Sunday, January 30, 2005

Cheney in Auschwitz

Not much notice in the British press, but the US media followed the Washington Post's (nb: free reg. required) lead in reporting that Dick Cheney decided to dress rather casually at Auschwitz, in comparison to the other world leaders present. I wouldn't usually bring it up at all, but it did occur to me that when I visited Sachenhausen near the German-Czech border 3 years ago(and learned that not all history can be read in books) I was in very similar attire (mid-february on the central European plain; very, very cold). Well no one had a go at me for dressing so "casually", and I don't think it took away from my experience. If you think about it, wouldn't it have been worse for Cheney to buy the traditional east-European attire (fur hat, big overcoat, big black boots) just so that he could look "smart" for the occasion? If what you're wearing is what occupies you when visiting a Nazi concentration camp, then it seems to me, you cannot have been paying attention.
This seems like an instance of the media having to cover a story, but having nothing really to say, and just coming up with inconsequential nonsense. You can argue this doesn't make much difference to anyone, but honestly, things of significance are happening at the moment. And they aren't in the papers...

Thursday, January 27, 2005

More on Holocaust Memorial day.

This is a response to James's post.
The fact that it is framed in terms of "learning lessons" reminds me of A.J. Muste, an American pacifist, who wrote (at the end of the First World War I believe) "The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?" If we wish to avoid being "taught" such a "lesson" by those willing to use despicable and violent means (the threat of non-state terrorists aquiring weapons of mass destruction is very real, not simply invented as a pretext for war - it's just that the most likely source is Russia/Centra Asia, where they are legion, not Iraq, where they are not) then we shall have to work it out for ourselves.
So have we learned lessons from the Second World War, and are they the right ones? We have learned a few, including that nuclear weapons must be used with extreme caution, and only when the threat of retaliation is nil (revelations in Autumn 2003 reveal that this lesson was not learned very well by 1963, when the world came shockingly close to nuclear war).
But what else? Are we able to think about the destruction of war and the Holocaust in meaningful ways? Not meaningful enough if you ask me, and not only for the reasons Zinn gives.
Hiroshima is seen by some as appalling and a culmination of the awesome destructive power of technology just as much as the Nazis' industrialised death camps. But there is to be no "equivalency" with Nazi crimes in polite discussion. There are a lot of reasons for this and some have to do with the exploitation of Jewish suffering as a "uniquely unique" or is it "phenomenologically unique" event, which cannot be explained (if you try, you are trivialising it) or even - if Elie Wiesel is to be believed - described. On all of this see Finkelstein.
An awful lot of people still see it as a prerogative of the Allies to use nuclear weapons, on a utilitarian basis that the total number of dead would have been greater had they not done so. And yet the same people will no doubt produce a wry smile (if experienced in reality, their jaws would surely drop) at General Turgidson's insistence that the USA should attack the USSR with nuclear weapons, on the basis of "two admittedly regrettable, but nonetheless distinguishable post-war environments; one where you got 20 million people killed, and one where you got 150 million people killed." ("Dr. Strangelove")
So am I just attacking utilitarianism? Well the bigger problem I have has to do with the percieved prerogative of the victors of the twentieth centuries wars ("hot" and "cold") to "police the world" as it were, or at least to "intervene" wherever they feel it necessary. Vietnam was costing too many lives on both sides - but how many opposed intervention on principle. The arguments about Iraq crossed over a range of issues, from the level of threat posed to the West to the plight of the Iraqi people. How dare we not intervene, the military humanists cried out, just as they did about Kosovo. But how many opposed it on principle?
In 1945, the victors created the UN. The reason was bi-polar power. The more the Soviet Union weakened, the less the "West" had to take notice of the UN. In a uni-polar world the UN (that is, a forum of global opinion) can easily be made "irrelevant" if it backs the wrong horse. This means the divine right of "intervention" is de facto in the hands of the winners. If the US enjoys ultimate power in inter-state relations, then the "lesson" to it and its allies can only come from one place: non-state actors. It is not a hopeful prospect.
Modernity may or may not be "over" (although it is certainly not the "end of history") but we surely don't have very much time at all to learn the major lesson of the last part of it (the "Age of Extremes" if you like) which is that arrogating to ourselves the right to wage war wherever we choose can only end in catastrophe, for others and for ourselves. A fundamental shift in the way people think about the world is necessary to learn the ultimate lesson, and it seems to me that time is very short indeed.

Chirac in Davos

The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, is a meeting of many of the richest and most powerful people in the world. Chirac couldn't quite make it there (the weather, apparently) but appeared live via a video link-up. According to the NYT,

"Mr. Chirac suggested several new ideas to combat the world's woes. One was to tax the money flowing into countries like Switzerland that favor banking secrecy - an idea that drew a ripple of surprised laughter from the well-heeled delegates to this gathering of 2,225 executives, bankers, politicians and other players in the global economy.

To raise money for research into vaccine development and other AIDS-related costs, Mr. Chirac suggested that a minuscule levy - "a maximum of one ten-thousandth" - could be raised from international financial transactions representing $3 trillion a day, enabling international bodies to raise $10 billion a year for the fight against AIDS."

A "ripple of surprised laughter" surely means something in such circles. So let's see if Chirac, or anyone else, ever raises this suggestion again. Ever. Fat chance...

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Respecting the Holocaust

Thursday is Holocaust Memorial Day. The part played by the Nazi Holocaust in all of our lives is a subject on which a great deal has been written, and some very complex questions arise from it, many of which have only begun to be answered in the last few years (by books like Peter Novick's "The Holocaust and Collective Memory" and Norman Finkelstein's extremely thought-provoking "The Holocaust Industry".
One of the most powerful pieces of writing I have ever read about the Holocaust is also the shortest. It's an essay by Howard Zinn called "Respecting the Holocaust" published in "The Progressive" in 1999, and also in a collection called "Howard Zinn on History," which is excellent, with plenty more similar essays.

Monday, January 24, 2005

War

In a time of war, many people will know people who are doing active military service, perhaps even in their own family. How to show one's solidarity with them then? Watching television of course.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

The strange case of the Iran "dossier"

Well I'm sure no one needs telling that in the wake of Hersh's report (see last post) and the proposal of the "Iran Freedom and Support Act" in US congress (see Guy Dinmore, FT, Jan 18, "White House remains wary as neocons turn their attention to Iran") there has been much speculation and chatter about a possible attack on Iran, even to the point of overshadowing coverage of preperations for the elections in Iraq now only a week away (a laudable exception in this case has been the New York Times).
This morning, the Sunday Times leads on a very strange story indeed. "Straw snubs US hawks on Iran" the headline reads. The story says that "The foreign secretary has produced a 200-page dossier that rules out military action and makes the case for a “negotiated solution” to curbing the ayatollahs’ nuclear ambitions amid increasingly bellicose noises from Washington."
So what am I finding so very strange? Well first of all, it was published on Wednesday. "
The dossier, entitled Iran’s Nuclear Programme, was quietly issued in the Commons on the eve of Bush’s inauguration last week for fear of provoking a public rift with Washington" write David Cracknells and Tony Allen-Mills, as though the lack of a press release absolves them of any responsibility for having failed to notice this in the last 4 days. Why is it that the Sunday Times have only realised last night that this dossier even exists, and why has it passed the rest of the media by completely? A quick Google News search produced two results - a BBC review of the Sunday papers, and an AFP (wire) report taking all its info from the Times piece.
Well despite the technology available to them, sometimes the media don't pick up on things. Fair enough. But there's something else very odd indeed about this story: the "dossier" is not at all what the Sunday Times says it is. Rather than "
putting the case against a military attack on Iran" it is actually a document collection which sets out how the IAEA and the British French and German governments have been investigating Iran's nuclear programmes over the last two years and the agreements that have been reached. The only new part of it is Straw's forward, which quite vacantly concludes:
"A negotiated solution, in which both sides have a feeling of ownership, is in the
best interests of Iran and of the international community. It gives stronger
guarantees of future behaviour than an imposed solution, and is more likely to build
the long-term confidence and trust which can enable the broader relationship to
develop positively."
The Times is right to say that this dossier does not "make the case for war" in the sense that the Sept 24 2002 dossier did, but not even the most hawkish republicans expect attacks in Iran to begin within six months.
If anything explains this dossier's absence from the British media in the last 4 days, it is its insignificance. Its presence on the front of the Sunday Times on what is by no stretch of the imagination a slow news day, baffles me.

Monday, January 17, 2005

Hershey bars

I'm sure this will be on just about every blog in the world today, but anyway... Seymour Hersh published a new article for the New Yorker today. He says the Bush administration is planning to attack Iran, but the Pentagon has found a way to stop the rest of the executive from asking many questions.
My prediction is that Blair will stay well away from this one, much as Thatcher's government stayed away from supporting terrorists in Central America (without condemning it).
If you want to become the author of an "instant book" then a research project on Iran is recommended.

More Indonesia

Just time for a quick post today. Don't usually link to things posted on metafilter, as if people want to be diverted, they should probably just go there, but this is one of the best online games I've played for a while. Don't click if you havn't got about 20 minutes to spare though, it's captivating :D

On to more serious matters: it looks like US military assistance to Indonesia is going to increase again. see here and here It had to stop in the late 90s after Indonesia's bloody campaign to hold on to Timor finally got the world's attention for a moment. But Paul Wolfowitz, who played a crucial role in that terrible story as ambassador to Indonesia under Reagan, is keen to get the trade going again. How will Britain respond? When there's a few bob to be made, can there really be any doubt?

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Indonesia and reconstruction

It was never likely to take very long. With the world's attention passing on to other matters (Prince Harry's fancy dress outfit is the most important story of the day if that bastion of public service, the BBC, is to be believed - who says the big media organisations can't dictate the headlines?) the Indonesian government is getting rather uptight about the presence of foriegn soldiers and aid workers in Aceh, a province in which the government has been fighting a civil war against seperatists for 30 years, and in which they don't want people intefering (until Boxing day, journalists weren't allowed in). So, Associated Press reports, "Indonesia on Thursday ordered foreign aid workers in tsunami-devastated Aceh province to have military escorts in areas facing violence by insurgents, even as the vice president welcomed a cease-fire offer by the rebels." Furthermore, the FT tells us, they will all have to leave by March 21st, or ideally even sooner: '“Three months are enough. In fact, the sooner the better,” Mr Kalla told the state-run Antara news agency.' ("Foreign troops given deadline to leave Aceh", By Shawn Donnan in Jakarta and David Ibison in Banda Aceh, FT, 13/01/05. Online here). For those of you who have only been paying attention for the last couple of weeks, Indonesia's president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was a senior general under Suharto's genocidal regime.
No, it doesn't matter how much money you give to Oxfam (not that people shouldn't, more is still needed, also for other things which claim thousands of lives every day, although less dramatically), life in Indonesia, and especially Aceh, is not about to suddenly become very pretty.

Finally some debate on the left about how to respond to current events in Iraq. Stay tuned, folks, I'm sure to be unable to resist sticking my oar in here...

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Film review #1

I had the urge to go to the cinema yesterday, having not been for a while. So I headed down to Wardour Street Odeon, a 3rd floor cinema with tiny screens decked out in the most fantastically awful 70s-brown in the heart of Chinatown, to see The Corporation, a documentary by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbot and Joel Bakan. It is an examination of some aspects of the development of the corporation, its attainment of the legal rights of a person, and then an exploration of what kind of person a corporation would be. The conclusion is that it would be a psychopath. The first half falls somewhere between No Logo and Profit over People, with interviews with Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein, Milton Friedman, and numerous CEO's (Goodyear, Royal Dutch/Shell, and most interestingly, Interface, the world's biggest carpet manufacturer).
There is a lengthy exploration of how an investigation by two reporters - who had just been hired by Fox to do cutting edge investigations - in to the side-effects of a drug made by Monsanto to make cows produce more milk (these included cancer) was suppressed after Monsanto threatened to sue Fox if they aired it. There is footage from sweatshops, which is pretty familiar to the No Logo reader, but is nonetheless quite moving at times.
The story of Interface is fascinating. The CEO in 1994 read a book about the environmental effects of industry, realised what his company and others were doing to the world, and vowed to be making carpets sustainably and profitably by 2020. A remarkable example of what can be done when peoples minds are stimulated.

Near the end of the film, it is suggested (I'm not sure by whom) that the industrial age began with the enclosure of common land in Britain and with the advent of steam power. If we want to create a just society that will not extinguish itself within a few generations, it was proposed, we need to consider the effects of these events, and think about how we could alter them. What is being proposed is no return to primordialism, but a different way of allocating and producing stuff. Something to think about.

The film suffered from three things: first, the presence, and unrestrained self-righteousness of Michael Moore, which I have concluded is now irreversible. He may never produce useful work again. Second, the analyses of Naomi Klein, which were even weaker than in No Logo, since here she was trying to summarise. She cannot explain why export processing zones, foreign direct investment, and "capital flight" occur as they do, and another spokesperson on these complex matters should be found. I also refuse to go along with her proposal that in running a transnational corporation, building and maintaining the brand has replaced making the product. She notes in No Logo that Nike directly employs no one to make shoes, only branding ideas, but the fact remains that all corporations rely on goods or services carrying their brand being bought by consumers, and it's important not to lose sight of this in my view, because it reminds people what power they have as consumers on whom these corporations are reliant.
Third, the editor (Jennifer Abbot) was far too afraid to cut lengthy scenes, resulting in a 142 minute film that could have been done in 90, rather like "Manufacturing Consent" (another Achbar film).

All in all, a decent documentary, worth seeing. Does not benefit from being in the cinema in my view, except that it makes you focus on it I guess. Have a caffienated drink on hand before you settle down to it though.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

"Democratic authority based on a full working democracy in Iraq."

This will magically materialise the moment I turn 20, so the Prime Minister told journalists in yesterday's press briefing.
On the other hand... (this article posted in full as I have seen no other coverage. Source.)


Allawi group slips cash to reporters

By Steve Negus in Baghdad
Published: January 10 2005 22:01 | Last updated: January 10 2005 22:01


The electoral group headed by Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi prime minister, on Monday handed out cash to journalists to ensure coverage of its press conferences in a throwback to Ba'athist-era patronage ahead of parliamentary elections on January 30.

After a meeting held by Mr Allawi's campaign alliance in west Baghdad, reporters, most of whom were from the Arabic-language press, were invited upstairs where each was offered a "gift" of a $100 bill contained in an envelope.

Many of the journalists accepted the cash - about equivalent to half the starting monthly salary for a reporter at an Iraqi newspaper - and one jokingly recalled how Saddam Hussein's regime had also lavished perks on favoured reporters.

Giving gifts to journalists is common in many of the Middle East's authoritarian regimes, although reporters at the conference said the practice was not yet widespread in postwar Iraq.

The press conference came as Mr Allawi and his allies kicked the electoral campaign of their Iraqi List into high gear.

Mr Allawi was not at the conference, but Hussein al-Sadr, a Shia cleric running on the prime minister's list, used it to challenge Islamist opponents in the United Iraqi Alliance, saying they were falsely claiming the backing of the country's Shia clerical establishment.

In recent weeks, there have been signs that Mr Allawi's campaign is staging an unexpectedly strong challenge.

According to the preliminary results of one survey in Shia majority areas, Mr Allawi's list was favoured by 22 per cent of respondents compared with 27 per cent who chose the Alliance.

Mr Allawi's list, whose campaign emphasises the rebuilding of the Iraqi military, is playing on its leader's reputation as a strongman and Iraqi yearnings for stability.

Like most candidate groups, Mr Allawi's has not announced its complete list of candidates for security reasons.

However, officials in his party say that his prominent Shia allies include Mr Sadr and Basra governor Wael Abd al-Latif, while Sunnis include Falah al-Naquib, the interior minister, and Thamer al-Ghadhban, the minister for petroleum.

Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine's outgoing president, on Monday ordered an early withdrawal of the country's 1,600 troops from Iraq over the next six months.

Mr Kuchma's move came in response to the deaths of eight Ukrainian soldiers in a blast in Iraq at the weekend.

Viktor Yushchenko, the president-elect, said he would make the troop withdrawal a priority when he took office in the coming days.

Additional reporting by Awadh al-Taee in Baghdad and by Tom Warner in Kiev


Friday, January 07, 2005

Political opportunities

If James thought this worthy of a rant, then perhaps it is. He was somewhat shocked to hear what Democrat Senator Carl Levin had to say about the Tsunami aid effort:

"Political opportunity" exists for the United States in how the country lets the Muslim world know "that our humanitarian instincts are across the board, that the whole world is our concern, not just the non-Muslim world, and that we view the Muslim world as an essential part of the whole world community," Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said. ("Powell Defends Tsunami Response" by Anne Gearan, AP, 3rd Jan. See here.)

Well in a sense it is surprising, and there's no doubt that it is outrageous, but it is only to be expected, I think, and the sentiment is reasonably wide-spread. James Harding ("Bush Makes Pitch for National Unity as Congress Convenes" FT, 5th Jan) writes:

"The Bush administration, initially criticised for a tardy and paltry response to the disaster, has come to appreciate the opportunity the tsunamis present to restore political goodwill both at home and abroad. The elder Mr Bush said as much on Tuesday morning in an interview on ABC television: 'If we're generous, and we will be and are being, I think that sends another good signal to areas that have some questions about some policies of the United States.'"

British officials may not be quite crass enough to say it in public (and might be a little embarrassed that the £50m ($96m), which was originally one of the most generous pledges, has now been dwarfed by countries with far less cash to spare) but it is no doubt an important factor.

For Colin Powell, this is simply a matter of national security. For when it comes to dealing with other countries, what isn't an aspect of the "War" on terrorism?

"Powell, who's on a tour of the hardest-hit regions, said Tuesday that foreign assistance such as the $350 million U.S. government contribution for tsunami relief furthered America's national security. "It's in our best interest, and it dries up those pools of dissatisfaction, which might give rise to terrorist activity," he said." ("U.S. Officials hope relief effort will improve image abroad" by Warren P. Strobel, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Jan 5th, online here.)

Edit: Britain has pledged $96m in aid, while Norway has pledged $182m (see table). UK's GDP in 2002 was $3992 billion. Norway's GDP in 2002 was $191 billion. (see table at bottom of page)
We are hardly in any position to gloat, particularly as it was not Norway which prevented Indonesia's development in the last 4 decades, but us. Similarly, Australia, a country with a GDP about 1/4 the size of UK's ($503 bn vs. $1800 bn) is giving 8.5 times as much aid as the UK is ($816m vs. $96m)

Monday, January 03, 2005

Guess who's back


DSCN0444
Originally uploaded by ukplc.

Apologies for the lack of postage over the yuletide period, but for those of you who really missed me, photographic treats depicting my activity over the past couple of weeks are being created. This one is the view from the window of the cottage in North Wales on Christmas morning.

Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, depending on your perspective and your disposition, no one had a camera handy on New Years' Eve. Which sadly means no photos of what may have once been the most incredible flan of all time, but happily also means no photos of my contribution to its consumption. Tantilising eh? The details stop there I'm afraid, kids.

It's a while since these pages have seen a good rant, but due to the fact that my entire news consumption in the week I was in Wales consisted of an extremelt skimpy Indie, I don't really have anything to be angry about. Casualties in Iraq this week have been nothing short of collossal, for Iraqi troops in particular (see here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/international/middleeast/02cnd-iraq.html and also here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/international/middleeast/29mosul.html )

On the big news of the week there is little to say, except that deepest sympathies are sent to all who lost loved ones in the tragedy. There was some suggestion earlier in the week (which I heard on BBC World Service and elsewhere) that the Indonesian government was making it difficult for aid workers to reach Sumatra and particularly Aceh - where aid agencies and reporters have been unable to travel since the civil war escalated 18 months ago. Perhaps an early problem, but Shawn Donnan's suggestion that it is due to a basic lack of infrastructure seems much more plausible. Given the scale of the catastrophe, it seems impossible the Indonesians would do much to hinder aid efforts, which would surely generate global condemnation. The sad fact is that the country is just not very well run - not a surprise in light of its history. It's noteworthy that Channel 4 News showed Indonesian soldiers focussing on rebuilding their own installations in Aceh and doing little to help the starving, displaced, homeless and vulnerable residents, but to suggest they are actively hindering aid agencies is something else entirely.

"Aid workers have complained of logjams in the delivery of relief supplies and the flow of aid from Banda Aceh's airport has been slow with a lack of proper equipment causing planes already delayed by overwhelmed air traffic controllers to be unloaded by hand." More: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b88d36a6-5cc3-11d9-bb9c-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=e7abb2ca-5776-11d9-a8db-00000e2511c8.html

Some people I have spoken to seem a little unsure about which charity to donate to and who will use the money most effectively. The Disasters Emergency Committee works on behalf of many aid agencies in times of crisis like this and has a central fund for this appeal, so if you're not sure, they're your best bet. http://www.dec.org.uk/ Generosity has surprised me for once. The pub I work in collected £240 on New Years Eve. Not bad.

A rather grim end to the post, but like I said, nothing to rant about. I'm sure it won't be long though... stay tuned, kids.