Iraq
The atrocities committed in Baghdad on Wednesday (followed up by more slaughter on Thursday and Friday) which follow the issuing of the final draft of Iraq's constitution, and the US-UK-"Iraqi" assault on Tal Afar last week, merit close attention - tragically, not only because of the deaths in the last few days (about 200 killed by suicide bombers; how many killed in the Tal Afar offensive? No one knows, as "we are not in the business of recording casualty rates" as "Stormin'" Norman Schwarzkopf insisted 14 years ago) but also because of the chaos and carnage recent events portend.
Increasingly, a federalisation of the country appears likely. A few weeks ago, Noam Chomsky described Kurdish and Shi'ite autonomy as "a nightmare for Washington" in an analysis that seemed pretty reasonable to me. One regional benefit (for Washington) might be that Kurdish independence will cause problems in Tehran (already beginning in fact – see Najmeh Bozorgmehr, “Armed Kurds fomenting unrest in Iran pose security threat to Tehran” Financial Times, 29th August). Aside from this, however, it is hard to see what benefits Washington can gain from federalisation.
However, while the British government keep silent on these developments, Bush has praised the draft constitution as another sign that he has succeeded in bringing ‘democracy’ to Iraq. That the document will increase sectarian tensions was pretty widely reported in the media after the text was finalised. "Rather than an inclusive document, it is more a recipe for separation based on Shia and Kurdish privilege," the FT quoted Anthony Cordesman at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies as saying. (Roula Khalaf and Steve Negus, “Charter steers Iraqis down a path full of potential danger” FT, 30th August)
The assault on Tal Afar seems to have provided the occasion for those extremist Sunni groups intent on exacerbating sectarian violence (al-Zarqawi their public face) to launch their bloody assault, creating carnage in Baghdad on Wednesday, with more attacks on Thursday and Friday.
All of this seems to have been pretty well predicted by experts quoted widely in the mainstream media, and the course on which Iraq is headed looks pretty clear from the events of the last couple of weeks. Is Washington now so desperate to create the appearance of political progress and reduce troop-levels that it is happy to see Iraq slipping in to civil war, adopt a federal constitution that will cause huge problems for its Turkish and Saudi allies, and leave control over the crucial energy resources uncertain?
These questions - posed (in a different form) with no attempt to provide answers, by Robert Fisk in Thursday's Independent - I have put to Mr. Chomsky. When I recieve a reply, my loyal readers shall be informed. Until then, we can only wonder - although not without hope - what the future may hold...
Apparently also newsworthy: In a speech on Thursday night, President Bush emphasised that New Orleans' "poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality."
Afghanistan - still run by warlords.
Charles Clarke not so sure about 3 months detention without trial. (aka "What you get when you never get round to drafting a constitution")
NHS - going bankrupt; creeping privatisation coming along nicely. (This might have something to do with their willingness to hire temp staff at £8.50/hr - yes I'm resentful, why wouldn't I be?)
Finally, a minor glimpse in to the modern political economy of human rights. This stuff is astoundingly difficult to put together these days. No doubt, the intention is to produce a series of isolated "scandals" rather than a consistent identifiable pattern. Nevertheless, it might be worth investigating how much the "Political Economy of Human Rights" has changed since Messrs Chomsky and Herman so competently dissected it a quarter of a centuy ago...
Increasingly, a federalisation of the country appears likely. A few weeks ago, Noam Chomsky described Kurdish and Shi'ite autonomy as "a nightmare for Washington" in an analysis that seemed pretty reasonable to me. One regional benefit (for Washington) might be that Kurdish independence will cause problems in Tehran (already beginning in fact – see Najmeh Bozorgmehr, “Armed Kurds fomenting unrest in Iran pose security threat to Tehran” Financial Times, 29th August). Aside from this, however, it is hard to see what benefits Washington can gain from federalisation.
However, while the British government keep silent on these developments, Bush has praised the draft constitution as another sign that he has succeeded in bringing ‘democracy’ to Iraq. That the document will increase sectarian tensions was pretty widely reported in the media after the text was finalised. "Rather than an inclusive document, it is more a recipe for separation based on Shia and Kurdish privilege," the FT quoted Anthony Cordesman at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies as saying. (Roula Khalaf and Steve Negus, “Charter steers Iraqis down a path full of potential danger” FT, 30th August)
The assault on Tal Afar seems to have provided the occasion for those extremist Sunni groups intent on exacerbating sectarian violence (al-Zarqawi their public face) to launch their bloody assault, creating carnage in Baghdad on Wednesday, with more attacks on Thursday and Friday.
All of this seems to have been pretty well predicted by experts quoted widely in the mainstream media, and the course on which Iraq is headed looks pretty clear from the events of the last couple of weeks. Is Washington now so desperate to create the appearance of political progress and reduce troop-levels that it is happy to see Iraq slipping in to civil war, adopt a federal constitution that will cause huge problems for its Turkish and Saudi allies, and leave control over the crucial energy resources uncertain?
These questions - posed (in a different form) with no attempt to provide answers, by Robert Fisk in Thursday's Independent - I have put to Mr. Chomsky. When I recieve a reply, my loyal readers shall be informed. Until then, we can only wonder - although not without hope - what the future may hold...
Apparently also newsworthy: In a speech on Thursday night, President Bush emphasised that New Orleans' "poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality."
Afghanistan - still run by warlords.
Charles Clarke not so sure about 3 months detention without trial. (aka "What you get when you never get round to drafting a constitution")
NHS - going bankrupt; creeping privatisation coming along nicely. (This might have something to do with their willingness to hire temp staff at £8.50/hr - yes I'm resentful, why wouldn't I be?)
Finally, a minor glimpse in to the modern political economy of human rights. This stuff is astoundingly difficult to put together these days. No doubt, the intention is to produce a series of isolated "scandals" rather than a consistent identifiable pattern. Nevertheless, it might be worth investigating how much the "Political Economy of Human Rights" has changed since Messrs Chomsky and Herman so competently dissected it a quarter of a centuy ago...
posted by UK plc at 1:58 AM
1 Comments:
Great analysis. Did you happen to catch the article in, The Guardian describing how weak the Afghani elections were? If not, I have a link to it on my blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home