labour; govern as New Labour"; "I can apologise"), endless repetitions of Oasis / D:Ream montages of 1997 euphoria and early attempts to create a political revolution, and Blair and Bush taking that pointless red carpet walk before denouncing the Left, Islamists and all the other Iraq doomsayers. Prepare to undergo a re-appraisal of your entrenched views and conclude that despite spin, failed public sector reforms, cash for honours, government resignations, ID cards, crime and Middle East policy, we could have done a lot worse. Blair for all his failings has not plumbed to Thatcher - Major dark depths and Cameron will only seem like TB2 with a quiff. Gordon's enigmatic nature gives him a clean slate to take over and I think he will represent a beautiful three year interregnum. So the Blair era has coincided with dramatic global political, social and cultural changes, which he has surfed upon and reacted to very well, but as a visionary, a revolutionary or a great leader - he hasn't come that close.

Shifting Plates

The tectonic plates of British politics are shifting this week through immense gravitation and friction. Within the space of 7 days (a week is a long time in politics I hear you cry), the SNP achieved a parliamentary victory for the first time in their history, power sharing is finalised in Northern Ireland with old foes McGuiness and Paisley united, and Tony Blair will announce his resignation paving the way for Gordon Brown to assume the leadership. Now these developments have not arisen out of the blue and I will not analyse the historical context here, rather let's consider what this means for the future of British politics. Well - one word - regionalisation. The tide of devolution that has broken over British shores since 1999, has received its largest fillip this week. Now political structures and true devolved power are in place, economic and cultural prosperity can flourish. Well that's the idea. England, sitting in the middle of this upheaval, will in some ways be heading in an opposite direction: a Scottish leader, the ever present burden of centralised power and an identity crisis on the horizon. But the reverse might happen, multiculturalism has been England's substitute for devolution in our cultural barometer, a leader not embroiled in South East England's Middle Englishness could challenge the population in new and rewarding ways (the West Lothian question reversed and answered), and globalisation - already rampant - will continue as English identity and political influence stretches further afield. So devolution empowers, but also liberates.

Now given the predictably intractable nature of British politics, these shifts of power will probably face complications: the SNP need to play coalition politics to make anything from their victory, Paisley and McGuiness hold diametrically opposed views, Brown is facing a demoralised Labour party and Conservatives in the ascendancy pressuring for an early General Election. So the political tectonic plates are moving in a similar way to Earth's: convergent (two political plates moving towards each other - Northern Ireland), divergent (two plates moving apart - Scotland) and transform (two plates sliding horizontally past each other creating cataclysmic stresses along the way - Blair to Brown to Cameron of course!). This might be a very unscientific geography lesson, but I hope it sums up the historic events of the last week.

Democracy Update

In 2002, the United States National Security Strategy (NSS) declared that democracy was America's mission for "every corner of the world", but first and foremost the urgent necessity was in the Middle East. The so called Bush Doctrine asserted that democracy would be a panacea for Islamic terrorism, Iraq would be the model for others to follow. Five years on and with Iraqi democracy hanging by a thread, Islamists elected in Palestine, and untransparent restricted democratic pretensions in other Arab states, what progress has been made?

Historically democracy in the Middle East is sparse. Colonial rule working in tandem with strict regressive monarchies, then one party state socialism with dubious definitions of "democratic", have smothered any progress for pluralism and popular representation. The region is split between these two strands authoritarianism: King Abdullah vs Mubarak, King Hussein vs Bashar al-Assad, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi vs Saddam Hussein. In addition to the politics and this far from democratic tradition, religion is arguably a stumbling block. Democracy and Islam are not compatible as sovereignty lies with God not man. But Islamic movements have participated in elections and adhered to democracy, albeit with reservations. Algerian Islamists achieved electoral success in 1991, Muslim Brotherhood candidates running as independents gained 20% in Egypt's 2005 elections. Here is the update:

Algeria

18 million Algerians are registered to vote in the upcoming legislative elections set for May 17

Bahrain

parliamentary elections held on 25 November 2006 with major gains for Shia and Sunni Islamist parties. The election was preceded by a political realignment in which opposition parties that had boycotted 2002's poll agreed to take part. Turnout was 72%. Salafists Al Asalah came third.

Egypt

President Hosni Mubarak has won three elections unopposed since 1981, but in 2005 for his fourth contest - under US pressure - he changed the system to allow rival candidates. Mubarak's National Democratic Party won 68%, while independents Muslim Brotherhood gained 19.4%. Concerns were expressed after the 2005 elections about government interference in the election process through fraud and vote-rigging. In addition, violence by pro-Mubarak supporters against opposition demonstrators and police brutality were evident during the elections.

TBContinued

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.