Tuesday, March 28, 2006

"a policy of ethnic cleansing by inaction"

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Blair speech

Tony Blair gave a lengthy speech today to defend his government's foreign policy over the last 9 years (full text, and commentary).
It left me more furious than I have been since the invasion was launched 3 years ago, and as those who had the misfortune of being around me at that time will readily tell you, that was pretty furious.
Instead of writing a long piece about it which no one will read, I wrote a short letter to the Guardian which perhaps many people will read, if they publish it. But they might not, so here it is:

Amidst Tony Blair's despicable misrepresentations and fabrications concerning his government's foreign policy record, (Matthew Tempest, "Blair sees Iraq as 'clash about civilisation,'" Guardian Unlimited, March 21) the question of democracy stands out. Blair is surely correct that "victory for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is a vital element" is crucial, but he is misleading about what stands in the way of such a victory. As the editors of the Financial Times noted one year ago, the elections then being held in Iraq took place only at the "insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them" ("Winds of change in the Middle East: Call for careful reflection about causes and not triumphalism," Financial Times March 5, 2005, p. 10). "Why does Iran meddle so furiously in the stability of Iraq?" Mr. Blair asks? A more pertinent question for him, and for us, is: why does Britain?

Sunday, March 19, 2006

The Milošević question answered

So were Serbs sad to see Milošević dead in the end? NYT suggests they were: "In Serbian Capital, Rites for Milosevic Draw Throng."

"One last embarrassment for Serbia"? Only journalists seem to consider themselves fit to judge. Most others have a bit more humility (see previous posts on the NYT and Milošević's obituaries).

Saturday, March 18, 2006

I nominate Barton Fink

It's not often I shamelessly lift links from Metafilter, and I draw some affirmation from that fact in doing it this time:
The 100 most overlooked films of the 1990s? Some atrocities are included (although precisely which ones to categorise as 'atrocities' is a controversial matter, it would seem) but there are some films well worth seeking out. Glengarry Glen Ross may be most deserving in the sense that almost no one seems to have heard of it, but it's very good (although perhaps a little harrowing in its accuracy for those of us who know what cold-calling sales feels like).

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Major developments

For those interested in the direction and development of US foreign policy, Thursday was an extremely eventful day.
The White House published an updated National Security Strategy, which 'declares that American-led diplomacy to halt Iran's program to enrich nuclear fuel "must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided,"' the New York Times reports.
More significantly perhaps, in a clause not mentioned in the NYT report, the document reaffirms the doctrine of preventative strike: "duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage."
'Transparency' also seems to be a watchword. The report stresses that 'rogue states' must be open and transparent about the development of military programmes, particularly where nuclear materials are involved. Also today, Condaleeza Rice expressed some concern about China's announcement that its military budget was to increase: she "underscored America’s concerns about the rapid development of China, urging Beijing to open up its economy and be “transparent” about the reasons for its military build-up, and acknowledged that the US-China relationship faced some “difficult issues”. Ms Rice said: “I heard that there is going to be a 14 per cent increase in the Chinese defence budget. That’s a lot. China should undertake to be transparent about what their military build-up means.”"

Also today, NYT reports, "The American military announced today that it had begun its largest air assault since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, while Iraqi legislators convened the long-awaited first session of the new Parliament in the capital, even in the absence of any agreement to form a full government."
Meanwhile, the US has now recognised the need at least to consult Iran over the question of Iraq's future, although how seriously this can be taken on the same day Condaleeza Rice stepped up rhetoric against Iran, calling it "a central banker to terrorism" (FT) remains to be seen.

In an interview with the FT, Pakistan's foreign minister said that a civil nuclear deal between the US and India would precipitate the collapse of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty: “The whole Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty will unravel. It’s only a matter of time before other countries will act in the same way. Nuclear weapons are the currency of power and many countries would like to use it. Once this goes through the NPT will be finished. It’s not just Iran and North Korea. Brazil, Argentina and Pakistan will all think differently.”

A quick glance over tomorrow's international pages makes for an extremely restless night. It hardly need be emphasised that all of these developments look set to exacerbate what are currently the most serious threats to the survival of the human race over the next century.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

More nonsense.

It's unusual for the BBC to mess up this badly, but at the moment (9.30pm on Sunday) they are linking to 2 stories about reaction to Milošević's death.

Matt Prodger in Belgrade, "Few Serb Tears for Milosevic" (update of 12:32GMT Sunday):

"Sunday morning in Belgrade was cold, bleak and wet.

It was a typical winter's day, with very little to distinguish it from any other.

The most famous leader of the former Yugoslavia may have just died, but there is little to suggest his passing will be much missed here.

There is no outpouring of grief, no protests, no tears.

The only sign that something had happened was a gathering of die-hard loyalists outside the headquarters of his once all-powerful Socialist Party. They lit candles beside his portrait and scowled at the media."


Meanwhile, Nick Hawton in Sarajevo, "Milosevic death highlights divisions" (Update of 21.31 GMT):

In Belgrade, Serb nationalists mourned the death of their former champion and president. In Sarajevo, Muslims said how disappointed they were that Slobodan Milosevic had cheated justice.


I have a feeling Mr. Prodger just misjudged what he saw.

Throw your books in the bin

Slobodan Milosevic's death has stimulated quite a bit of media coverage, and the tone is pretty much what one would expect, along the same lines as most of what has been printed since 1991, with Milosevic and the Serbs the main aggressors in the terrible wars in former-Yugoslavia. No surprises there.
The New York Times reports, however, that we need no longer bother agonising over the origins of these tragic conflicts in Yugoslavia's demise - it has found the answer. Forget the legacy of the Second World War and its impact on how people percieved their nation and ethnic or religious group and its place within Yugoslavia after 1945. Forget the badly planned economy and the uneven development which reached crisis point after international loans dried up at the end of the 70's. Forget the almost wilfully unworkable system of governing Tito designed to follow his death. Forget demagogues who directed these tensions towards ethnic and religious-based hatred, and don't bother wondering how much their success reflected antagonism which people felt, but did not act on for the most part, until they came to power.
Forget it all, the questions are unnecessary and unenlightening; they merely confuse the issue (deliberately?) complicating what ought to be a simple narrative of determined villains and their helpless, passive victims.
Why? Because it was all one man: "In effect, Mr. Milosevic destroyed the delicate balance of the Yugoslavia he professed to defend." He's responsible; he manipulated everybody and brought down the structure of Yugoslavia, making sure violent and chaotic destruction, which he could use to consolidate his grip on neat-autocratic power, were the inevitable results.
No questions need be asked, no history explored, no social or economic tensions analysed. The journalists have figured it out while the academics have been crafting straw men to fish for the red herrings they mistakenly believe to need destroying.
"Mr. Milosevic's overriding myth of Serbian suffering" was the tool he used in his "single-minded pursuit of power," Roger Cohen, the international affairs polymath who authored this nonsense, reveals.
And surely, to dissent from this hurriedly-written, unthinking nonsense (yesterday Cohen was wondering whether South Africa's last decade of reconciliation provides a model fo Iraq's future - Times Select, sorry) is to sympathise with, or apologise for Milosevic and his terrible crimes. Those of us who care about understanding the world - in all its capacity for unimaginable evil, as well as its potential for astonishing good - must reject this manner of looking at the world absolutely each time we are asked to make such a false choice ("if you aren't with us, you're against us"), which we are, all too often, by a media determined to simplify everything, creating a simple narrative (dictated) that calls for no reflection on our history, or our society.
The question of why Yugoslavia collapsed in to such terrible violence and ethnic hatred is central to understanding the role the idea of the nation has played in the last two centuries of world history, and a decent answer could tell us an enormous amount about ourselves, our society, our prospects and the potential for a better future. We cannot let the New York Times (or other outlets who systematically do the same) persuade us that the question does not exist.

New Blog

You may all be interested to know that I have created a new blog, located at overheardatucl.blogspot.com
Contributions are most welcome.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

And the winner is...

Monday, March 06, 2006

Maybe the Americans are on to something

I was thinking about having a treble on Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Good job I can't remember how you fill out a betting slip... (Crash won best pic)

Sunday, March 05, 2006

The things you find on message boards...

Things have taken rather a light-hearted turn round these parts recently - I haven't noticed much of interest lately, although I did notice this detailed report on the current situation in the DRC (sadly, things look as bad as ever, and as per usual, we're partly responsible; skimmers might want to jump straight to the bottom of the page for some photographs). I'll also interject briefly on Tessa Jowell - she was in trouble already, but surely leaving your husband, and immediately telling the newspapers how angry you are that he betrayed you is unlikely to inspire much sympathy.

Anyway, back to the superficial:
All of you wannabe zombie-film directors out there take note: for all the disgusting sound effects your film will surely require, stocking up on plenty of fruit and veg is your best bet. An expert in the field advises (I particularly like his recommendations for appeasing your significant other when the messy aural gore-fest is over):

"Fruits and vegetables can get you almost any kind of body damage sounds you need. Melons are good for stabbing. They also make a nice "cracking" sound when you pull one apart. Brains, anyone? Coconut hulls are great for skull impact/crushing elements. Several stalks of fresh celery snapped at once will give you a nice bone break, and peeling the strings off of the outside makes a good skin peeling effect. For a blood dribble, or to add general juiciness to anything, wet a rag almost to the point of dripping, then give it a good quick squeeze. A head of cabbage or lettuce will give you all kinds of sounds. Stab it, rip it open, take a long chunk and twist it, etc. Just make sure all of your produce is fresh and cold. Hmmm.. maybe try freezing it first! Just experiment, have fun, make a mess. The wife will think you've gone over the edge, so make her a nice salad when you're done."

Saturday, March 04, 2006

The best they can do?

In May, the University of Pennsylvania celebrates its 250th anniversary. UPenn has quite a list of famous alumni, including Martin Luther King, Noam Chomsky, Ezra Pound and five Nobel laureates.
Events like 250th anniversaries merit celebrity speakers, and they've managed to book.... Jodie Foster. Not that I have beef with Jodie Foster in particular, it just seems slightly bizarro...

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

George Clooney's latest...

I saw 'Goodnight and Good Luck' at the weekend. I ought to cut it some slack I suppose, because political thrillers are extremely difficult to do well.
Shooting in Black & White isn't only a gimmick, it does help to set the film in period, and so works perfectly well - although I see no reason to fawn over that decision in itself.
The main problem the film has it that it meanders along from one scene to the next, quickly running out of energy, so that the decidedly anti-climactic ending to what is hardly a lengthy piece comes as something of a relief. Dialogue is used to drive the narrative forward, but is rarely engaging (with the single exception of Murrow's interview with Liberace, which makes genuine humour out of a joke which one might think has little life left in it). This is partly because so much of the film consists of Murrow's on-air newscasts and House Committee meetings (both with their own particular styles of dreariness) or otherwise of office banter which takes more cues from the fast-paced but vacuous dialogue of 'The West Wing' than from far snappier near-contemporary 'Double Indemnity.'
So without much of a plot to reveal - because come on, who is going to go and see this film who doesn't know what McCarthy and McCarthyism are - (there is only one major sub-plot, to which there is little substance, so that, wisely perhaps, it is not explored in any depth) and without any engaging dialogue, the film leaves itself with very little to do but to have Murrow (played as extremely virtuous and self-important) preach about journalism's integrity and the importance of maintaining freedom at home whilst fighting for it abroad. Hints towards the situation in the US today are extremely thingly veiled, giving the film a polemical twist which can only invite scrutiny of the political values it expounds.
So here it is: The Cold War wasn't about fighting Communism, ever, it was about control of resources, as the most sober conservative analysts emphasise (on this point, the work of Melvyn Leffler is valuable); being in the IWW did not make one a communist, certainly not a Stalinist activist (this is the impression the film leaves); attempts by government to undermine the freedom of its people are the norm, not the exception, and the US is no different in this respect from anywhere else; it is the responsibility of the people to scrutinise the actions of its government and to challenge what it finds objectionable - NOT of an elite caste of journalists, who are institutionally incapable of carrying out such work in a serious way, a point central to what the film is attempting to say, but one which it makes no effort to address.
Goodnight and Good Luck isn't a terrible film, but little about it stands out.