Voices from the Free World

October-February Poll Results

2006-03-10T23:51:00.000+10:30

Question: Will the process for accepting the new Iraqi constitution enfranchise Sunnis enough to be legitimate?

Yes: 8 (67%)
No: 4 (33%)

This vexed issue provided mixed results amongst the small sample group, and understandably so. However, I think the subsequent participation of the Sunni minority in the democratic process and their pragmatic deal-making with other groups has been testament to the overall survival of the fledgling democratic process. Even with the 'sectarian violence' we hear so much about in the media (a term which needs to be unpacked over a few articles), the daily affairs of government are being conducted in a truly admirable manner with the Iraqi central government quietly taking over more responsibilities as the months go by.

Once again, many thanks for your participation! Please feel free to vote in the new poll which attempts to tease out the latest curveball thrown up in the Palestinian Authority.

PS: I have been a rather sporadic poster (to put it lightly) over the past few months due to my extended trip to Israel. Of course, the period held a number of big surprises in that region so I'll be endeavouring to put up some of my pictures and experiences of the Palestinian elections in East Jerusalem, the Israeli Labour Party primaries, and the general election campaigning in the course of the next few weeks.

Free Speech: An Absolute Right?

2006-03-08T00:04:00.000+10:30

[Prepared for the ANU Student Magazine, Woroni]

Mr Irving has his day in court

Free speech. The phrase is getting a lot of airplay over recent weeks, with a host of people proclaiming, defending, qualifying and questioning it. I’ve been asked to apply the debate to recent events in Austria, where a renowned British Holocaust denier has been sentenced to three years’ jail under Austria’s laws against such activity. I’ll take a look at exactly what happened there and then see how it washes in a broader context.

David Irving is our man of the moment in Austria. It’s worth mentioning a few things about where he came from, to understand where he is today. Born in 1938, he failed to graduate from a physics degree and was rejected by the Royal Airforce as medically unfit, moving to Germany and working as a steelworker. Back in Britain, he made his first foray into history by writing The Destruction of Dresden, which characterised the Allied bombing of that city as ‘the worst single massacre in European history’. In 1968 his academic rigor was legally questioned for the first time, after he was successfully sued for libel by a participant in the events he described in The Destruction of Convoy PQ17.

His most famous and controversial book, Hitler’s War, was written in 1977. The book was built on the premise that Hitler never sanctioned the genocide of the Jews during WWII. He was eventually completely discredited as an academic in 2000, when he attempted to sue Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt for libel after she branded him a Holocaust denier. The judge agreed with Lipstadt, ruling against Irving and labeling him ‘a racist, an antisemite and an active Holocaust denier’.

His most recent conviction arose from a previous Austrian visit in 1989, when he claimed in a number of speeches that that ‘the gas chambers in Auschwitz never existed’. This line was repeated in Canada two years later, where he said:

I don’t see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It’s baloney, it’s a legend. There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around- in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least- I’m going to form an association of Auschwitz Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars, or A-S-S-H-O-L-S.

The trial sparked a series of commentators to protest that whilst Irving’s views are despicable, it is a fundamental principle of Western liberal democracy that we should not punish someone for espousing a position the majority disagrees with. The people arguing this line (some of them children of Holocaust survivors themselves), claim that imprisoning Irving will only increase his public exposure by making him a martyr. They see best way to defeat his historical fabrication as exposing it in the eyes of the public, through free and fair debate. But a journalist in last week’s Scotsman newspaper had another way of approaching the question. He wrote:

There can be no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, for very good reasons… The aim of a liberal democratic society must be to achieve a balance of freedoms, rather than to assert the primacy of one over the other.

Using this paradigm, let’s put David Irving’s freedom of speech to the test against possible flip-sides for the wider community.

Free Speech vs Inciting Genocide

Click to see the Syrian
Ramadan special

Even the defenders of David Irving’s rights did not give an unqualified defence of free speech. After arguing strongly against the Irving conviction, Peter Singer in the Jerusalem Post admits that there was a time when Austria’s laws were acceptable:

In the aftermath of WWII, when the Austrian republic was struggling to establish itself as a democracy, it was reasonable, as a temporary emergency measure, for Austrian democrats to suppress Nazi ideas and propaganda. But that danger is long past. Austria is a democracy and a member of the EU… there is no longer a serious threat of any return to Nazism in Austria.

This may be correct at a micro-level, but the works of Holocaust deniers do not dissipate at the borders of Austria. Just look at the Middle East, where such materials are used to build national mythologies of Holocaust denial. In fact, adoption of European antisemitism into mainstream Middle-Eastern culture has reached complete saturation level.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a 19th century forgery by the Tsarist secret service which purported to be a Jewish plot for global domination, is now a best-seller in many Arab countries. A 41-part Egyptian TV series was recently broadcast across the Middle East, based on the book. In an equivalent Syrian-produced series, Rabbis are graphically depicted as they kill Christian children for Passover bread, which was a classic medieval and Nazi libel against the Jews.

A poignant example came on Iranian TV, with a panel of ‘experts’ referring to the book as a primary historical source:

But even if we assume [the Holocaust] happened... The Zionists, according to their Protocols, wanted to control the world, and they have not given up this idea. They are using various means, such as the Freemasons, or the Baha'i.

Most recently, Iran has given shelter to a number of European Holocaust deniers who are fleeing trial. In the words of President Ahmedinejad, they have been asked to present a conference which will ‘talk to people, examine documents, and let people know the findings of their research about the Holocaust myth’.

Irving’s claims are mirrored in many facets of this rhetoric. Take this recent Irving comment:

Speaking from his cell, [Irving] asked BBC News why, if such a programme existed, ‘so many survived’

Now compare it to the good ‘Doctor’ from the above TV panel:

Dr. Majid Goudarzi: if you want to buy a television in Germany, they take 20 percent tax from you in advance. Some of that tax is on account of the crematoria, the existence of which is in doubt... The money goes into the pockets of victims who do not exist - because, after all, if they perished, there would be no survivors. So it goes into the pockets of the Zionist regime..."

An entrant in the Iranian
Holocaust cartoon competition

The logic is incredible and bears no analysis. The results, however, are very important. Newer enemies of the Jewish people are using the corpus of ‘academic’ evidence produced by Irving and others, to comprehensively de-legitimize the Holocaust through media, political debate and education systems. By doing this, they are also attempting to de-legitimize the State of Israel, reverse victim roles and clear the way for scape-goating and ominous further action. In the words of Ahmedinejad:

The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world… As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.

Popular culture has also been harnessed, with Ahmedinejad somewhat hypocritically declaring that Iran’s response to the Danish cartoons of Mohammed would be to launch a competition for the best satirical Holocaust cartoons. Eager entrants have surfaced in countries as various as Brazil, Bulgaria, China, France, the UK and USA.

So the premise of Peter Singer’s argument comes full circle. Even if Austria is no longer a country in which such public debate leads to mass violence, there are a host of others in which it does. This is why the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) criminalises ‘direct and public incitement to commit genocide’.

So is the freedom of a group of intellectuals to fabricate an ideological excuse for mass violence more important than the harm it can do in the hands of millions of brainwashed and uneducated disciples?

Free Speech vs Other Concerns
In other ways, is the ability of a citizen to claim and publish any conjecture as historical fact more important than the integrity of historical study? More important than preventing defamation and slander? Is the freedom of a person to call Auschwitz survivors frauds more important than the right of those survivors to escape psychological trauma, as in the case of Australian survivor Kitia Altman when she was confronted with Mr Irving on A Current Affair? Mrs Altman wrote (Altman, Kitia Memories of Ordinary People: For Those Who Have No-One to Remember Them, Makor Jewish Community Library pp411-414):

My personal experience of confrontation with David Irving, on 16 February 1993, was equal in its horror only to my other experience, that of selection in Auschwitz. There, my life was endangered by the faceless, cold bureaucracy of evil. Here, I had the feeling I was fighting for my life again, facing the cynical cruelty of the power of a lie…

When we Jews add our concerned voices to the issue of banning Mr Irving from coming here, we are accused of ‘lobbying’. When Mr Irving is not allowed to spread his lies and incite violence and hatred, he is ‘denied freedom of speech.’ Is freedom of speech about lies or justice? In a democracy you have to be able to prove your accusations with evidence acceptable in a court of law. Mr Irving has merely been denied the freedom to slander and we Jewish survivors, once again, have been denied the support of the free world.
david irving

Can humour triumph without law?

Freedom of speech is a critical right to defend in our liberal democracy. The response of most ANU students to a small group of protesters who tried to silence Tony Abbott during O Week shows how dearly that right is held, even for those whose opinions differed with the speaker. However, when the line of free debate is crossed and when the right to freedom of speech is overridden by other concerns is not readily identifiable.
ahmedinejad
Some of the best antidotes can be non-legal and even humorous, such as a new competition by Israeli artists to prove they can make better antisemitic cartoons than the Iranians. To find right response will require a pretty frank public discourse and, as with most things these days, a fair amount of sacrifice to achieve the safest result for society.

Todah Rabah, Yitzchak Rabin

2005-11-04T23:43:00.000+10:30

A young Rabin

Today marks the tenth anniversary of Yitzchak Rabin’s assassination. It is hard to put into words what the man means to me. Courageous, pragmatic, idealistic and visionary would be only a few worthy adjectives. As a member of the labour movement I consider him to be one of the very best labour leaders that any country has produced.

One of the nation’s saviours on the battlefield, and a man who led his compatriots along the first steps to final salvation in peace. A man willing to sacrifice his life for the hope of such peace, joining the high company of Anwar Sadat and Michael Collins on ground that Arafat and others feared to tread. If only more in the Middle East were brave enough to follow their path.

To mark the occasion I’ve included an essay I wrote last year, for a question that asked whether the Israeli right was to blame for the failure of Oslo. The more I wrote, the more it turned into praise for Rabin and the great strides he and his allies made during those remarkable days. I felt that it would be appropriate to post it here with some photos from Rabin’s life and others I took when visiting his memorials in Israel. I always visit his grave when I am there, and place a stone on it according to Jewish custom.

Rest in peace, Yitzchak Rabin.

תודה חור
---------------------------------------------------------------------

(Those interested in particular citations for the essay, please ask for the bits you want in the comments section and I will post the footnote. It was too much trouble to refootnote the entire thing for blog format.)

The ‘Oslo peace process’ was a process of rapprochement and mutual recognition between Palestinians and Israelis. It was always going to require more from both sides than they had ever given before, if its faint chances of permanent status resolution were to be realised. The process would only ever take hold if both leaderships made a comprehensive, active and risk-laden effort to reconcile the national aspirations of their societies to a pragmatic position. Neither side universally achieved such a goal, but differing levels of success are discernible. On the Israeli side, the Labour movement showed that it was intent on changing the national psyche. Even at the risk of an Israeli civil war and increased threat from Palestinian groups, it did not resile from the task.

(From right) Generals Rabin,
Dayan and Narkis enter
the Old City of Jerusalem
after its capture in 1967

On the Palestinian side, the PA proved itself unable and unwilling to fundamentally reshape Palestinian nationalism into a form that was compatible with Oslo, or improve the social conditions that would necessitate such a change. They too faced internal pressures from many groups and external ones from the Israeli right, but it is clear that the failure of Oslo cannot be solely blamed on the Israeli right’s inability to accept it from the start. As with any other aspect of Israeli-Arab relations, a deeper analysis is necessary to identify the driving forces behind developments.

To realise the Oslo concept of an eventual Palestinian entity in the West Bank and Gaza, a profound seachange needed to take place in Israeli political discourse and society. Since the capture of the territories in 1967, segments of both the Israeli left and right rejected the concept of territorial compromise. The ‘Rafi’ faction of the Labour Party, led by Defence Minister Moshe Dayan and an eminent leader in the Achdut Ha’avoda movement began agitating for gradual de facto establishment of Israeli rule through settlements. When joined by the other Labour-right movements of Rafael Eitam and Rehavam Ze-evi, along with the ultra-orthodox and secular right movements of the Gush Emunim, Kach Kahane, the NDP and Likud, the pro-annexationist camp formed a formidable bloc. Threat of violence by these groups was real. In the lead up to the Oslo accords from 1988 onwards, national civil war was a serious possibility if any government were to attempt withdrawal.

After inheriting such a landscape from the Shamir government in 1992, Yitzchak Rabin had to move carefully through his agenda of preparing the population for peace. Whilst doves within his government such as Shimon Peres were pushing for an immediate turn to permanent-status agreements with the Palestinians, Rabin opted for an incremental, interim approach to the negotiations. This was in order to acclimatise the population bit by bit to the prospect of a Palestinian state, which would be the ‘ “amputation” of the homeland’ for many annexationists. However, this objective was not impossible. The Yom Kippur War had proven the ability of the Israeli public to adapt their nationalism towards the territories, for what they perceived to be the best shot at peace. Indeed, some commentators contend that many Likudniks do not support the Greater Israel policy, but base their annexationist tendencies on a grim outlook for peace with the Arabs. Rabin could reshape the Israeli landscape in favour of Oslo, if he was brave enough.

Politically, Rabin did not flinch. Whenever the process threatened to be derailed by the acts of Israeli extremists, he reacted strongly. After the massacre perpetrated by Dr Baruch Goldstein in 1994, the religious extremist parties Kach and Kahane Chai were outlawed. The precarious nature of the anti-annexationist coalition and the need to maintain the country’s trust meant that a show of force was still necessary whenever attempts were made to derail the process by Palestinian groups like Hamas. Such occasions included the deportation of four hundred Hamas activists after a spate of attacks on Israeli civilians and the Peres-authorised assassination of Yahya Ayyash, a Hamas terrorist who had masterminded the suicide bombings.

The famous handshake:
Rabin puts his trust in Arafat,
1993

Although the peace process was slowed by these actions and appeasement of the Israeli right was a significant reason for them, the societal changes that the anti-annexationists introduced were critical for the long-term success of the Oslo process. The state educational curriculum and government broadcasting agenda were changed in line with the Oslo requirements of preparing the population for peace. Efforts to eliminate Arab stereotypes, respectful portrayals of Islam and the representation of the Palestinian Authority on schoolbook maps were all implemented in order to change the national mindset. The results were clear, with polling suggesting a huge shift in public acceptance of a Palestinian state, despite the terror attacks and much to the chagrin of the right. Such a paradigm shift was absolutely necessary before any of the permanent status issues of Oslo could be approached.

This is why Israel insisted on the formula of interim agreements in a gradual process that would eventually lead to final status negotiations. However, the approach produced a clash with Palestinian objectives. Many Palestinians felt it was critical that some of the final status issues, such as refugees, were put immediately on the table, to prevent those groups from feeling betrayed. On the other hand, the argument that Rabin used to justify the deliberate ambiguities in the agreements could well have applied to the Palestinians. If a two-state solution were to be achieved under a final settlement of the Oslo process, elements of Palestinian national identity would have to undergo profound paradigm shifts. This process would also take time and the first, incremental steps would need to be put in place immediately.

It is important to examine Palestinian societal dynamics over the Oslo period, to determine whether their population was being prepared for the permanent status negotiations upon which the success of Oslo rested. Leading into Oslo, Palestinian society was equally as complex as its Israeli counterpart. A large proportion of the Palestinian population remained in the same situation that they had upon fleeing their homes in 1948 and 1967. The surrounding Arab nations and UNRWA had maintained the structure of refugee camps and strongly supported the refugee identity amongst such Palestinians, imbuing them with an unshakeable belief that they would one day return to their original places of residence. It naturally came at the expense of exploring other solutions.

The pragmatic leadership of the Palestinian Authority maintained a precarious grip on power, in much the same predicament as the anti-annexationist group within Israel. Rival Palestinian groups were actively fighting for influence as the PA continued to centralise its control, ranging from the Islamist Hamas to the Communist PFLP. Refugee return to ‘all of Palestine’ and other entrenched national mythologies were used to criticise the PA in precisely the areas that it needed to reform. However, as in Israel, there were some justifications for optimism. Even amongst the Palestinian refugee population in Arab countries, some surveys found that Palestinians who enjoyed better socio-economic conditions were more likely to accept a peace agreement with Israel. If the PA could perform on improving the lives of Palestinians and take a stand on the definition of national identity, perhaps the Oslo process could succeed.

Rabin sings Shir L’Shalom
(Song for Peace) at the peace rally
minutes before his death

Ideologically, the PA differentiated itself from the other dominant Palestinian groups by pursuing the Oslo process. For example, although Hamas consisted of wings that originally emphasised strengthening the internal Palestininan Muslim community instead of fighting Israel, all of its components were fundamentally opposed to Israel’s existence on any part of ‘Muslim land’. The establishment of the PA left the PLO with better funding, resources, propaganda opportunities and support than any of its rival groups. Indeed, Yasser Arafat was prepared to exercise some tactical muscle when outbreaks of violence amongst Palestinians were not sanctioned by his authority. However, even at the beginning of the process when the PA enjoyed wider support than Hamas and others, it not only refrained from attempting to change the ideological nationalist agenda but in fact reinforced it.

Within weeks of the signing of the Cairo agreement, Arafat had twice publicly declared that the Oslo process was similar to the temporary hudna declared by Muhammad in his eventual war of annihilation against rival tribes. He clearly encouraged a ‘holy war’ to liberate Jerusalem. The PA-appointed religious clerics spread messages of conquest in PA media, perpetuating the idea that all of the land will be ‘returned to’.

The PA also began work on a new series of schoolbooks throughout the mid- to late nineties, over which it had complete control from 1997. These books describe Israel, the West Bank and Gaza as ‘our country Palestine’, incite the waging of violent jihad to liberate the whole of the land and specifically target it against Jews. Quite apart from that, PA leaders repeatedly expressed their opinion that the peace accords entailed the return of all refugees inside the 1967 borders and reaffirmed such a result as the ultimate goal of negotiations. The direct correlation between this continued reassurance and the inability of the PA to commit to a final-status agreement on refugees at Camp David II was therefore not surprising. There was no reason for the Palestinian population, particularly the refugees, to expect anything other than full repatriation and the Palestinian Authority knew that it could not bring them back anything less.

Aside from ideological problems, the PA also proved itself unable to facilitate a softening of societal attitudes through marshalling its resources for socio-economic improvement. Yasser Arafat, rather than developing solid economic institutions to deal with the influx of aid, instead opted to encourage a neo-patrimonial system of corruption and kickbacks in order to solidify the post-revolutionary order. Only recently has the IMF begun to uncover the level of corruption throughout the Authority, large parts of which have been directly attributable to Arafat. The economic conditions were always going to be difficult for the Authority, due to its war-damaged constituency and the challenges of setting up a state. However, the PA’s short-sighted and irresponsible approach contributed to its problems and exacerbated them, rather than doing all in their power to create a more suitable environment for the Oslo process to develop.

A photo I took at Rabin Square. The big
Hebrew graffiti simply reads ‘sorry’

None of these criticisms in any way detract from the difficulties placed in front of the process by the Israeli side. For example, a member of the extremist Israeli right carried out the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin, the leader most capable of taking Israel through the process. A member of the extremist Israeli right perpetrated the Hebron massacre, allowing Hamas to legitimate their already-extant policy of violent response to the process and tying PA hands in responding to them. More importantly, it was a rightwing government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that actively attempted to subvert the peace process and impede the further transfer of land to the PA. His reversal and re-negotiation on the previous Oslo promise of handing over Hebron and his overall attempted replacement of Oslo with a unilateral ‘Allon Plus’ plan of radically narrower scope were both destructive moves.

All of these obstacles made the PA task harder in preparing its populace for the eventual re-evaluation of its national goals that would be necessary to facilitate Oslo. However, as has been shown earlier, there were spheres of influence that the PA bore sole responsibility for, such as its own economic structure, education curriculum and media service. Those institutions bore the potential to prepare the landscape for a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian Authority, partly through attempts to consolidate its ruling oligarchy and partly through a lack of determination to adapt the Palestinian national psyche for Oslo, were just as guilty as the Israeli right for not accepting it.

Overall, the Oslo process required an underlying shift in the societies of both Israelis and Palestinians, if it was to bring about a permanent status agreement. In Israel, the anti-annexationist movement made use of their periods in government to begin the process of affecting this societal change, through reforms in the education system and public advocacy of their policies despite the threat of civil war. Under the Palestinian Authority, even the opportunities that Israel and anti-Oslo Palestinians left in tact were not utilised by the PA pragmatists to begin reshaping the national self-image. It is true that the Israeli right never accepted the Oslo process and actively worked against it, just as it is true of Hamas and other Palestinian organisations. However, culpability lies not with them alone. It lies with all pragmatists who possessed any power to change the political landscape during the days of Oslo, yet refrained from doing so.

A photo of Leah and Yitzchak Rabin’s
grave I took at sunset, Har Herzl

In life: Yitzchak and Leah Rabin

Rabin’s legacy: a peace rally
at Rabin Square, 2004
rabin
Lyrics to Shir L’Shalom (Hebrew and English)

Beginnings of an Online Saudi Renaissance

2005-10-29T14:28:00.000+09:30

A Riyadh streetscape captured
by Saudi blogger Farah

After investigating Chinese internet censorship, I was very interested to stumble across a new world of online awareness amongst Saudi bloggers. Following through a number of links made the rapid flowering of online journals and content apparent. It was enough to prompt another article on internet freedoms in developing countries. Accordingly, I've done my best to give a brief outline of the Saudi blogosphere, and would welcome any comments from Saudi bloggers themselves.

What do Saudis blog about?
One of the most valuable gifts that blogs provide in a country without independent media is the ability to see into the hearts and minds of its citizens from the outside. However, I must admit at the outset that these Saudis are among the privileged 11% who are able to afford and maintain internet connections, no doubt reflecting a particular segment of Saudi society. They are also the ones that can speak English (although there are a significant number of Arabic blogs) so that assumes some Western contact. Even so, the blogs were still a fascinating read.

In some ways, they reflect the yearning for freedom and contact with the outside world that would be superficially expected from a controlled society. A number of blogs give the sense that the authors feel imprisoned by restrictions, and also display a very jubilant and Western materialism. This is apparent in the surveys passed from one blog to the next, with the author asked to rank their thoughts in categories such as ‘things I miss’ ‘my favourite toys’ etc.

Jo writes:

3. I miss flirting. The kind of flirting that's harmless and nothing ever happens. Just harmless flirting between a man and a woman, which is another missing concept among the people of the Kingdom of Lunacy. For them sexual harassment is actually flirting!

4. I miss being able to have a conversation about anything and everything without someone playing the infidel card

…

8. Worst feeling in the world? … it would have to be feeling trapped and that is exactly what you get when ur STUCK in the Kingdom of freakin Lunacy!

Itachi writes:

1. Last movie you saw in a theater? as you all know in saudi arabia WE DONT HAVE..but if you consider my home theater as theater its will be "HITCH" it was fun..

Malik Jeddah writes:

Four things I plan to do:
1- buying a mobile
2- selling my broken i-pod :S
3- going into a good collage
4- getting the hell out of this contry !!

And highly-recommended blogger Farah (probably the most famous from her country) only this week described and uploaded photos from her camera phone of posters on her university bulletin boards. They differed from normal uni bulletins because instead of class or study information, they explained the hellfire that would result from female students not dressing morally.

The bulletin board at Farah’s
university

Another blogger, The Religious Policeman, devotes his entire blog to issues of human rights and freedoms in his country and its neighbours. Further scary incidents have been recounted, such as this one, where the author recounts fleeing from religious police after enjoying a coffee with her friends.

However, it would be very simplistic to describe these blogs only as cries for help from oppressed people who have disavowed their culture to seek interaction with the West. That would be demeaning to the unique and fresh perspective that the bloggers are bringing. Many mix their criticism with pride in their religion and fellow citizens. The same Farah writes:

Streets of Riyadh at 2:33 am on a Friday night (the equivalent of a Sunday in the rest of the world). Isn't it cool that the streets aren't even close to clearing up at such an ungodly hour? I don't think I'd be able to describe to you just how jam-packed the malls are at this time, as well. (I'm talking, families, shabab, banat, the whole deal) All I can say is: Gotta love Ramadhan.

Many maintain attitudes about global issues that are sharply dissonant to the Western narrative, but no generalisations can be made. This was made apparent by the hundreds of comments posted after Al Jazeera’s article on the Iranian President’s call for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’. I surveyed about 80 of the first comments and discovered that only 42.9% of posts identifying from Middle Eastern countries agreed with Mr Ahmedinejad, compared with 75% of the posts identifying from Europe! A scan down the rest of the page confirmed this trend.

Indeed, the only two Saudi comments read:

John from Saudi
jews is blessed contry, all the technology made by jews.the israel land is god given to them, so nobody can wive off from map

Juiboi from Saudi Arabia
and the munkeez want to go nuclear? i don't think so. this is why all of the extremists must be eradicated. once they are gone from both sides we can have peace.

Completely opposite views can be found on certain Saudi blogs, but others back this up.

In summary, Saudi bloggers are generally young, yearning to express themselves and push traditional values, receptive to Western culture but also very proud of their own. They blog about all manner of different topics, and have widely varying points of view which can be seen through their passionate debates. A number of them are also women, unashamedly very aware of what they want to achieve and what they should be entitled to. Many appear to be studying, either at school or university.

Bloggers are even developing their own Arabic net slang, as is apparent from almost all of the posts. The latest post on the main blog for the Saudi community suggests that the male bloggers are about to attempt a first meeting in person. A renaissance is taking place.

What restrictions do Saudi bloggers face?
In comparison to China, I was also surprised to read that the Saudi government is relatively relaxed about its censorship. The same group that produced the in-depth study on Chinese technological censorship also examined Saudi Arabia, which has taken a very different approach.

According to the report, the 2001 Council of Ministers decree laid the criteria for Saudi censorship:

…the ISU prohibits “pornographic web pages... [and] pages related to drugs, bombs, alcohol, gambling, and pages insulting to the Islamic religion or the Saudi laws and regulations”

The bulk of sites that are deemed to qualify under these headings are to do with pornography, homosexuality and womens’ issues. Also included are proselytising sites from other religions or critical accounts of the Saudi government.

A popular Saudi newsreader after
her husband beat her: covered
by The Religious Policeman

Sadly, the Holocaust attracts a large proportion of web blocking. However, the study suggests that this in particular is due to over-censorship caused by the Western-designed and supplied blocking software. Yet another company, this time Secure Computing, is contributing to e-authoritarianism. They must sleep well at night, knowing that they are restricting access to information for one of the most under-taught and ethnically inflammatory topics in the Middle East.

Interestingly, general Jewish and Israeli sites are subject to almost no censorship. Of all religions, Baha’I sites attract the most censorship (12% blocked last year compared to 0% of surveyed Jewish sites). Other interpretations of Islam also received extensive treatment.

The Saudi attitude to bloggers is decidedly less stand-offish. No doubt uneasy about the free exchange of ideas amongst the new online Saudi community, access to blogger was removed by the government only weeks ago. However, they soon repealed the move. This may have been due to bloggers alerting the international community, which responded quickly. The government is obviously more concerned with its censorship image than China. Even so, one source suggests that 92.5% of Saudi internet users attempt to access blocked sites. Obviously they have a different opinion to their government on the proportionality of the blocking.

However, there are subtle suggestions that censorship is less visably but more stringently enforced off the internet and in person. The following comment was posted by a blogger in response to a worried message from other Saudis that she had not updated her blog recently:

Regarding my blog, I have a new one right now which happens to be (dare I say) ANONYMOUS!! (Yeah yeah I had to learn the hard way) In other words, I don't wish it to be placed on any link or anything because thanks to some nameless barbarians who don't believe in freedom of speech, I sorta got into a teenie weenie likkle problem since I got carried away with most of my entries.. HOWEVA my darling and faithful fans, do not fret, I will be BACK with vengence.. and this time, my blog will be ALL about "the un-mention-ables"

One can only speculate about what took place in the intervening period of her online silence. On the same issue, I encourage everyone to sign the petition in the bottom of this blog’s right hand column, to free an Iranian blogger who has been sentenced to lashings and prison in his country.

Riyadh streets during Ramadhan
from Farah

Despite such measures, it is obvious that the Middle East is awakening online. Far from the death of traditional or Islamic culture, this represents its resurgence in a vibrant and exciting new form. Whilst obviously limited to the economic elite at this point, it will increase in significance as more people gain access to technology. A proud new Arab and Persian are emerging, and this can only spell trouble for the governments which up until now have relied on cheap nationalist populism to retain control.
saudi arabia saudi bloggers
As a postscript, note the comments section of my last post. One of my cheeky Chinese friends has provided a perfect example of the spirit with which these bloggers will overcome their obstacles.

China Puts Orwell to Shame with Internet Censorship

2005-10-23T19:36:00.000+09:30

Chinese internet usage is closely
policed

The Chinese government is in the middle of an unprecedented campaign to restrict the freedom of speech being expressed electronically by its citizens. The new world of internet-based technology poses great challenges for authoritarian regimes across the world, and the reaction of China (one of the largest, most technologically advanced and well-resourced police states) provides an interesting case study as to whether it is possible to censor such activity. China’s 103 million internet users (expected to be 178 million by 2007) have been subjected to an amazing array of control mechanisms, predominantly aimed at small independent blogs and posts like this one.

The controls have taken two forms: more traditional legal and people-based solutions, and a new realm of technologically advanced avenues. This second category should be of particular concern to Western governments, as it is feeding off the input of Western companies in much the same way that the Tibet mining situation was feeding off of Orchid Investments (see my previous post).

Legislative and Human Controls
The government recently introduced a range of new laws and restrictions for online dissemination of information, building on its legislation of 2000 (following information on them taken from here and here). The new laws impose fines of up to $3700 and closure on non-government sanctioned news outlets, as well as redefining the scope of their definition for ‘news’. Instead of ‘news published and republished’, it now extends to ‘reports and comments on political, economic, military, foreign policy and other social public affairs’. The obvious target of such a definition are bloggers and chatboards.

Indeed, the view that blogs are the target of the new legislation is reinforced by its stipulations for acceptable news outlets. These include a minimum of US$1.24 million registered capital, and ‘a staff or at least five professional news editors with no less than three years’ working experience in traditional media’. This makes it easier to identify and control what the outlets publish, which is also restricted under the laws to exclude anything that ‘compromises national security, divulges national secrets, impinges on the country’s social legal rights and interests, destroys the country’s unity, or includes any information that promotes or relates to pornography, violence, or illegal cults’. All of this is policed by around 30,000 government monitors.

Other provisions require university online bulletin boards to register the legal names of all student users, to prevent them contributing anonymously. As the above referenced article contends, the focus is on internal commentators rather than external ones. This is because the international media often reproduce the biased propaganda of Chinese state outlets for lack of any other information. A distressingly poignant example appeared recently on CNN when its ‘World Report’ broadcast a piece from Chinese State TV on the 40th anniversary of the ‘liberation of Tibet from feudal oppression’. Readers interested in examining the exact wording of such propaganda are welcome to do so here, as I have only been able to find a cached Google search for the articles.

Whilst claiming that it does not endorse such broadcasts and is merely ‘creating a vehicle for the expression of different views from across the globe’, CNN cannot escape responsibility so easily. One wonders whether the same argument would be used for broadcast of Nazi Party propaganda. More contemporaneously, it could be applied with the same principle to news items from Hezbollah TV station Al-Manar, which is banned in many Western countries for incitement to violence. CNN’s willingness to air the Chinese state line and provide international oxygen to it is only paralleled by the activities of some Western companies in assisting the government to launch electronic warfare on its people.

These and other laws have produced a sharp increase in internet-related arrests, rising from three in 2001 to sixty-two this year.

Technological Repression
Concurrently with its legislative and coercive campaign, the Chinese government is pioneering entirely new territory in electronic censorship. Worse still, it is being willingly assisted in this task by a number of Western companies (following information was from this article). The largest-scale project of this variety is the multi-billion dollar Golden Shield, which attempts to automatically censor the material that Chinese surfers can view by targeting key words. As the article states, ‘typing ‘Tibet’ and ‘freedom’ in the same email can produce a visit from the Man’.

Western leaders sacrifice
human rights for trade benefits

This extensive network of routers required to run such a pervasive network has been supplied at $20,000 per router by US company Cisco systems. Cisco has obfuscated by saying that the technology could be put to other uses, and that China is simply buying ‘off the shelf’ technology. Both excuses are void, as Cisco has promoted it at trade fairs as highly customised material for specific policing purposes. Even Cisco shareholders launched a short-lived protest towards the company’s activities, but the fact that such an enormous investment was at stake saw the inquiry ending at a fairly superficial stage.

Testing of this technology has shown that typing in the words ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ will be censored to a degree of 70% efficiency. Combined with the ‘firewall box’ that Cisco designed for China in the 90’s which enables the government to block websites, this presents a formidable obstacle to bloggers and other freelance political commentators.

Yahoo has also assisted with the project on other fronts, such as searching its chat rooms and most recently providing information to the government that led to the conviction of a Chinese journalist after they wrote about media restrictions. One of the above articles even claims that Western technology has enabled Chinese street police to call up the last 30-60 days’ worth of emails sent by a suspect by entering their government ID card into a computer network. Even without this technology, the government has also conscripted its local ISPs into the battle, encouraging them to self-censor any posts that appear on their servers.

These and other methods of electronic control are explained in a must-read survey of China’s e-censorship, which also discusses the ways in which search engines like Google and its Chinese counterparts have been filtered to prevent even that form of exposure to information.

The actions of these select US companies are part of a broader framework of economic collaboration which is conducted by many Western countries, whilst only paying lip service to furthering the cause of civil liberties in China. As renowned Chinese human rights campaigner Harry Wu has observed:

Europe did condemn the murders and the camps in the Gulag, but not in the Laogai [Chinese equivalent] camps. They don’t feel threatened, so why would they damage their trade?

In the same article, he noted the difference between Eastern European leaders who shunned China after their own experiences with totalitarianism, and Western European nations such as France and Germany who were more than happy to take advantage of the economic benefits on offer. Unfortunately for them and their fellow travellers, this policy can easily be traced back to internationally detrimental results. As one of the above articles notes, the delayed response to the SARS outbreak was due in part to China’s censorship of any online reporting when it first became an issue.

However, even without the support of Western governments the Chinese are fighting back (see above Wall Street journal article). Some pay off the owners of internet cafés to avoid registration, which has occasioned the installation of video cameras in such locations by the government. Others host their sites on overseas servers, although the government can block access inside China. Even the most ingenious of technological weapons are being used to fight back, posting ‘undesirable’ opinion as image files to prevent word trawling and inserting characters to confound the search engines.
China
The results of such activity can be seen with the excellent work of online news forums such as the China Labour Bulletin. CLB recently broke a story about two women (aged 70 and 50) being killed by police along with 24 injured co-workers when the government broke up a workers’ protest. The workers were campaigning for some severance pay after lifetime’s work at a factory which was bankrupted by the corrupt practices of its managers. Without knowledge of activities like this, the international community will soon forget the true nature of the Chinese regime. They will begin to believe the lie that totalitarianism can deliver a prosperous and egalitarian society, and fall victim to the Orwellian world of Chinese media censorship.

August-September Poll Results

2005-10-08T23:11:00.000+09:30

Question: What should the next step be for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

Further Israeli withdrawals: 3 (12%)
Palestinian crackdown on terror and reform: 19 (73%)
Resumption of negotiations: 4 (15%)

This poll is very pleasing as it appears to be the most controversial one yet on VFW. Many thanks to everyone who registered an opinion. Looking back on the question and receiving feedback from some participants, it was suggested that all three options would be preferable simultaneously. Whilst I can see the point, I would argue that that the process has reached such a stage now that any further progress is dependent on the results of one actor.

For me, that actor would be the Palestinians (as evidenced by answer two). For some of the more extreme pro-Palestinians, all progress must occur on the back of Israeli withdrawals without confidence-building measures or negotiation (hence question one). The final, and somewhat hopeful answer three presumes that the best progress can be achieved by bypassing unilateralism and moving straight back into the final status discussions.

As much as I would love to see a world where this is feasible, I believe that the complete lack of confidence now pervading Israeli-Palestinian interaction will only be solved by unilateral meaures to restore it. This has been done by Israel with Disengagement, and hopefully after a reciprocal gesture (disarming of terror groups and strengthening of state institutions), the Palestinians will create the environment for such negotiations to resume again.

But once again, many thanks to all those who voted and I encourage you to participate in the new poll. It asks another tough question on development and self-determination in the Middle East, relating to the drafting and vote for the imminent Iraqi constitution.

Development and Australian Corporate Shame

2005-10-01T03:57:00.000+09:30

First Australian company to
shame

An issue has been simmering under the surface of Australian corporate activity for some time now. Over the last few months it has been growing in seriousness and public profile. I refer to the actions of ‘bad apple’ companies overseas, taking advantage of more relaxed regulatory and legal environments to maximise profits at the painful expense of local populations.

This issue is key to development, as the necessary corporate involvement in stimulating any growing economy must win popular support for economic liberalisation to take root. The two Australian cases that have received some (although nowhere near enough) media attention recently are those of Orchid Capital in Tibet, and Anvil Mining in the Congo.

Orchid in Tibet
Recently, Australian investment firm Orchid Capital concluded an agreement with the Chinese company, Tibet Institute of Geological Survey, to begin exploring a 2,000sqkm area of ‘Western China’, as the company refers to it in its press release. Potential resources of interest included copper, lead, zinc and silver, to complement the already-functioning Nagartse Gold Property that the company had a stake in.

There are a number of important problems with this program. Firstly, the Chinese state controls all aspects of the mining licenses and Chinese business is receiving all of the profit from the venture. The Tibetan government-in-exile is justifiably concerned that local protests over environmental issues have been labelled ‘threats to national stability’ by the Chinese government and used as a pretext for persecution. They point to the fragile nature of the high altitude mountain environment, and the impact mining has had on vital river sources and lakes. Forced resettlements and expropriations of land have also been alleged.

This raises the question of why an Australian company would venture into such a hostile and ominous environment, as even their website admits that the mineral exploration reports ‘do not comply with Australian reporting standards’. Presumably some of the areas that they fail to comply with are environmental impact statements and legal title over the land in question. Orchid is also quite open about the fact that none of these rate consideration, saying that it will jointly determine prospects with the Chinese company, based on areas ‘that will show the greatest economic potential’.

Whilst of course being the main goal for any company, this cannot be the only one in a region as sensitive as Tibet. Orchid’s unique lack of scruples are attested to by its Joint-Managing Director Alvin Tan. He stated that Orchid, as one of the first foreign companies to engage in a joint venture with the Chinese extraction project in Tibet, ‘anticipates being well-rewarded for its pioneering efforts’. He then further brushed aside the political implications by claiming that ‘social responsibility will be a big part of Orchid’s corporate plan for its Tibetan venture… we don’t have any [political] baggage to carry with us’. This, after referring to Tibet as ‘Western China’, not consulting Tibetans and participating in a Chinese-sponsored program of resource exploitation which does not benefit the locals.

Thankfully, Orchid paid a large commercial price for its adventurism. After becoming involved with such a reputable program, it soon learned that other Chinese companies which it had not been informed of were competing for the same resources. Its share prices halved and it is now in the process of beating a hasty retreat from all interests in the region.

The second story of Australian corporate infamy, still under investigation, is far from resolved and even more abhorrent.

Anvil Mining in the DRC

Second Australian company to shame

Anvil Mining was a fairly smallscale operation before its big break in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Even before the event in question, the process by which they achieved such a deal raises similar issues to the above case of Orchid. A recent Four Corners report has proved to be very informative on the matter. It describes how Anvil walked into an industry where, according to the UN, the government had engaged in ‘embezzlement, tax fraud and extortion, the use of stock options as kickbacks along with smuggling, false invoicing, non-payment of taxes and bribery’. At the centre of the bonanza was a man called Katumba Mwanke.

According to the Four Corners report, Mr Mwanke is a key powerbroker in mining deals on behalf of the DRC government. He also appeared as a founding member on the board of Anvil’s wholly-owned subsidiary for the project. He has managed to keep the company from paying any government taxes and brokered a formal agreement to exempt it into the future. Although ‘not recalling’ Mr Mwanke’s involvement with the company originally, the Anvil Mining Chief Executive Bull Turner eventually did remember enough to confirm to Four Corners.

However, what allegedly followed illustrates the lengths to which some companies can go when they are in a completely unfettered regulatory environment. The local population were once again displeased with the fact that none of the large profits from the mine were flowing on to their impoverished community. In contrast to Tibet, a small group of them took up arms and to make a point, raided a company warehouse about 50km from the mine.

In response, Anvil provided planes and trucks to transport government troops who would ‘take care’ of the villagers. A secret UN report has declared that around 100 villagers have been found in a mass grave, at least 28 of them appearing to have died from summary execution. Eyewitnesses reported seeing Anvil trucks used to carry the victims off to their deaths. When asked about the matter, Mr Turner openly accepted that Anvil had given such equipment for the use of government troops, and saw no responsibility on the part of his company for events that followed. Specifically, he said ‘We helped the military get to Kilwa... Whatever they did there, that’s an internal issue, it’s got nothing to do with Anvil. It’s an internal government issue’.

The company website also now carries a statement on behalf of ‘the Kilwa Traditional Leaders’ which denies the company’s responsibility for events, says that it has been one of the only companies willing to invest in the region, but even then confirms the use of Anvil equipment by the Congalese military. Another statement reads as such:

Given Anvil’s previous experience with rebel activity in the Kilwa area, during which Anvil’s vehicles were, after initial resistance, commandeered at gunpoint, Anvil had absolutely no choice but to provide the transport required by the DRC Military and had no reason to suspect that this would involve anything other than the lawful enforcement of the laws of the DRC.

A rather contradictory statement, I would venture. If previous experience with the military had ended at gunpoint, which surely wasn’t ‘lawful enforcement of the laws of the DRC’, then what made them believe such laws would be carried out in relation to the villagers? The argument works one way or the other, but can’t be used to excuse the company from responsibility whilst they simultaneously plead ignorance about the military’s activities. Interestingly, another press release from January in which Anvil commends the government’s actions is not readily available from the website anymore.

This is all the more disturbing given the fact that Anvil was also busy celebrating an agreement signed months before. Signed with a subsidiary of the World Bank, it was an insurance contract to cover ‘risks of transfer restriction, expropriation, breach of contract, war and civil disturbance’. Therefore, they were the only company in the DRC to be specifically guaranteed against the exact type of damage that took place. They were not commercially compelled to help stifle the uprising in such an unscrupulous manner, as they were not at risk of losing everything in an unstable regulatory system.

But all is not lost. Even though there will obviously be no local prosecution of Anvil, more than one body has stepped forward to hold them to account. The Australian Federal Police, UN, World Bank (see here) and the Canadian government have all launched investigations.

In summary, international corporations operating in an underdeveloped and less-regulated country need the line drawn by someone. This is not to say that the vast majority may not have very strong codes of practice, and in fact positively influence the development of the region by providing employment, stability and good working conditions. However, the nature of the market means that some will be tempted to use any tools available to gain advantage in their sphere. That is why organisations such as the ILO exist, and why projects like the US Millenium Challenge Corporation use incentives for developing governments to strengthen their regulations whilst opening their markets.

However, when the country is not susceptible to economic coercion from the outside (like China), what tools can be used to force it into sterner limits for private activity? The answer, I think, is none. The only way that a globalised world can hold adventurist companies to account, when they are protected by a local authority willing to give them free range, is the threat of prosecution in the company's home country or multilaterally. Perhaps even regulatory reforms used as a bargaining chip in impending free trade negotiations. We can only hope that all of the organisations investigating Anvil will set a precedent, to make such actions ‘unprofitable’ for potential copycats in the future.
tibet
Other Related Articles
China, Australia Jointly Explore Gold in Tibet (Balloch Group)
Orchid Capital Won’t Continue With Qu Long Copper Project (Dow Jones News)
Orchid Capital Signs Contract for Gold Project in Tibet (Investor Web)

Disengagement Part III: The Palestinians

2005-09-22T03:59:00.000+09:30

- Part I: The Pain
- Part II: The Potential

Incitement to violence must cease,
beginning with education of youth

Now to the final, and perhaps most important players in the Disengagement equation. The Palestinians find themselves in a situation not of their making, but one which requires an appropriate response more than any other event since the start of the second intifada. Only a successful reaction to the situation will ensure that the longterm potential of Disengagement is realized. Such a reaction will need to be as far-reaching and meaningful as these Israeli moves have been, involving just as many painful decisions.

In the short term, Palestinians will need to curtail constant attacks on Israel for a number of reasons. In this period of weakness for Mr Sharon, his government is likely to respond with increasing harshness to a sustained campaign from any of the Palestinian factions. The faction standing to lose most from this is Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, as it will only reinforce the ineffectiveness of PA compromise in the eyes of Palestinians, and the legitimacy of continued violence on the part of Hamas and others.

Although the period immediately surrounding Disengagement has been widely described as one of ‘calm’, it is still worth reflecting on the number of attacks which have taken place in order to reinforce the necessity of their curtailment. Here is a timeline of the attacks that I have come across amongst the various Israeli and international news agencies, from the start of the pullout to the end of August. It is by no means exhaustive.

Palestinian Attacks During Disengagement

18 August	IDF soldier wounded after Palestinians open fire near Gush Katif
18 August	Two mortar shells fired at Gaza settlement Gadid and one at IDF base
19 August	Two Palestinians attempt to place bomb near settlement due to be evacuated, explodes prematurely (Hamas)
23 August	Gunmen attack IDF patrol during West Bank stage of Disengagement
25 August	Two shooting incidents at IDF posts, one in Gaza and one in West Bank
25 August	Two Kassam rockets fired at Sderot
26 August	UK Yeshiva student stabbed to death and two others wounded by Palestinian
27 August	Palestinian stabs border policeman in Hebron
28 August	Suicide bombing in Be'er Sheva (Islamic Jihad)
29 August	Teenage Palestinian boy caught trying to smuggle three pipe bombs through Harawa road block
31 August	Anti-tank rocket fired at IDF vehicle in Northern Gaza, 50kg bomb blown up by IDF near Karni crossing, shots fired at IDF post near Tulkarm
1 September	Two Gazans charged with planning a mass suicide bombing

Violence is clearly entrenched within the Palestinian collective psyche. Overwhelmingly, the response of all factions appears to be that the ‘resistance of the martyrs’ brought about the Disengagement, and it is only through continuing attacks that further gains can be made. President Abbas has declared that the ‘martyrs’ have ‘paved the way’ for current success, whilst the PA is set to spend $2 million on a ‘carnival of victory’, which may include the armed and radical Islamist groups. The largest of those groups, Hamas, has publicly stated on numerous occasions that it will continue violence as long as ‘one inch of Palestine remains occupied’. ‘Palestine’ is defined on their radio station as including all cities within pre-1967 Israel.

Indeed, this problem of ideological entrenchment goes well back into the days of Yasser Arafat and stems from a number of sources. The position of Palestinians in refugee camps, continually perpetuated by their Arab neighbours and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine, has seen them develop a dominant culture of inherited ‘refugee’ status (Bowker: pp 157-158). As such, even the second and third-generation descendants of Palestinians who lived for as little as two years inside Israel before 1948 see it as their inherited birthright to return to exactly the same position as before the 1948 war. In practice, this would mean all five million descendants of the 600,000 original refugees ‘returning’ to Israel and outnumbering the Jews, thus creating a state of Palestine across all of what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

Terrorism must be stopped by the
PA in the immediate
aftermath of Disengagement

Any deal or negotiation with Israel is seen as anathema, with the exception of a concept called hudna which derives from a Quar’anic story of the Prophet Mohammed. In the story, he declared a temporary ceasefire against the rival Koresh tribe at a time of weakness, before building his resources and annihilating them. This message, the mainstay of all Palestinian groups before the Oslo process, continued to be pushed heavily by the PA after it undertook responsibilities with the Accords.

Even as Israeli moderates were fighting their own hard-liners to get a positive message about peace and Palestinian rights across in the media and state education system, the PA was doing exactly the opposite. Although presented with a golden opportunity to change the popular mindset through military and economic superiority over their Hamas and PFLP rivals, the Authority continued to call for Israel’s destruction and publicly supported terrorism. They even issued new schoolbooks that encouraged child ‘martyrdom’, referred to all land between the Mediterranean and River Jordan as Palestine, and did not mention any Jewish points of view or connections to the area. Their self-perception is that of victims, placing all of the blame for the situation on Israel. This leads to an attitude that their development and independence are things to expect entirely of others, rather than assisting the process with their own efforts. Indeed, some leaders have tried to argue that Israel is still responsible for any trouble in Gaza under international law, because the occupation is still legally in force.

Perhaps then, it is not surprising that Mr Arafat unconditionally turned down a deal that would have given Palestinians a capital in East Jerusalem, 97% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the remaining 3% made up from Israel proper (Dershowitz: pp117-122). The culture, self-perception and collective history of his people had been geared towards no compromise and complete Israeli annihilation for so long that this offer would be seen as defeat. Abbas, although more moderate than Arafat and clearly intent on reform, still faces the same problem. How does he undo the work of generations and prepare his people for peace? This is a critical ideological barrier that needs to be breached. Both sides must compromise the extreme wings of their national ideology for peace, but it appears that only one has been able to do it with Disengagement, whilst the other remains locked in the grip of its conservatives.

As I stated in Part II, along with reform of the government-sponsored ideology that is delivered to Palestinians, economic prosperity will be just as critical in changing popular attitudes. Palestinians will need to turn their embryonic Gaza State into a functioning and independent economy in order to boost livelihoods and set themselves up for statehood. The UN Conference on Trade and Development has published an excellent analysis of the Palestinian economic situation, and the remedial factors needed for growth. Firstly, the focus needs to be changed from interim measures to creating solid infrastructure for the longterm growth of the economy. These will include building customs, seaport and transit arrangements at Gaza Port, increasing public/private sector partnerships and focusing on poverty reduction, rather than export markets. Importantly, the productivity of Palestinian labour must be increased, as unemployment has often been a less important issue than the actual nature of employment.

It would also mean pursuing broader liberalization of the economy, with the exception of strategic development for some industries through investment and incrementally phased-out protection to grow them. Taiwan and Japan are good models for this type of activity, with strategic industries protected from outside competition until they were able to survive on the international plane. All of these objectives will require the direction of aid away from inherently corrupt organisations like UNRWA, and into meaningful investments that will boost self-sufficiency and wellbeing.

Click for video of official Palestinian
Authority cleric inciting violence and
antisemitism on PA state TV

The largest goal in creating self-sufficiency will be decreasing reliance on Israel. At the moment, the Palestinian economy freezes every time the security situation requires Israel to close its borders to the tens of thousands of Palestinian workers who cross daily to pursue employment with Israeli companies. One suggestion has come from a watering down of the older idea of confederation with Jordan. Whilst political confederation is obviously undesirable for Palestinians with their contemporary sense of national identity, economic and military confederation is a constructive suggestion.

Jordan’s 70% ethnic Palestinian majority dominate the country’s business sector, whilst cultural ties have remained strong across the River Jordan. These cultural and historical links with Jordan make it politically much easier and stable to integrate economically and militarily, and would reduce Palestinian dependency on Israel. Indeed, security cooperation between Jordan and the PA has already begun as a pilot project in the Northern West Bank, with Israel keen to facilitate the project in the hope of further success.

For any of this to occur, the most important aspect of Disengagement for the Palestinians must be a success. This is the claiming of sovereign monopoly by the Palestinian Authority across its new territory, becoming the only armed force and legislative, judicial and executive body. Economic ally, the EU and the PA’s third largest donor Japan have already recognized that law and order must be established for further funding to continue. In a very practical illustration of the problem, readers may remember the greenhouses I referred to in Part II which American Jewish philanthropists bought from the departing settlers, in order to provide the Palestinians with immediate infrastructure. In the intervening days, the greenhouses have already been looted by mobs as the PA assumed control, with at least 30% of them now damaged and unable to be used.

Abbas and the PA face an uphill battle to create a power monopoly. Firstly, Abbas must confront serious challenges within his own Fatah faction. There are a number of sub-factions which have already rejected the Abbas-backed ceasefire with Israel, and the largest armed sub-group (the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade) accepts his authority only on the condition of keeping their arms and using them at will. At a more structural level, the head of the Fatah Central Committee, Farouk Qaddumi, has claimed that he has sovereign control over the movement and that it is he who has inherited Arafat’s authority, rather than Abbas. This has led to armed confrontation between Qaddumi loyalists and the other Fatah groups, at one stage involving the kidnapping of a French journalist.

There has even been a new ‘Free Officers’ Movement’ modeled on that of the Egyptian Gamal Abd El Nasser, which is said to be made up of disillusioned Fatah activists. They have threatened to ‘take the law into our own hands’ to deal with corrupt PA officials, and warned Abbas against giving up the armed struggle with Israel. The internal Fatah war was most recently stepped up with the assassination of Moussa Arafat, cousin to Yasser Arafat and security advisor to Mr Abbas. Although Gaza’s Popular Resistance Committees have claimed responsibility, it appears clear that the PA had a hand in the extra-judicial killing of this corrupt and cruel functionary. Indeed, whilst Abbas has been unable to reign in his own faction, his young reformist rival Muhammad Dahlan is also reportedly behind the attack.

Mr Abbas faces a tough and most
likely violent road ahead

Far more of a challenge, however, are the rival armed factions to Fatah and the PA. The largest and most significant of these is Hamas. The group has been steadily building popular credibility through their vast network of welfare and educational services, stepping into the breach where the corrupt PA has failed to provide. Opposed to the existence of Israel in any form, Hamas has been the most vocal in suggesting that Gaza is the first step towards violently liberating ‘all of Palestine’.

The issue has now reached a head with Muhammad Deif, a senior Hamas leader, directly threatening Abbas and the PA with violence if they seek to confiscate his organisation’s weapons. Speculation over secret negotiations between the PA and Hamas has been rife, with different claims by the groups being brought to the media. It was recently stated by the leaders of the armed groups that Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei had guaranteed that their weapons would not be confiscated.

Even with its 48,000-strong security forces, the fragmented nature of the PA has rendered it unable to deal with the threat. Meanwhile, Hamas claims that it is transferring weaponry and rocket technology to the West Bank, where its new rockets can reach 18km into Tel Aviv. Indeed, Hamas is already boasting of bringing the first Al Qaida operatives into Gaza, whilst the PA was initially unable to prevent weapons smuggling through its newly-acquired Egyptian border.

The success or failure of Disengagement rests upon many shoulders. Israel will need to be flexible and receptive when opportunities present themselves for further measures, and should look into subversions of its own laws with regards to settlements. The international community must be simultaneously helpful and demanding of the Palestinians, assisting the construction of their economy but also pushing for reform and responsibility. But for the moment, the spotlight has firmly focused on the ‘silent partner’ in all of these upheavals.

Palestinians, the future is up to you.
disengagement
Other Related Articles
Can Palestinians Manage the Gaza Disengagement! by Bassem Eid (The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group)
Hamas Gunmen Parade in Gaza by Ali Waked (Ynet News)
Settlement Looters Set Back Gaza Development Hopes by Nidal al-Mughrabi (Reuters)
Abbas Asserts Control in Gaza, but Faces Challenge from Militants by Robert Berger (Voice of America)
Transcript of Briefing by Lt.-Col. Beaudoin, Head of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Foreign Relations BranchIndependent Media Review Analysis
Shadowy Hamas Figure Threatens Israel and Abbas by Steve Erlanger (New York Times)
Abbas likely to seek deal over militants' weapons by Nidal al-Mughrabi (Reuters)
Who Rules Gaza?!!! by Dr. Eyad El-Sarraj (Arabic Media Internet Network)
Weak Palestinians Risk Civil War by Richard Z. Chesnoff (New York Times)
Palestinians to Rename Gaza Enclaves After ‘Martyrs’ by Nidal al-Mughrabi (Reuters)
Gaza: Private Armies by Lara Sukhtian (Associated Press)
Palestinan Gunmen at Gaza Parliament Demand Jobs by Nidal al-Mughrabi (Reuters)
IDF Kills 5 Palestinians by Efrat Weiss (Ynet News)

EXCLUSIVE: Downer Embarrassed on UNRWA Funding

2005-09-15T00:40:00.001+09:30

Mr Downer is laissez-faire towards
UNRWA shortcomings

There have been further developments from my previous story on Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer’s $6.2 million funding package to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA).

In response to a number of questions from Labor MP Michael Danby, Mr Downer has shown that the Australian government committed funding to the organisation whilst being fully aware of its dangerous deficiencies. Here are some highlights:

When asked about the statement of the UNRWA Commissioner, who was unconcerned about the fact that members of Hamas are on the body’s payroll:

I am aware of the statement… My Department raised this matter with UNRWA. Mr Hansen clarified that he was referring to likely Hamas sympathisers, but that this did not in any way mean UNRWA supported terrorism or employed terrorists.

Responding to whether he knew that three UNRWA employees were convicted for acts of terrorism, he gave this comprehensive and reassuring response:

Yes, I’m aware of the convictions. In November 2003, the then Commissioner-General, Peter Hansen, issued a written statement regarding the matter.

On the fact that Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and other incitement-filled materials are used to indoctrinate children in UNRWA schools, he seemed satisfied that the issue had been raised (and not resolved) between the parties. He also appeared unconcerned and accepting of the fact that such textbooks are sponsored by the PA and used in UNRWA classes:

I am aware of the accusations and again my understanding is that there have been discussions between Israeli authorities, the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA on these issues… Mr Hansen advised that in accordance with a longstanding agreement with UNESCO, the UN was obliged to use host government textbooks.

The only genuinely reassuring bit came at the end, where the Minister gave a vague outline of the measures to make sure that Australian aid did not go directly to such activities. However, the entire episode raises questions about how UNRWA is contributing to the situation at all.

For the full set of questions and answers see here. Also, stand by for the final part of my Disengagement trilogy.
UNRWA Palestine Israel

Disengagement Part II: The Potential

2005-08-24T01:22:00.000+09:30

- Part I: The Pain
- Part III: The Palestinians

Israelis demonstrate to
show their support for
(and placement of faith in)
Disengagement

After examining the pain and trauma of Disengagement, it is vital to understand the potential positives that it has created and if possible, to act on them. It is a practice in optimism, but at the same time is necessary to map out the paths that are open at this time. This new potential can be argued from the perspectives of Israel, the Palestinians, and the peace process as a whole.

Firstly, Jews and Israelis need to know that their sacrifice has not been in vain. From their perspective, the Disengagement has definite upsides. The first one of these is security. One of the main reasons for the majority of the Israeli public supporting Disengagement is the view that less young soldiers will be put at risk by having to defend Gaza settlements.

By eliminating the sites that need protection within Gaza, and ‘shortening the defensive lines’, Israeli soldiers will be spared from many of the daily flashpoint situations that result in violence. This will save Israeli and Palestinian lives. Another security benefit will be the increased military, financial and strategic ability to respond to attacks such as the frequent Kassam rocket launchings from Gaza into Israel (see this year-old article from before Arafat’s death which was already saying it). Even hardcore exponents of Realpolitik can see the bare-bones strategic argument behind the move.

Economically, the money used to support the Gaza settlements can now go back into the state welfare services and social support, addressing some of Israel’s pressing poverty needs. Mr Sharon, who leads a party which traditionally is not renowned for prioritising such issues, has specifically mentioned it in his address to the nation. It can also go towards invigorating the Israeli economy and attracting much-needed investment, in order to create new jobs.

Finally, the upcoming withdrawal from four settlements in the northern West Bank could potentially set the stage for reform of the settlement situation in that area (entirely dependent on upcoming Palestinian actions, which will be explored in the next post). Although Mr Sharon is emphasising that this will be the ‘final disengagement’, his comments have to be put in their context.

Click for pdf map of large
settlement blocs
and security fence

The settlement blocks which he is referring to (such as Ma’ale Adumim and Gush Etzion around Jerusalem) have long been mooted (eg Geneva Accord, Camp David and Taba) for territorial compromise between Israel and the Palestinians. They are expected to form part of a land-swap for parts of ‘Israel proper’ in any eventual deal. The blocs, immediately adjacent to the 1967 ‘Green Line’, contain 74% of the total West Bank settlers, and a proposal that these will remain part of Israel is not outside the realms of rational debate. However, there are many other smaller settlements, such as the four being evacuated next.

Many of these outposts have been constructed illegally under Israeli law, regardless of other international pressures. As found in the report commissioned by Prime Minister Sharon, led by former Israeli Chief Prosecutor Talia Sasson, a significant process of settlement building has been taking place contrary to government policy over the last decade. It has been done with the connivance of a number of government departments, and the tacit support of some Ministers. This is an area that could potentially be looked at, should further unilateral action on Israel’s part prove opportune over the coming years.

Indeed, the issue of whether Mr Sharon will implement further settlement removals or not may prove to be entirely academic. Despite all of the misgivings, Israelis have retained a majority in favour of eventual withdrawal from most settlements, if their security and existence can be guaranteed. If President Abbas and his Palestinian Authority can go some way towards proving that the Gaza Disengagement was not a huge tactical error for Israel, we may find a public which is willing to vote out Sharon in favour of someone who will continue the work of withdrawal, or even force Sharon into abandoning his Likud Party in favour of such action (see this interesting analysis). At the moment it is a long way off, but has been made conceivable by this first move from the right of Israeli politics, led by Sharon.

On another note, the immediate benefits of the withdrawal are many. For Palestinians, removal of the Gaza settlement blocs represents a very palpable improvement to their daily quality of life. They will have access to their beachfront, which they have been kept 500m away from over the course of the Intifada due to the seaborne smuggling and terrorist operations that were launched against settlements. Freedom of movement will become much less restricted, cutting down on the threat to Palestinians going about their daily business and improving the chances for economic growth.

The topic of economic growth should not be under-analysed. The Palestinian stock market has already responded radically to Disengagement, rising 310% over the course of the year and 5.10% in the last week alone. As with most developing areas, a growing economy has flow-on effects with the quality of life, nature of government, political discourse and predominant public attitudes. Indeed, a survey done a couple of years ago (Tessler and Sanad in Karsh: pp69-70) revealed that of all the Palestinian diaspora, those with secure and well-paying jobs in other Middle-Eastern countries were the most conducive to a final negotiated solution in which Israel still exists.

This is even more important for Gaza, as security of livelihood will do more than soften attitudes towards Israel. It will also increase confidence in the relatively moderate leadership of the Fatah/PLO faction within the Palestinian Authority, and severely undercut the ability of Hamas to recruit from its welfare and social service base. With less desperate and vulnerable people to suck in and an economic incentive which is independent of the largely still corrupt PA bureaucracy, Hamas will struggle to retain its military and political hold on the landscape.

The PLO will be forced to become more accountable with a developing middle-class who will no doubt advocate for more commercial opportunities. Indeed, their own Fatah gunmen have violently stormed parliament, demanding jobs in a clear display that livelihoods are the most pressing agenda item. This would give a more powerful popular voice to the current reformers within Palestinian politics.

Renovation projects like this one
need to become routine in Gaza

All of the economics above are very much dependent on a number of other factors. Most of these will be dealt with in my next post on the Palestinians, but the international community must also come to Gaza’s aid. The G8 countries must actually deliver on their pledge of $3 billion to complement the US projects which are already going ahead, concentrating on the infrastructure and job creation. Such G8 aid must be equally well-targeted, to ensure that it doesn’t end up straight in the hands of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, through corrupt UNRWA mechanisms (see my previous post on the topic). They already have a good working model, with Jewish philanthropists buying the old settlers’ greenhouses and agricultural infrastructure in order that it be turned over to the Palestinians. This alone will create 4,000 jobs immediately with the potential for 10,000, which would support 10% of the Palestinian population.

A chance is created with this new surge of international goodwill and internal free movement to begin building an industrial sector within Gaza, so that the Palestinians are able to become self-sufficient and will rely less on crossing into Israel to find work. This would help to ease the daily clashes at border checkpoints, which take their toll on Israelis through terror attacks and Palestinians through extreme inconvenience and discomfort.

Finally, it is an opportunity for the Palestinians to begin building their state. There now exists a contiguous stretch of land in which the Palestinian security forces can operate unhindered by the IDF, and which will enjoy status similar to that of ‘Area A’ under the Oslo Accords. The only enemies that the Palestinians have to fight in Gaza are other Palestinians. This is the chance for them to show to the world that they can forge a process which enfranchises, non-violently, a Palestinian polity that the international community and Israel can recognise, entrusting it with further steps towards statehood.

Which introduces the third of my triology: the Palestinians…
disengagement

Disengagement Part I: The Pain

2005-08-21T03:42:00.000+09:30

- Part II: The Potential
- Part III: The Palestinians

An army officer is comforted by his sister in their home
settlement

This week marks a momentous occasion in the history of the Middle East, the Palestinian national movement, and the Jewish people. The world is currently witnessing a fundamental re-evaluation of Jewish and Israeli national identity, manifested through very visible and painful rifts in Gaza. At the same time, the situation created by the Gaza Disengagement creates an entirely new dynamic for the Palestinian people to respond to.

Opportunities are created for a viable and contiguous Palestinian entity in Gaza, and for a display to the international community that Palestinians are capable of constructing the machinery of a state. So just as important as analysing the Israeli efforts and response to Disengagement, will be ascertaining how it is viewed by Palestinians and what plans they are making in its aftermath.

This will be the first of my ‘three p’s’ trilogy on the Disengagement: the pain, the potential and the Palestinians.

The Pain
To truly understand the significance of Disengagement, it is critical to know exactly what the Israelis are going through. The depth of pain and challenge to their hearts and minds must be documented in full in order to put the events in context.

On a political level, there is no question that the Disengagement has been a huge test for Israeli democracy, sovereignty, national identity and unity. The ideological background for the settlements is on the one hand understandable: historically, a Jewish community existed in Gaza for thousands of years (Dershowitz: p16). There is also a religious argument that envisions Gaza as part of a biblical land promised to the Jews, and even a secular ideology has grown around some of the more expansionist nationalist movements since Gaza’s capture in the 1967 war.

Gaza resident and her child confront the police

All of this is ideology that Mr Sharon has had to confront, not only as an Israeli Prime Minister but as the political instigator of much of it, and a fervent supporter of the modern settler movement. The challenge was always going to present itself along the path to a two state solution, with the leadership of both sides needing to compromise their people’s nationalism to the extent that it fatally interferes with the other group’s self-determination. The way in which Mr Sharon handled this difficult moment is a lesson for the Palestinian leadership.

“I think it is important [the settlers] know that what they did was not in vain," he said. "We need to understand that the settlement enterprise made possible very big achievements for Israel that would not have been possible [otherwise].
…
This is very hard, very painful, but the State of Israel will continue to exist, build, settle and develop," he said. "And those who want to create the impression today as if we are on the eve of destruction are mistaken. We have many challenges before us. The settlers were the pioneers of the last generation, the leaders in the security field over the last generation. All of us have to stand up, carry on and develop.
(Taken from here)

In the one speech, Sharon has spared the settler mythology a humiliating and destructive metaphorical death by exemplifying its contribution, whilst making it clear that Zionism will continue to survive without such activity. This could be applied to the ‘violent resistance’ and ‘return of all refugees’ mythology that the Palestinian national movement still espouses. Painful, but not impossible. Another striking statement from the Sharon speech:

“Criticize me, blame me, but don't harm the soldiers and police, don't insult them," Sharon said during a joint press conference at Beit Hanassi with President Moshe Katsav, showing a degree of emotion that was absent when he addressed the nation Sunday.

"I am responsible for this. It was my decision. I think it was a very important decision for Israel. Don't blame them, blame me," Sharon said. "I believe that with all this difficulty, Israel will come out stronger from this very difficult move in the future."

Katsav interrupted Sharon when the prime minister said to "attack me, not the police," saying that what Sharon meant to say was "criticize me."
(Same source)

Here we have a leader taking absolute responsibility for the difficult compromise and asking the public to direct their anger at him in a political fashion, rather than expressing violence against their compatriots. President Katsav’s intervention emphasizes the obvious risks involved for Mr Sharon. Yet another Israeli Prime Minister has risked his political and physical wellbeing against the potential backlash from his own hardliners. Will President Abbas be prepared to follow Sadat, Rabin and Sharon in making a similar mea culpa on the refugee issue, or on violently confronting Hamas?

A young Gaza resident is comforted by his father

Quite apart from the political pain is the more real pain of the mass evictions. Whilst many future compromises for the peace process will be built on injured pride and lost dreams, this one was built on injured people and lost homes. A population of 8,500 settlers and 5,000 infiltrated protestors had to be moved in this week’s operation. The process of doing so has torn at the heart of the soldiers and settlers involved, as well as Israelis and Jews around the world.

One 50 year-old woman set herself on fire as a form of protest, suffering burns to over 60% of her body. A female soldier was stabbed with a syringe whilst attempting to escort a woman out of her house. Acid was thrown by a group of young infiltrated protestors at a synagogue in Neve Dekalim, the largest and most fiercely-defended settlement, injuring 31 policemen. Despite all of this, perhaps the most painful scenes ensued from the vast majority of nonviolent protests that the settlers engaged in.

By the final evacuation date, 66% of settlers had agreed to take government compensation and leave in an orderly manner. Indeed, even the remaining settlers did a great service to themselves and Israeli democracy by avowedly pursuing nonviolent means of protest, which they largely adhered to throughout the process. Deals were struck with the police and army, which enabled the protestors to register their feelings whilst ensuring that no one got hurt. For example, after walking into a synagogue and praying with the protestors, army officers arranged that they would physically drag out the group ‘squirming’, but that nothing more would be done by either side. This kind of cooperation and passivity made the following scenes even harder in some ways for the soldiers to deal with.

Young soldiers were greeted with children at the doors of homes they were evacuating, followed by an awaiting family that had not made any preparations to leave. They were dragged out of their homes, one by one, crying and screaming. In some cases, particularly hurtful imagery of Nazism was used against the soldiers, with settlers wearing orange stars reminiscent of the yellow ones that the Nazis had forced Jews to wear during the Holocaust. In another case, a 28 year-old police woman helped an elderly lady to peel carrots in her kitchen before taking her by the arm and leading her out of her house for the last time. Graveyards were dug up and remains exhumed. In yet another house, police walked in to find a family celebrating the first birthday of their one-year-old daughter, interrupted by the final evacuation (for a selection of stories see here). The operation has taken an obvious toll on the soldiers, with many breaking down in tears and crying with the people whom they evacuate.

Some of the settlement demolitions have been done despite the orders of Israel’s High Court of Justice. It has implored the Israeli government to rethink its policy of destroying the Gaza synagogues, instead intrusting them to international care. The synagogues were nonetheless dismantled by soldiers and the settlers together in a number of very painful scenes.

On the other hand, some breaches of the law have been absolutely and publicly enforced. When two Jewish terrorist attacks took place, one in previous weeks with an extremist shooting four Israeli Arabs and one only days ago with the shooting of three Palestinians, the government clearly and unequivocally condemned the actions. They also put stern pressure on the Rabbis and other communal leaders of the people involved to send a clear message about the unacceptable nature of terrorism – a message that their Palestinian Authority counterparts are yet to send.

Gaza resident comforts and elderly relative
as police come to evict them

Many of the settlers have nowhere to go inside Israel. No plans have been made for them and they are stuck in makeshift accommodation, such as hotels in Jerusalem. Childcare, counselling and other essentials are being hastily organised for them, but no definite future seems clear at this point. That could be said of the entire project, without a clear guide to what comes next. Yet 8,500 Israelis have now been forcibly relocated in the hope of improved prospects for peace. Countries as diverse as Morocco and South Africa, a nation which is usually very critical of Israel, have written to express their support for the operation. The rest of the international community must also appreciate this event for what it is, when viewed in light of my next two posts: the prospects created and the Palestinian response.

At the end of the day, although I find it almost impossible to tell my close Israeli friend that her uncles, aunts and cousins were evicted for the greater good, my hope is that at least they were not evicted in vain.
disengagement

July-August Poll Results

2005-08-20T02:23:00.000+09:30

Question: What should form the main foundation of the effort to fight global poverty?

Debt relief: 0
Elimination of trade barriers: 1
Large increase in aid money: 0
Governmental and economic reform of poor countries: 10

These results are parallel to a growing opinion amongst the international community, who are interested in seeing outcomes for the large amounts of aid that seem to produce little economic progress in third world countries. The big question is what to improve, and your answers echo my opinions pretty closely. Largely I think it’s a question of reform within the countries themselves in order to absorb the aid, with removal of oppressive trade barriers being the second plank by allowing their economies to grow.

The question was based around my previous entries here and here.

The next poll largely relates to the aftermath of the Gaza pullout, and the post which I will be putting up in a few hours outlining my thoughts on it. I will be interested to see where people’s views lie on this issue. Basically I’m asking whether you think the environment is ripe to launch straight back into negotiations, or whether further unilateral action from one of the sides is necessary before that can happen. Register your vote!

‘Red Ken’ Strikes Again

2005-07-23T02:17:00.000+09:30

London Mayor Ken Livingstone with
radical cleric, Sheikh al-Qaradawi

After giving an inspirational speech in the immediate aftermath of the London bombings, London Mayor Ken Livingstone has sunk back into his familiar line on terror and its ‘root causes’. Although he has a history of expressing public support for active terrorist groups and recently made a highly inflammatory comparison of a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard, the Mayor appeared to get his bombing response right.

He made the point that terrorism is not part of a political agenda which includes legitimate concerns about development, independence and economic hardship for the people involved (speech found here):

That isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other...

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

Additionally, he defined the objectives of the bombing perpetrators as based upon the desire to subject the world to their own extremist view, waging a war directly against the social and cultural values of the West because it impedes this goal:

They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.

Despite my previous misgivings about the man and his approach to the issue, these comments genuinely impressed me. In my opinion, they were an accurate and succinct description of the distinction between the ‘root causes’ argument of global inequalities which should always be addressed separately, and the actual nature of terrorist ideology. Sadly and rather insultingly for his citizens, Mr Livingstone has since resurrected his completely contradictory line on the issue.

Days after the bombings, he made this statement on the forces driving the terrorist threat and motivations for potential terrorists (quoted in this article):

You've just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of a Western need for oil. We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones that we didn't consider sympathetic.

Under foreign occupation and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work for three generations, I suspect that if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves.

I have not the slightest doubt that if, at the end of the First World War, we had done what we promised the Arabs, which was to let them be free and have their own governments, and kept out of Arab affairs, and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this wouldn't have arisen

Additionally to this, he defended the views of a radical cleric whom he has invited into Britain for a conference in two months. The cleric in question, Sheikh al-Qaradawi, runs a website in which he espouses support for suicide bombings in Israel, female genital mutilation, and the killing of homosexuals and apostate Muslims (for catalogue of the statements with links see here).

Mr Livingstone chose not only to defend his decision to invite the Sheikh in the aftermath of the attacks, but supported his view on suicide bombings (from this article):

What Sheikh al-Qaradawi pointed out was, given that the Palestinians do not have jet fighters and do not have tanks, they only have their bodies to use. I do not think he is actually urging people to go out and become suicide bombers

On a more general note, he saw no particular difference between the tactics of the Israeli government and those of Hamas, as well as providing a very interesting view on responsibility for all of the Arab-Israeli wars and Israeli military tactics (from this article):

I think the Israeli hardliners around Likud and Hamas [members] are two sides of the same coin; they need each other to drum up support, they point to the excesses of the other to recruit and I don't make any distinction because I believe the taking of human life is wrong. In particular, when you think of the illegal invasion of Lebanon, the illegal invasion of Egypt and Jordan in the Six Day War, all these exercises of going into Palestinian refugee camps and indiscriminately destroying homes simply because a bomber came from that area

These comments not only show a deep gulf between the speech Mr Livingstone made which won him international praise and his own views. More importantly, they epitomise the current conflict in the development arena between those who view terror as an expression of desperation at the lack of opportunity and progress in the third world, and those who see it as the manifestation of an expansionist and all-pervasive extremist ideology.

No one, especially this blogger, would dispute that development and bridging gaps of global inequality are defining issues for the international community. These are the topics that my blog is devoted to. However, they deserve to be addressed for the sake of their own importance, with reference to the factual needs of disadvantaged countries and individuals. Terrorism, also, needs to be looked at in the context of its importance and cannot be dealt with in the context of development. Issues such as fundamentalist agendas in madrassas where the London bombers studied are completely separate from the lack of trickle-down wealth in Saudi Arabia’s oil industry.

By trying to mix these matters with the debate on terrorism, we not only distort the real priorities of development but imbue terrorists with an ideology that they do not possess. The terrorists are not talking about reasoned transitions to self-determination, fair conditions for emerging economies and autonomy over local resources. A successful agenda for many terrorist groups would be the imposition of the particular religious practices they espouse, the downfall of the Western economic and cultural values system and in a number of cases, the genocidal elimination of other ethnic and religious groups with whom they do not agree (see this article for a broad statement of the principle).

It is my fervent hope that those serious about global development and stability will put Mr Galloway and Mr Livingstone into the box with all of the others who seek to pervert this agenda.
ken livingstone
Other Related Articles
Red Ken Blames West for Radicalism (Gulf Daily News)
Livingstone Blames West for Stirring Terrorism by Sam Knight (Times Online)
Straw Lashes anti-Israel Livingstone by Herb Keinon (Jerusalem Post)

Gleneagles: Pros, Cons and Not Done’s

2005-07-10T23:59:00.000+09:30

G8 leaders took some vital steps to
development, but others proved a
bridge too far

One cannot begin a post about this week’s G8 Summit in Gleneagles without first expressing sympathy for the victims of the London terror bombings that occurred concurrently with its opening. However, in the belief that the best way to combat the goals of the terrorists is to ignore their political statement and deal with the G8 issues without reference to it, I will not be examining the summit in relation to the attacks.

The media is already struggling to concentrate on the outcomes of G8 after the London bombing and the critical issues have already been sufficiently swayed without every new analysis being done through its prism. However, I would direct readers to this chillingly prophetic article by former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans only days beforehand, urging the G8 to set the agenda for global security cooperation.

Now to the summit itself.

Although the main focus of attention in the aftermath of Gleneagles has been the $50 billion increase in aid and the cancellation of all the outstanding debt in question, the leaders reached important positions on even more critical aspects of development whilst also failing to deal with others.

Firstly, the less publicized successes of the summit should be examined. All of them are spelled out in the extensive official communiqué that was released by the participants. They include:

• Support for multilateral arrangements to regulate companies that are operating in areas of weak government, in order to prevent abuse

• Helping to build the capacity of countries to grow their agricultural industries and develop trade infrastructure

• A comprehensive set of goals and principles that emphasise the need for internal African reform and good governance, privatisation and South-South trade.

• Placing of the onus on the African countries themselves to work towards improvements in those areas as the central driver for development, alongside Western aid and debt relief

• Assistance for the AU to develop its capacity for conducting peace operations and early warning systems to deal with potential conflicts

• Mention of the need to reform the methods that aid is distributed by, in order to maximize its use

• Targeting education, the training of more skilled professionals and improved health systems as methods for unlocking the enormous population potential that Africa possesses

These goals have all been championed by African leaders throughout the summit. Andrew Mwenda, a Ugandan radio journalist and Wangari Maathai, an African environmental campaigner and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, have been strongly emphasizing the need for internal reforms.

Nigerian President and AU Chairman Olesegun Obasanjo, whilst welcoming aid, has added that it is the responsibility of his fellow leaders to respond by tackling reform issues. He has announced the establishment of a monitoring group in his own country, to build on recent reforms by ensuring that the new debt relief is not eaten up by inefficiency and corruption. It would join the already-established APRM (African Peer Review Mechanism) which currently provides a forum for AU countries to hold each other to account. The communiqué also states that the G8 will be financially and structurally supporting the APRM, without impinging on its authority.

America’s Millennium Challenge Account (discussed in my previous article) is listed amongst the aid commitments that each country would make, as is Canada’s ‘Canada for Africa Fund’. Both of these aid organizations are examples of necessary financial commitment, coupled with responsibility. The Challenge Account, even supported by Live8’s Bono, sets strict criteria for countries to achieve before they receive aid, whilst the Canadian fund targets its assistance at the development of government institutions and economic capabilities.

However, one of the other key ingredients to development was not adequately addressed at Gleneagles. The leaders failed to make a strong enough statement on the reduction of trade barriers, particularly on EU agricultural produce. Only one paragraph of the communiqué was devoted to vague support for the Doha Round of negotiations, which appear to be all but stalled on the issue thanks to EU intransigence. The only other specific (or opaque) hint towards relaxation of the barriers came with the sentences:

…we will support African nations in playing their full part in the relevant international standard setting bodies, in order to facilitate African export to our markets.

and

We support the efforts underway by the World Bank and others to address concerns regarding trade preference erosion. We further agree to report back on progress to future presidencies.

Less than a ringing endorsement. This issue, which as an aside enjoys the support of both sides of Australian politics, is central to the strategy of bringing about development through globalization and economic liberalism. It cannot be excluded from the equation, just as African reform and responsibility cannot be excluded.

Even the massive aid deliverance has been called into question by some NGO groups who claim that there is really only $10 billion of new money on the table, the rest being made up of previous promises. However, this seems to have caused division amongst the anti-poverty campaigners and Live8’s Bob Geldof has openly disputed the claims (for overview see here).

The other cause for concern is the doubling of overall aid to the Palestinian Authority to the tune of ₤3 billion, with an acknowledgement that there are no plans yet for how it will be spent or accounted for. This is something that our own Foreign Minister has been guilty of, with similar potential consequences (as in my article here).

However, the overall summit at Gleneagles has been a huge step in the right direction and not for the reasons of aid or debt relief alone. The real victory has come through the G8 prioritisation of government and market reforms within African countries, and its concrete commitment to assisting with implementation.

The news just in is that former Christian rebel John Garang has joined a power-sharing government in Sudan, which will allow internal Sudanese aid to flow to the country’s impoverished south. This, coupled with results at Gleneagles, has seen the past week set the tone for a more self-sufficient Africa which can genuinely combat poverty.

Other Related Articles
G8 Chair’s Summary of Gleneagles
Blair Defends G8 Pledges By James Blitz, Alan Beattie and Fiona Harvey (Financial Times)
Sing a Song of Free Trade to Tackle Poverty By Alexander Downer (The Australian)
G8 Gleneagles

June Poll Results

2005-07-08T16:13:00.000+09:30

Results of the June poll are as follows:

Question: Do events in Darfur qualify as genocide under international law?

Yes: 23
No: 1
Total: 24

Whilst striking, I believe that the results are not surprising. With every new revelation of evidence about the way that the Darfur crisis was perpetuated (see my previous post), more of the legal indicators are satisfied.

Thanks to those who participated and I urge all readers to vote in the new and less clear-cut poll about the alleviation of world poverty.

Australia Short-Changes Iraqi Development

2005-07-04T23:34:00.000+09:30

AEC workers could provide invaluable
expertise to their Iraqi counterparts

A recent article in the Herald Sun raises disturbing questions about the commitment of the Australian government to the redevelopment of Iraq’s institutions. It appears that an employee of the Australian Electoral Commission was forced to decide between his job and a deployment to Iraq in order to assist with the electoral process. He would have been helping an organisation called the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) which has been assisting the Voter Registration and Election Planning Coordinator in Iraq.

This is a matter of grave concern, as Iraqi development has reached the all-important institution-building phase. The most important area of investment for Western governments must be the development of sound government institutions through financial support and partnership programs with equivalent local departments. Electoral authorities are particularly vital, as so much of the legitimacy for Iraq’s new government rests on internal and international confidence in the mandate for its leaders.

With two more critical elections approaching (the national referendum on an Iraqi constitution and subsequent parliamentary elections under that constitution), support for the Iraqi Electoral Commission is both urgent and overwhelming. This should be one of the first priorities for a government as involved in Iraq as that of Australia. Our overall development strategy also needs work, as we are one of only two countries in the world not to provide a specific national action plan for our contribution to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Geldof vs Henry on Econo-tainment

2005-06-30T02:50:00.000+09:30

Lenny Henry’s comic realism holds
lessons for Bob Geldof

There are only three days to go before the largest series of rock concerts in support of African development since Bob Geldof’s Live Aid in 1985. However, the focus of Geldof’s current project, Live8, is being questioned by a number of development experts. The ANU’s own Professor Helen Hughes capably summarises the concerns in an article here.

This blogger does not intend to join the hecklers of Sir Bob and Live8 as they are obviously attempting to mount a campaign based on noble intentions (and also because one of his favourite bands U2 is involved). However, the economic and international relations theory behind their campaign needs some coaching. An outline of the flaws and potential improvements to Live8’s objectives are as follows…

The main focus of Live8 is on two issues besides increasing and improving aid: meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals by reducing the debt that Africa’s poorest nations owe, and introducing ‘fair trading’ regulations through such bodies as the IMF and WTO.

Firstly, the issue of a unilateral debt reduction is only really looking at one side of the debt equation. A good illustration of the reverse side comes through the skits of comedian Lenny Henry, who is also participating in Live8. In one vignette, he plays a mad African dictator called President Umbukelele. The President constantly frustrates a long-suffering UN representative as he tries to hand over an aid cheque in return for a guarantee of sensible spending. Instead, he is met by expansive and silly plans for grandiose new schemes.

Unfortunately, the skit is uncomfortably close to the truth. The most recent insane policies of Robert Mugabe, with his Pol Pot-esque campaigns of massive population displacement and destruction of infrastructure, are a case in point. They are representative of a general malaise which includes corruption, nepotism and lack of transparency and sees much of the aid money going to waste. In fact, it is actually detrimental to focus on aid at the expense of structural, economic and governmental reform. Doing so can deter investment, growth, and with it any possibility of sustainable development (for a comprehensive article on this topic see here).

This is why the G8 Finance Ministers inserted the following section as the second from the top in their most recent statement on development:

2. We reaffirm our view that in order to make progress on social and economic development, it is essential that developing countries put in place the policies for economic growth, sustainable development and poverty reduction: sound, accountable and transparent institutions and policies; macroeconomic stability; the increased fiscal transparency essential to tackle corruption, boost private sector development, and attract investment; a credible legal framework; and the elimination of impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign.

Perhaps Sir Bob and Co should be supporting the newly-established U.S. aid distribution initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account. In a much more comprehensive approach to development, the managing Corporation sets out a list of criteria for the potential donor countries to perform on, which is based on sixteen development indicators. Aid is then apportioned to the countries who perform best across the range of indicators.

Now to the second focus of Live8, the introduction of a ‘fairer trade’ system for Africa. The plan envisages a complete abolition of Western, particularly European tariffs on such items as agriculture ($300 billion in that sector alone) which are preventing African economies from entering the market. This is quite admirable and necessary, but they wish to supplement it by also allowing the African countries to set up their own tariff barriers and thus theoretically profit from the same abuse of the international trade system.

Such a proposition is not only detrimental to the concept of free market economics, but will in fact be counterproductive for the growth of African industry and self-reliance. The case is made out well by Franklin Cudjoe, Director of a Ghanaian development think tank. He argues that instead of creating highly inefficient and uncompetitive monopolies to compete with European markets, African countries should be looking to develop the badly neglected trade infrastructure between their countries.

This would maximise ‘South-South’ trade on level pegging with their neighbours, where there is already demand. He also cites the examples of Hong Kong and China to push the point that instead of focussing on primary industry, some of the most successful economic rags-to-riches stories are about countries who diversify into more suitable industries. All of this would not only create employment and growth but reduce the long term need for aid and ensure a greater slice of the money for average people, rather than corrupt bureaucrats. After all, it relies on individual enterprise and innovation.

The goal is right: celebrities should use their status to promote humanitarian causes.

The target is right: Africa is now the most needy and urgent location for serious development.

The tactics, however, need work: Internal African reform and Western assistance which facilitates it will be the greatest harbingers of prosperity for the region.

In the world of Econo-tainment, the Lenny Henry school carries more weight than that of Bob Geldof.

Other Related Sources
Live 8 shows power, pitfalls of stars with a cause by Mike Collett-White (Reuters UK)
Doha Ministerial Declaration on trade and development (2001)

live8

Downer Takes Gamble on Palestinian Aid Money

2005-06-25T00:46:00.000+09:30

Gunmen climb into an UNRWA
ambulance

This week has seen Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, announce an aid package of AUD$6.2 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA). Whilst Australia needs to join the international community in serious financial investment for the Palestinian Authority and development of the quality of life for Palestinians, UNRWA is a very questionable avenue for doing so.

It has been at best a mixed blessing for the Palestinian people since its creation in 1949. From the outset it was a strange beast, constituting the only UN agency for a specific group of refugees. It also covers a definition of ‘refugee’ that no other group in the world has been able to claim in terms of expansiveness, as it includes relatives and even descendants of those displaced since 1949.

Whilst undoubtedly channeling a large percentage of aid resources to Palestinians and still playing a critical role, a number of UNRWA’s practices suggest that it may currently be doing more harm than good.

At an organisational level, UNRWA has always maintained the same structure in camps as existed in the villages within what is now Israel, and continues to devote much effort to preserving the idea amongst residents that they will be returning to the exact houses that they or their ancestors left many years ago. UNRWA schools are used to reinforce this perception amongst young Palestinians, with no mention of Israel in any textbooks and a reference to the entire area as their exclusive homeland.

Whilst this may appear to be superficially justified, it has seen UNRWA actively prevent any attempts to build new permanent residences for the refugees over the years. More importantly, it directly subverts the final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, as every suggested agreement has included a compromise on the refugee issue. It will be a necessary compromise, as a complete ‘return’ of all Palestinians who have some ancestral claim to what is now Israel would spell the end of its existence as a state. It would also be done despite a complete absence of return or compensation rights for the equally large group of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

In an even more practical sense, funding to UNRWA over the last decade has been funneled on to terrorist organisations in a number of cases. The following timeline is taken from this article:

● May 2004: Armed Palestinians are filmed using UNRWA ambulances to transport terrorists and, possibly, remains of fallen Israeli soldiers in Gaza.

● Sept. 2003: After the Israeli military court convicts three UNRWA employees for terrorist activities (such as throwing firebombs at a public bus), Israel detains at least 16 other UNRWA staff members for various security-related matters.

● Dec. 2002: A Shin Bet report indicates that numerous UNRWA facilities in the West Bank and Gaza had been used by Palestinian terrorists as meeting grounds and for weapons storage.

● Sept. 2002: Nahd Attala, a senior official of UNRWA in Gaza, reveals that in June-July 2002, he used his UNRWA car for the transportation of armed members of Fatah who were on their way to carry out a missile attack against Jewish settlements. In addition, Nahd admits he used an UNRWA car to transport a 12 kg explosive charge for his brother-in-law, a Fatah member.

● August 2002: Nidal Nazzal, a Hamas member and ambulance driver employed by UNRWA, confesses to transporting weapons and explosives in an UNRWA ambulance, and that he had taken advantage of the freedom of movement he enjoyed to transmit messages among Hamas members in various Palestinian towns.

● February 2002: Alaa Muhammad Ali Hassan, a Tanzim member, confesses during interrogation that he had carried out a sniper shooting from the school run by UNRWA in the al-Ayn refugee camp near Nablus. He also told his interrogators that bombs intended for terrorist attacks were being manufactured inside the UNRWA school's facilities.

Further points are compiled from this report on UNRWA:

● UNRWA schools are used by Islamic Jihad and Hamas as forums for distributing propaganda, an activity which has been supported by the Hamas-dominated UNRWA teachers’ union

● Amongst UNRWA's over 23,000 employees, most of whom are Palestinian, are many members of Hamas. UNRWA officials have readily accepted this fact but do not see any need to act on the situation or vet their employees more closely.

● UNRWA camp residents have claimed that black marketeering and corruption have seen many vital aid supplies directed away from the residents who need them most.

All of this activity has seen the United States introduce legislation which requires the General Accounting Office to investigate any funding to UNRWA in order to ensure that it is not funneled towards such activities.

Mr Downer’s far-from-adequate press release begs the question of what he is doing to ensure that Australian funding is distributed in an equally responsible fashion. Has he put caveats on how the money will be spent? What authorities will oversee its distribution? Only time and some sharp questioning will tell.

Pakistan: Traditionalism, Dictatorship and the Fight for Human Rights

2005-06-18T02:32:00.000+09:30

Mukhtar Mai: the power of one

A very interesting article
appeared in today’s Canberra Times, written by an executive member of the Islamic Council of Victoria. He highlighted a story which, as he says, has been making international headlines but attracted little coverage in the mainstream Australian media. This is very unfortunate, as it epitomises many of the problems that developing societies face with the clash of traditional practices and modernisation. It is the story of Mukhtar Mai.

Mukhtar Mai is a 34 year old woman from a village called Meerwala in Pakistan. In 2002, her younger brother supposedly brought shame to his tribe by being seen with a girl from a rival tribe (an accusation that was later exposed as an attempt to cover up sexual abuse of the boy). When Mai appeared before the local tribal council to plead her brother’s innocence, the council decided that the clan’s honour would be absolved if Mai was gang raped, and ordered that this should take place immediately.

Incidentally, the practice does not stem from Islam but is one of the many millennia-old traditions that predate the religion, pervading Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. Indeed, moderate Muslim groups have been amongst Mai’s strongest supporters throughout the ordeal, vehemently opposing such activities. Nonetheless, the practices do remain entrenched and local traditional justice escapes the reach of both Pakistan’s religious Sharia system and its secular law.

Returning to Mai’s story…

Four men volunteered to carry out the ruling, and Mai was raped for an hour in front of 300 jeering villagers, then left naked to walk home. The idea of such sentences (which are certainly not unique) is that the woman will then commit suicide because of the damage to her honour, and Mai did make an attempt on her life before family members stepped in to nurse her back to health. She then summoned immense courage to report the incident to local police, eventually resulting in the four men being sentenced to death, with two accomplices.

Mai used the money she was awarded, as well as international donations, to open up a school for poor girls in her village. She also returned to the village, bravely deciding to step back into a very dangerous situation. However, it is events that have transpired since that court decision which throw the spotlight onto a truly worrying situation for Pakistani women.

Responding to invitations from a number of NGOs to speak in the United States, Mai obtained a visa to travel and accepted the offers. Upon hearing this, the Pakistani government (fearful that she would be critical) unlawfully detained her, reprimanded her, and placed her under house arrest. It also added her to the ECL (Exit Control List), meaning that she was barred from leaving Pakistan for any reason. After the resultant outcry, she has since been taken off the list and allowed to travel to America with government ‘minders’, as long as she surrenders her passport. Even more disturbing than the government treatment of a woman who has been tirelessly working to address the systemic problems of education and violence against women, has been the fate of her original attackers.

Whilst she was detained, a court in Lahore overturned the conviction for her rapists. It immediately released them, berating the previous court for its ruling and ordering Mai to return the damages money. This was done under Pakistan’s draconian rape law, which requires a woman to produce four male witnesses to the event or risk being charged with adultery. Although 300 witnesses from the village were present, none would be willing to step forward because of the danger of retribution from the perpetrators’ tribe.

This highlights two major problems. Firstly, the current state of the judicial system in Pakistan and secondly, the willingness of the government to accept the ingrained and brutal treatment of women in parts of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s judicial system is certainly the weakest arm of its executive/legislative/judiciary triumvirate. Kept pliant by every dictatorship in order to legitimise the latest coup, it has developed into a corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy that badly needs reform. Apart from government-appointed judges acting as political tools of the incumbents, a number of courts have also been established to circumvent the basic procedural standards of the mainstream arbitration system. The Anti-Terrorism Court, where Mai’s attackers were tried, is one such court.

One might ask why the government would exercise its influence to release the perpetrators of such a crime, especially as it was the Pakistani Prime Minister who originally took up Mai’s case and pursued its resolution. The answer belies another problem with the power structure in Pakistan, which is the alliances that the government forges to stay in power. Whilst having no particular ideological interest in traditionalism or religious orthodoxy, President Musharraf has allied with the radical Islamist movement, who make common cause with traditionalist elements behind the oppressive practices. This was shown recently, when the government reversed its original stance of supporting women’s sporting activity. The policy change was brought about when a large group of Islamists attacked one of the government-supported mixed marathons and were promptly let off for the harm they inflicted.

At the next marathon, government forces joined in the beatings and briefly arrested the moderates and international human rights activists who were taking part. This unholy alliance between secularist dictatorship and radical religious backers is borne out of a mutual fear of democracy. The author of the previously linked article suggests that the vast majority of Pakistanis vote for religious moderation when they are given the chance.

President Musharraf has just visited Australia, signing a memorandum of understanding with the Howard government. There is certainly an opinion in this country and the west more generally that Pakistan’s strategic importance trumps any deficiencies in human rights and democracy. Perhaps the United States, Australia and other western countries could use slightly more of the stick and less of the carrot when it comes to protecting women and encouraging a return to democratic self-determination for all Pakistanis.

Surely a free and democratic Pakistan, reformed with the support of the West, would look more favourably on our cause than the violently self-liberated Pakistan which will eventually shrug off its incumbent Western-allied dictator. When it comes to democracy, pragmatism can only go so far.

Other Related Articles
Mukhtar Mai’s Website
Raped, Kidnapped and Silenced by Nicholas D. Kristof (New York Times)
The Rape Victim Who Fought Back by Chiade O’Shea (BBC)
Musharraf on the Defensive (The Australian)

A Latter-Day Lord ‘Haw Haw’

2005-06-14T17:57:00.000+09:30

‘Heil Haw Haw’ (Galloway)

I thought that my opinion of George Galloway could not sink any lower. The new British MP for Bethnal Green & Bow constitutes the most virulent and unreasoned voice of anti-war sentiment in Britain. He recently gained international notoriety when fronting a US Senate Committee, accused of channelling funds from 20 million oil barrels that were illegally exported by the Hussein regime. Although original documents published by Britain’s Telegraph on the issue were proven to be forgeries, Galloway has not yet disproved the testimony of former Iraqi officials.

The even stronger indictment, which he remains coy about, involves the dealings of his Jordanian oil-trading friend who allegedly subverted the UN sanctions on Iraq and donated large sums of money to one of Galloway’s political campaigns. Galloway met with Saddam twice, with the most recent heart-warming display of support in 2002. After being expelled from the Labour Party for a litany of disturbing comments on the war , he stood as a candidate for the hastily-assembled ‘Respect’ Party in an inner-London seat. This involved running a particularly dirty campaign against his Labour opponent Oona King, which drew on racial tensions and slander.

However, I have given Mr Galloway the new title of ‘Lord Haw Haw the Second’ only after his recent efforts on Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV. For those not familiar with his namesake: Lord Haw Haw (or William Joyce) was a British/Irish/American fascist who ended up in Germany during WWII. He broadcast Nazi propaganda pieces back to England and was hung by the British at war’s end. It seems that some are hung for treason, and some become MPs.

Although the comparison is extreme, I’ll justify it by including some of what Galloway said in the interviews. Note the content, phraseology, rhythm and terminology he uses, and then compare it to some Al Qaida and Zarqawi statements. His rhetorical adoptions can be traced straight back to the line that such groups are pushing. By continuing to highjack the anti-war and human rights movement, Lord Haw Haw II remains one of the greatest obstacles in the West to constructive dialogue on Middle Eastern development.

(Galloway quotes taken from MEMRI report where you can watch the videos, all other quotes hot-linked. All quotes with my emphases added.)

-------------------------------------------------------------

Here Galloway rails against the entire system that underpins the world economy. This is a familiar line with Wahhabists like bin Laden, who see the destruction of modern society as a precondition to establishing a new Caliphate.

Galloway
Bush, and Blair, and the prime minister of Japan, and Berlusconi, these people are criminals, and they are responsible for mass murder in the world, for the war, and for the occupation, through their support for Israel, and through their support for a globalized capitalist economic system, which is the biggest killer the world has ever known. It has killed far more people than Adolph Hitler. It has killed far more people than George Bush.

Bin Laden
They only fight for capitalists, usury takers, and the merchants of arms and oil, including the gang of crime at the White House.

-------------------------------------------------------------

This is an interesting rhetorical piece, in which Galloway adopts the hyperbolised numbers of one million casualties that bin Laden attributes to the US in Iraq (it includes all of the children starved by Saddam when he refused to use oil-for-food proceeds for his people, instead continuing military and personal spending). He also adopts the rather prosaic and hyperbolised language of destruction that bin Laden uses to describe American actions. Note the use of the word ‘crusader’ by bin Laden. This will reappear later.

Finally, he adopts the quasi-religious language of hellfire, echoing bin Laden on the characterisation of the West as Satan’s allies.

Galloway
The people who invaded and destroyed Iraq and have murdered more than a million Iraqi people by sanctions and war will burn in Hell in the hell-fires, and their name in history will be branded as killers and war criminals for all time. Fallujah is a Guernica, Falluaja is a Stalingrad, and Iraq is in flames as a result of the actions of these criminals. Not the resistance, not anybody else but these criminals who invaded and fell like wolves upon the people of Iraq. And by the way, those Arab regimes which helped them to do it will burn in the same hell-fires.

Bin Laden
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

Bin Laden
God Almighty says: "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil."
So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan

-------------------------------------------------------------

Here Galloway turns the charge of terrorism and criminality back onto the West, as does bin Laden below.

Galloway
I am speaking for tens of millions, and maybe more, around the world, who know the truth about Iraq. Who know that the real criminals are in Washington. Not in the United Nations. The real criminals are in the White House, not in the Elysee Palace. The real criminals are in the Congress, not in the anti-war movement. So I have no respect for this...

Bin Laden
Having said this, we would like to inform you that labelling us and our acts as terrorism is also a description of you and of your acts. Reaction comes at the same level as the original action. Our acts are reaction to your own acts, which are represented by the destruction and killing of our kinfolk in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

-------------------------------------------------------------

In this example, Galloway acknowledges the propaganda war that has to be fought in order to convince the West of a different ‘narrative’ for the Middle East. He characterises the Western population as unintelligent pawns of an overlord government. Underneath, bin Laden uses almost exactly the same device.

Galloway
This is one of the reasons why we need Al-Jazeera in English, so that we can reach the people who, if you can reach them, you can win their hearts. They are not bad people. The American people are not bad or evil people. But they are ruled by bad people.

Bin Laden
Third, we realized from our defence and fighting against the American enemy that, in combat, they mainly depend on psychological warfare.

This is in light of the huge media machine they have…

Those soldiers are completely convinced of the injustice and lying of their government.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an expression of admiration and support for the modus operandi of the Pan-Arabist dictator, Gamal Abd El Nasser. Whilst Nasser can certainly claim a place as one of the primary secularising nationalists within the Muslim world, his brand of domestically repressive and outwardly aggressive nationalism towards the West certainly differs from that of Ataturk in Turkey. Well, at least Ataturk’s stance towards all citizens who weren’t Armenian or Pontian Greek. Galloway’s business associate Saddam also appears to take inspiration from Nasser.

Galloway
I can't mention, I'm sorry to say, any Arab leader... Where is the Nasser? Where is the Arab leader who will stand up and tell these people the truth? This is what we are waiting for.

GlobalSecurty.org Profile of Saddam
Hussein was exiled to Egypt, where he became enamored of President Gamal abd-al-Nasser, who espoused Arab nationalism.

The Baltimore Sun on Saddam
Like Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1960s, who helped inspire him, Hussein offered bombast and self-adulation, and then violence, as solutions to every problem. The price of the region's adulation and fear of him was a decade or more of lost opportunities for change.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the coming elections, Galloway immediately dismisses them as illegitimate by making some astonishingly false claims about the way they are conducted. He ignores the fact that the elections are managed by an Independent Iraqi Electoral Commission, run by Iraqis, and devoid of any foreign military presence on the ballot boxes. He also dismisses any independent Iraqi political discourse taking place. Bin Laden shares his opinion on both assertions.

But perhaps the most interesting part of this segment is his use of the word ‘Crusader’ to describe the Western forces in the Middle East. This borrows from a concept that is unique to the radical Wahhabist groups. They believe that the current Western military involvement in the region is the latest reincarnation of a centuries-old battle between Christianity and Islam, beginning with the Crusades. As the theory goes, it is their duty to launch a religious war against Christianity to defeat the aggressors. Lord Haw Haw II is signing up for some genocidal treatment of a group that would presumably include himself.

Galloway
There are elections and elections, there are many Arab presidents who are elected with 99.9, 94.7, 87.4 percent of the vote in elections but nobody believes these elections. They're not real elections and the election that's going to be held in Iraq in January, if it is held at all - and there is a big question mark over that – will not be a real election. How can you have a real election with hundreds of thousands of Crusader soldiers occupying the country, drawing up the electoral law, deciding who is allowed to take part in the elections, and utterly dominating the political life of the country?

Bin Laden
In the balance of Islam, this constitution is infidel and therefore everyone who participates in this election will be considered an infidel.
Beware of henchmen who speak in the name of Islamic parties and groups who urge people to participate [in the election].

Bin Laden
This war is fundamentally religious. The people of the East are Muslims. They sympathized with Muslims against the people of the West, who are the crusaders.

Zarqawi
[Zarqawi] accused Muslim scholars of leaving militants "to face the most powerful force on earth" and surrendering land to "Jews and crusaders and their tails - the infidel rulers".

-------------------------------------------------------------

One of my personal favourites, where Galloway goes on to tell an Egyptian commentator that his analysis is completely flawed because he dares to suggest that Iraq is developing sovereignty. It contains more hyperbole about continued US destruction of Iraq, including ‘whole cities’. Note the killing of women and children comment by bin Laden, similar to another segment of the Galloway interview from the MEMRI site.

Also, Galloway expresses support for the Iraqi ‘resistance’ (groups like Zarqawi’s Al Qaida in Iraq, ex-Ba’athist Saddam loyalists and foreign Jihadi fighters). He swallows hook line and sinker the Wahhabist self-characterisation as ‘resistance fighters’, although they are now mainly killing Iraqis who participated in a democratic election to select their own leadership.

Galloway
Your guest from Egypt, ludicrously, made a false dichotomy between sovereignty and the presence of having troops in the country. He said there were many Arab countries with foreign troops. Yes, it's true, there are Arab countries with a few thousand troops in barracks somewhere in a base somewhere, and usually they have quite a bit of interference. But the idea you can have a sovereign Iraq with hundreds of thousands of British and American soldiers occupying every part of it and regularly destroying cities... because it didn't finish with Falluja, did it? As soon as they destroyed Falluja they moved to Ramadhi, they to moved Mosul, they were moved anywhere where the Iraqi people are resisting.

There is no doubt that somebody asked Egypt to hold this conference, and this conference does not involve the Iraqi resistance. It involves only the puppet regime imposed by the United States and British governments.

Palestinian Authority Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri
Iraq and Baghdad are being subjected to a savage attack by the most arrogant, cruelest, and strongest country in the world today – the U.S. They acted like the Mongols – they burned everything they came across, destroyed sown fields, destroyed houses with people inside them, murdered children and men, and opened deadly fire on citizens…

Statement for Jihad against the US, signed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hesbollah and others
…oppose the occupation and its barbaric crimes in Iraq and in Palestine through offering every type of, material, and moral support, to the honorable resistance and its prisoners … and their families.

Another Article about the Senate Hearing
Galloway Attacks Senate for ‘Mother of All Smokescreens’ by Philippe Naughton (The Times)

Bolivia: a Fork in the Road

2005-06-12T01:03:00.000+09:30

Morales: demagogue or visionary?

I think I’m probably not alone as I scramble to acquaint myself with the historical underpinnings of the dramatic events in Bolivia. Whilst not usually covered by the local media, Bolivia is at the forefront of the globalisation battle along with its other South American neighbours. It represents all of the conflicts associated with free trade and free markets, in a magnified environment.

The resignation of President Mesa was sparked by an issue that goes to the heart of all the country’s tensions, involving the nationalisation of its natural gas reserves. The dividing line is drawn along ethnic, cultural and geographic lines. Bolivia's indigenous population in the northern highlands are angry that government proceeds never go towards developing their impoverished communities on one side. Meanwhile, the largely urbanised business communities in the south-eastern lowlands (where the gas is), of European descent, see the resources as theirs exclusively and are beginning to talk of secession.

Indigenous groups, forming the base of the union movement, are arguing an economic nationalist and protectionist line. They claiming that the government needs to nationalise the industry in order to fairly distribute the wealth that it generates to all Bolivians. The pro-free market mestizos (south-easterners of European descent) are arguing that their history of implementing tough economic reforms which the IMF and World Bank prescribe is the best way to producing a healthy economy.

This is not a sedate and theoretical debate. One of the legacies of Bolivia’s communist period has been its very strong and well-organised workers’ movements, with cultures of violent and disruptive protest to achieve their goals. In recent times, union relevance has declined due to this antiquated approach. Membership numbers have also started to fall because of an inability to attract workers from new industries, a condition that Australian Worker’s Union (AWU) National Secretary Bill Shorten has also acknowledged in Australia. Nonetheless, the unions remain powerful and have played a large role in precipitating President Mesa’s resignation.

As the ICG report states, there is no mechanism for dispute resolution between the union movement and the government. Perhaps the country could do with a body such as the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, which the Australian government is currently stripping of all its meaningful powers .

But the problems are much more deep-rooted than this. Whilst exponents of the free market continue to advocate its values to Bolivians, they fail to create the flow-on effect of profits by filtering them into welfare, education and health for the highlanders. Indeed, some of the practices of the previous ‘pro-globalisation’ governments could hardly be described as ‘free market’ at all. Take for instance the ‘Water War’ of 2000 in Cochabamba. Riots were sparked by the awarding of a water contract to a sole bidder, which then used its monopoly to dramatically raise the city’s water prices. Such practices are not likely to create popular trust in privatisation.

I would therefore argue that nationalising the industries, privatising them or pursuing the Mesa government’s middle ground of increasing taxes on foreign companies, will not address the primary causes of Bolivia’s unrest. It is what the government does with its revenues that will change popular opinions, not the revenues themselves. Solid programs need to be implemented in the regions that need them most, and the government must become more accountable. Perhaps some of the other measures that indigenous people are calling for would go towards this aim. The introduction of a new constitution and constituent assembly, as well as the internal democratisation of parties (an ICG suggestion) would increase the participation of disaffected groups in the distribution of capital.

Indeed, continued responsible globalisation could definitely benefit the country. As mining revenues and traditional primary exports begin to slow down, the government could invest in diversification of industry and skills training, in order to give the country a competitive edge. For this to happen though, the culture of careerism and self-interested elitism within most of Bolivia’s dominant parties will have to change.

There is light at the end of the tunnel. Even as the groups that have fostered anarchy and anti-market sentiment appear to be dictating the pace of Bolivian politics, their leadership has shown signs of pragmatism. Evo Morales, the head of the country’s only growing political party (the MAS), is playing a very savvy hand. On the one hand, he has organised and publicly fanned the protests and been instrumental in the President’s resignation. On the other, his parliamentary party has quietly been working with President Mesa and has allowed him to pursue his aims over the past months. Morales and his party are still trusted by the people and perhaps he could be the only figure to continue opening the economy whilst keeping the people happy and meeting their needs.

Morales also has a darker side. As the head lobbyist for the organisation of coca farmers, he represents an industry with an at least partial group of illegal narcotics suppliers. There is admittedly a large and legitimate indigenous demand for coca, but Morales’ blanket opposition to the US war against drugs is worrying. He will also need to moderate some of his previous ambiguous statements about violent revolution and his anti-globalisation rhetoric.

Negative comments by the US ambassador to Bolivia about Morales saw his vote jump an extra 5% to achieve second place in the last election. Anti-Americanism no doubt resonates with the electorate, but he will also need to deal with the US upon any eventual election to office.

Another challenge will be to face down the more radical socialist groups who currently help to drive the opposition, and rise above the racial identity politics that both sides of the Bolivian economic divide have been playing on. Whether he has the will to do this is uncertain, but if he wants to succeed as a future President, he will need to move further into the mainstream. Morales and his country face a crossroads with no easy answers about which path to take.

Related Articles
International Crisis Group Report on Bolivia, 2004
Bolivian Protesters Claim New Scalp (The Australian)
Bolivia’s Chief Justice Sworn in as President by Hal Weitzman (Financial Times)
A Glance at Bolivia's Political Crisis (The Guardian)
Five Contentious Issues in Divided Bolivia (Reuters)
Dispatch from Bolivia: Will the Leftist Group that Formed to Fight U.S. Anti-Drug Efforts Bring Down the Government? by Ryan Grim (Slate)

Profile of Evo Morales (BBC)
An Interview with Evo Morales: Legalizing the Colonization of the Americas by Benjamin Dangl (Counterpunch Magazine)
Dispatches from Bolivia: Coca is not Cocaine (Interview with Evo Morales) by Jessica Holzer (Slate)

Iranian Democracy Scores a Goal

2005-06-11T01:26:00.000+09:30

Iranian women: unbridled courage

The latest political dramas in Iran are being played out around the football field. In one of the only forums where Iranians can freely gather in large numbers, all of the country's recent World Cup qualifiers have sparked unprecedented demonstrations against the theocratic regime. Outbursts start within the game, after pro-democracy slogans are chanted, and soon spill onto the streets. From the reports of Iranian students, crackdowns on the demonstrators have been fairly severe.

The reaction of security forces continued in its brutality after protests which followed yesterday’s 1-0 victory over Bahrain . The game was also notable for an inspiring reason: a group of 100 women bravely forced their way into the stadium to watch the game, an act which remains strictly illegal in Iran. Afterwards, women also reportedly removed their headscarves during the celebrations. Both of these acts usually attract severe punishment and their courage is incredible.

Interested readers should regularly visit the Student Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran as they have firsthand accounts of the increasing civil unrest.

Iraqi Women: The Debate Continues

2005-06-09T18:25:00.000+09:30

Better off under Saddam?

As a follow-up to my item on the positive developments for women’s freedom in Iraq, I thought that readers may be interested to see the controversy it caused in some circles. Back in March, soon after I published it, I became engrossed in a debate on Iraq which turned into an argument over whether ‘women weren't that badly off under Saddam Hussein’.

This was asserted by a member of the extreme left of the Australian Labor Party, a Party to which I belong. I’ve linked it here (I post under the nom-de-guerre of ‘IraqiFreedom03’) because I think it illustrates a number of my concerns about the nature of the Iraq debate amongst her fellow travelers.

I believe that they are sidelining themselves on a debate about the reconstruction and humanitarian assistance that Iraq now needs. This is a topic that the Labor Party is far better placed to provide leadership on than the Australian government, as Coalition plans after the war’s end have lacked clarity and vision.

Rather than engaging in this debate, extreme leftists have been attempting to retain a blanket negative position on anything to do with Iraq. In order to push this dogmatic line, they ignore the positive developments and in some cases (such as this one) even rewrite history and trample on their own ideology in order to defend the previous dictator.

Whilst all of this may be rhetorically logical for them, it prevents any kind of engagement on what we can do to assist in bringing about true Iraqi sovereignty through nation-building and partnership programs. After all, if the entire situation is morally baseless and entirely doomed, what more is there to say or contribute? Anyway, read through my arguments and hers and then see what you think.

----------------------

In other Iraq-related developments, the International Crisis Group has produced a paper which argues that the date for final drafting of the new Constitution should be put back to February 2006. It is a very interesting paper, weighing up the pros and cons of pushing back the timetable with reference to the insurgency, as well as critically examining the drafting process and content. The conclusions and suggestions are also worthy of consideration. It can be found here.

China Joins Coalition of the Unwilling on Internet Freedoms

2005-06-06T20:51:00.000+09:30

State-sanctioned communication

Readers may recall an item I wrote on the Iranian theocracy’s blogging crackdowns. It now seems that China has joined such illustrious company with its most recent assault on free communication. A massive campaign of ‘registration’ has begun, in which the government has threatened to close down any sites that refuse to submit to its regulation.

Today’s Australian states that at least 61 people are already in jail for ‘illegal’ posting. This number is likely to rise as only 430,000 of an estimated 4 million bloggers heeded the call to register (see full article here).

If life is so tough for citizens who dare to blog impudently, one can only imagine the response that Chen Yonglin will receive if he is deported to the home country. Mr Yonglin is an ex-Chinese Consulate official in Australia who has recently sought to defect. He has publicly alleged that there is a 1000-strong Chinese spy network in Australia, conducting an ongoing program of covert kidnappings (full story here).

I shall leave you with the words of a Chinese friend of mine, who has characterized contemporary China as:

a country where innocuous words written online [are] censored, for the mere reason of being ‘sensitive’, where bureaus of public security would possess mobile phone numbers of college students, and warn them against public gatherings by SMS
…
a proletarian country, indeed. A better term would be a plebian country, with its bread and circuses.

Related Articles
Iran Jams TV Channels by Siavosh Ghazi (The Australian)
Back to the Wall by Cameron Stewart (The Australian)
History Shows Defector has Reason to Fear the Worst by Tom Allard(Sydney Morning Herald)
Editorial: No Case for Expelling Chen (The Australian)
Renegade Diplomat 'Wont be Punished' by Simon Kearney and John Kerin (The Australian)
Second Defector Backs Spy Claims by Brendan Nicholson and Michelle Grattan (The Age)

Sudan: Another Genocide?

2005-06-06T18:05:00.000+09:30

Results of the Darfur Genocide

I’ve recently completed a research paper on whether the ongoing events in Sudan amount to a genocide. Although the United Nations begs to differ, I would contend that it is.

In this case, the debate all revolves around the question of whether Art. II c) of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is invoked. The section classes as genocide:

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

The UN report claims that no such intent is evidenced by the mass expulsions and killings because some civilians were not exterminated on the spot, but allowed to flee. This, they claim, is evidence that the militias involved were only seeking to eliminate rebel forces in the area.

I will now paste a few paragraphs of my paper, in which I seek to identify the deliberate matrix of policy that would suggest otherwise. It indicates a clear intent to cause the destruction of the sedentary farming tribes who are largely African, by the nomadic Janjaweed tribes who are largely Arab. I will also include the sections in which I draw direct links between the government of Sudan and the militias, establishing a solid chain of command right to the top…

----------

Ideologically, the basis for events in Darfur is a murky one. In the case of the government, there are historical genocidal motives for the current leadership. The leader of the coup that brought the current regime to power was Hassan Turabi. His Islamist political opinions are shared by two disciples, Omar Bashir and Ali Taha, even though they have since overthrown him in a coup. These opinions include the spread of Islamic government to secular states and the Arabization of Africa. A program was even begun in Southern Sudan to convert the Christian and animist populace.

In the Darfur region, identity politics have also been increasingly encouraged by the government for over two decades, with its undermining of traditional tribal dispute resolution methods and arming of Arabic tribes. This withdrawal of such dispute resolution and arming of one ethnic group saw conflicts enlarged and defined increasingly around ethnicity by the late 1980s. The question posed to genocide scholars is whether this deliberate ethnic wedge was driven out of an ideological government decision to ‘Arabize’ its territory, or whether it was completely subject to dominant socio-political drivers for which ethnic identity politics was a small tool.

A number of socio-political triggers for the Darfur crisis can be drawn from the previous decades of the region’s history. They stem from a large upheaval in the social fabric of the area, caused by the desertification of northern Darfur. It forced a number of the nomadic and mostly Arab tribes to move south in the search of more adequate grazing lands, in turn bringing them into direct competition with the sedentary and largely African farming tribes. The resultant conflicts have been exacerbated by the aforementioned changes to traditional mediation bodies. These changes and the government preference for Arab tribes has also led local African tribes to feel increasingly marginalized from the central government in Khartoum. The most recent escalation was in fact sparked by two African rebel groups who successfully attacked government positions in 2003.

Combined with the government’s fear of facing further fragmentation after the conflict in southern Sudan, the above facts could suggest that it is mainly concerned with annihilating opposition in order to re-establish control and not with committing genocide. Arab tribes in the region would be the natural ally of the central government, and it would therefore seem sensible that it would manipulate them towards such an enterprise. This line of thinking can be drawn to the conclusion which the government appears to have taken, that permanent displacement of rebellious tribes would be the most expeditious way of ending the insurgency.

However, the fact that racial ideology does not play the central role that it did in Nazi Germany does not, as the UN contends, exempt the situation from the label of genocide. Just as in Turkey during WWI, a shaky central government is eliminating an ethnic sub-group in a time of trouble, with at least one of the goals being the consolidation of control. Ethnic tensions are used as a tool to this end. As will be seen below, the physical requisites of genocide are present, and the mens rea or ‘intent’ elements are not expunged merely because the actions are not trumpeted as part of a wider nationalism and victim groups constitute an actual threat.

Apart from the political indicators of genocide, many of the actions on the ground also bear its hallmarks. Destruction of villages has been the main impetus behind Darfur’s refugee crisis, with very low-tech but effective methods employed. Militiamen descend upon the village, utilizing small arms, trucks, and traditional horse and camel transport. The process of burning and killing usually lasts around an hour. It is highly localized and sporadic, reminiscent of the tactics used by Hutu militias in Rwanda. In addition, government helicopters and warplanes are regularly used in conjunction with the militias, a fact the government still denies. It has even been alleged that the government switches off mobile phone networks before an impending attack, so that the villagers cannot warn each other. The UN contends in its report to the Secretary General that such clearance actions were not genocidal because in some cases, only men capable of resistance were killed and the rest were usually exiled. However, this combined with the other activities shows a deliberate intention to create conditions that bring about the destruction of the sedentary tribes.

The deliberate targeting of vital infrastructure suggests that the government and Janjaweed forces are attempting to make any rejuvenation of the cleared areas impossible. The destruction of crops and waterholes precludes traditional farming methods, whilst a number of the Janjaweed have brought their own animals to graze on the abandoned land. Another crime, the scale of which is only just becoming apparent, is widespread rape. Not only have women and girls been raped when fleeing their villages, but they are continuing to be raped outside the refugee camps where they seek shelter. There is also circumstantial evidence to suggest that attackers use racial slurs when committing some rapes, and declare that they want to ‘make more Arab babies’.

Whether this constitutes a deliberate and widespread program for the specific purpose of genocide remains to be seen, although recent government arrests of aid workers who report rapes suggest that it is a touchy issue. Regardless, the results are certainly comparable with the rape camps in Yugoslavia during the Balkan Wars. The outcomes are exacerbated in Sudan due to the cultural stigma still attached to rape, and acceptance of the raped women’s offspring is not definite within their tribes.

The black Africans who flee to refugee camps are still unsafe. Evidence shows that the government is forcibly attempting to return displaced persons to their villages , even though the villages may not exist and armed Janjaweed continue to roam the surrounding country. It may be seen as further evidence of government complicity in genocide, or at the very least an attempt to hide the vulnerable group from the eyes of international aid organisations and the media. It may also be an attempt to deny them vital aid as starvation, disease and lack of traditional subsistence farming has killed around 250-390,000 people already. This figure is growing by 10,000 per month and is in addition to the approximate 140,000 people who have died violently. The Armenian experience shows that a genocide can kill vast number of victims through such non-direct methods as starvation and disease.

As with all genocides, the upper echelons seek to distance themselves from the campaign of murder. Whilst the auxiliary roles of government in the killing have been widely acknowledged in the international community, direct planning, arming and direction of the Janjaweed militias is yet to gain full recognition at a state level. However, there is already clear evidence to suggest that it is taking place. A high-level Janjaweed commander stated in March that Sudan’s central government not only directly commanded the militia but armed, paid and issued ID cards to them as well. Other local commanders have confirmed that it is the government who has been asking them to fight. This implicates Sudan’s military and political leadership at the least, along with what exists of its public service with regards to ID cards and payment.

----------

So, if we accept that events in Darfur do constitute a genocide, what implications does this have? As one commentator has suggested, the debate over whether an event counts as genocide can be an artificial one. Whether international law deems it as such or not, there still needs to be an immediate and larger scale intervention than the small African Union force currently on the ground.

Whilst the AU is to be commended for its first ever peacekeeping mission, there is much more that the international community can do. Australia should reiterate its offer to provide Orion aircraft to the peacekeeping force as logistical support, to back up the current EU offers. Countries like China and Russia also need to put their oil and arms sales interests aside in the face of a much greater priority, the threat of massive carnage.

As the US has tentatively started to do, a more solid tie should be made between success with the peace process in Southern Sudan, and that of Darfur. The Sudanese government cannot profit from conciliatory measures in the south whilst increasing its activity in the other theatre.

Unless the infrastructure of genocide (the militias) is removed, sedentary African tribes cannot move back into their traditional areas and begin to resurrect their agricultural livelihood. In fact, this may already be too late.

Practicalities currently outweigh further political settlements. The priority of the international community is to firstly end the killing, and secondly attempt to salvage what is left of the Fur and Massalit (African farming) tribes’ ways of life. Political processes may follow after this.

NGO Reports
Abuses in Darfur by Government Forces, Human Rights Watch Report, April 2004
Darfur: Arrest War Criminals, Not Aid Workers, Human Rights Watch Report, 31 May 2005
Darfur Rising: Sudan’s New Crisis, International Crisis Group Report No. 76, 25 March 2004 (particularly good)
Darfur: The Failure to Protect, International Crisis Group Report No.89, 8 March 2005 (also very good)
Parliamentary Library Research Brief of 6 December 2004, no.8, 2004-2005 (excellent source)
Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, Geneva, 25 January 2005 (UN Report denying that Darfur is a Genocide)

Articles
(Coming Soon)

Armed Groups Challenge Abbas as Election Looms

2005-04-25T15:11:00.000+09:30

In the Palestinian Authority, Legislative Council elections are fast approaching and international pressure is growing on President Mahmoud Abbas to perform on a host of requirements. Amidst this backdrop, armed groups continue to undermine the authority of PA security forces and state structures.

Evidence suggests that Abbas has been engaging in continuous negotiation with the different groups, in order to convince them to lay down their arms. To date, results appear to be mixed at best. A number of armed militia members have accepted jobs with the PA forces, allowing them to keep their weapons but confining them to act within PA guidelines. Whether this strategy is merely a short-term solution to pay off militia members in exchange for a period of inactivity , or part of a more permanent solution to bring all armed force under the imprimatur of the PA, remains to be seen.

The one consistent theme coming out of negotiations for weapons handover is the militia members’ complete refusal to submit their arms under any circumstances. Indeed, some factions have even refused to respect the general ceasefire agreed to by Abbas, and continue to launch regular attacks against Israeli forces. The most important question raised by these developments is whether Abbas can do any more than he is currently doing to ensure that the PA is the only armed group within Palestinian society. If not, does he lack the power, equipment and political currency to challenge these non-state actors and what can the international community do to assist him? If he can do more already, why is he not?

In addition to a multiplicity of armed groups within the PA, there also appears to be a number of judicial and extra-judicial enforcers. Most recently, reports have come in of a ‘moral police’ force similar to those in Iran and Saudi Arabia, operated by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The ‘police squad’ has already committed one brutal public murder , passing judgement on a woman whom they believed to be indecently walking with her boyfriend (actually her fiancée). The resultant public outrage and calls to track down the criminals have raised serious questions about the effectiveness of the PA in any aspect of Palestinian governance, and continue to erode the confidence of Palestinians in their own leadership.

Abbas definitely faces a hard task, caught between not only Israel’s security demands on the one side and extremist opponents like Hamas on the other, but also between the ‘Young Turk’ reformers in his own Fatah movement and the Arafatite hardliners such as Ahmed Qurei. Nevertheless, he has dismissed few of the incumbent corrupt bureaucrats from the executive and public service. Important reforms to the media and new moves to forcibly retire thousands of old guard commanders from the security services show that he is a man with the will to bring about change. Time will show whether he is also a man with the ability to do so across all necessary areas.

Other relevant articles:
Out of Pocket by Graham Usher (Al-Ahram)
Honeymoon Over for Abbas by Khaled Abu Toameh (Jerusalem Post)
Palestinian President Out of Sight by Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson (The Kansas City Star)
Militants Shut Down Palestinian Building by Mohammed Ballas (Associated Press)
Abbas Begins to Unify PA Forces by Khaled Abu Toameh (Jerusalem Post)
‘You Can’t Get Rid of Us’ by Danny Rubinstein (Ha’Aretz)

Iran: The Land where Blogging is a Crime

2005-03-29T00:09:00.000+09:30

More disturbing news from Iran is filtering through, concerning the trial of a popular blogger last month. Human Rights Watch reports that Arash Cigarci, the subject of the persecution, has been sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for "espionage, aiding and abetting hostile governments and opposition groups, endangering national security and insulting Iran’s leaders" amongst other accusations. It certainly makes me value my free and unadulterated blogging rights in Australia.

His arrest appears to be part of a concerted and reinvigorated campaign to crack down on all forms of dissident media, and other bloggers have already paid the price for this. The repression, particularly in regards to bloggers, is a poignant metaphor for the underlying political tensions in Iran. An overwhelmingly young and increasingly assertive population is utilising modern technology to express themselves and recieve information from the outside world. This and the resultant trends towards democratic agitation are deeply troubling to the theocratic regime.

The story will definitely be worth keeping track of. For this and other democratic developments, pay the National Union for Democracy in Iran a visit.

The Free Voice of Iraqi Women

2005-03-28T20:36:00.000+09:30

A historic moment

One of the lesser-explored aspects of the new Iraqi political landscape is its ramifications for women. This week I was surprised to read the following US State Department brief (available in full here) on progress towards democracy since Saddam’s fall.

It was a particular shock to learn of the degradation in women's education levels and legalisation of honour killings under Saddam. I had always assumed that women fared better under a secular Ba’athist regime than some of Iraq’s theocratic neighbours.

However, it appears that the women of Iraq have many rights to reclaim and it is heartening to read this extract on exactly how they are going about it.

-------------

Iraq, Elections, and the Role of Women

PROTEST
In December 2003, the Iraqi Governing Council, with almost no debate, quietly passed Resolution 137, which would have transferred key provisions of personal and family law from civil authority to the traditional religious law, or Sharia. Iraqi women’s groups mobilised in public protests and private negotiations, calling for repeal of the resolution, which they regarded as a threat to women’s rights in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. They succeeded, and the resolution was subsequently repealed.

“This resolution was a blessing in disguise,” said Nesreen Berwari, minister of municipalities and public works, in March 2004. “Its passage motivated Iraqi women to organise and demonstrate, and successfully represent themselves.... The retraction brought Iraqi women together for a common cause. Cooperation and organisation crossed religious and ethnic lines — Shia, Sunni, Christian, Arab, Kurd, Assyrian, Turkoman.”

PROGRESS
The remarkable progress that Iraqi women have made in less than two years can be measured by recalling their circumstances under Saddam Hussein. “Iraqi women were once among the best educated and most professionally accomplished in the region,” said Charlotte Ponticelli, State Department coordinator for international women’s issues. “That is why it was shocking to hear from U.N. experts that, by the end of Saddam’s rule, more than two-thirds of all Iraqi women were actually illiterate, and each year at least 400 of them were murdered in so-called ‘honour killings’ he had legalised.”

As documented in human rights reports and direct testimony, thousands of women were subject to imprisonment, torture, rape, and execution by Saddam because either they or their family members spoke out against the regime or were suspected of disloyalty.

A cabinet member in the Iraqi Interim Government, Berwari is one of thousands of women who embody the progress that Iraqi women have made since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, while recognising the formidable challenges ahead, for women and all the people of Iraq.

“We are a country of educated, skilled, and hardworking people. We are a country of scientists, engineers, and technicians. Half are women,” says Berwari, whose ministry has broad responsibility for water, waste management, urban planning, municipal roads, and traffic controls.

Another government minister, Narmin Othman, who oversees women’s affairs, once spent time in Saddam Hussein’s prisons. Othman, who served as minister of social welfare in the Kurdish north, says: “Now women have a voice.... We have a voice and we have people in political decisions. They can decide what’s good and what’s bad for women.”

Minister Othman continued: “We cannot build democracy without women, and must be involved in every part of Iraq.” Since the ouster of the Hussein regime, she observed, more than 500 nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) have emerged in Iraq that work for women as well as in such fields as civil society education for democracy, violence against women, business, and health care.

Their advancement is already significant. Along with six cabinet members, women hold a quarter of the seats on the Iraqi National Council. Women are also serving side by side with men in the national police force and Iraqi military. Women hold seats on the Baghdad City Council; many more serve on district, local, and municipal councils throughout Iraq. Through the efforts of the United States and its coalition partners, more than 2,400 schools have been renovated and 30,000 teachers trained. One result: two million girls are now back in school.

TRANSITIONS
Despite the threat of insurgent violence, women’s organisations were active throughout Iraq in the election campaign to select the members of a Transitional National Assembly that will appoint a Presidential Council and draft a constitution for the new, democratic Iraq.

One of the first steps in opening up the political process in Iraq to women occurred in November 2003 when the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council agreed to adopt a fundamental law that would lead to a permanent constitution ensuring equal rights for all Iraqi citizens. The debate over Resolution 137 and its subsequent withdrawal took place a month later.

Finally, on March 8, 2004, the Iraqi Governing Council signed the historic Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), which guarantees the rights of all Iraqis, men and women, including freedom of speech, worship, and association. The TAL protects labour unions and political parties, bans discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, class, or religion.

Equally important, the TAL states that the electoral system should set a target of at least 25 percent women in the Transitional National Assembly that were selected in the January 30 elections.

The women of Iraq have found widespread support for claiming their rights and freedoms from nations and private organisations throughout the world, including the United States.

In a message to the Voices of Iraqi Women Conference in Baghdad, July 2003, President Bush said: “The women of Iraq’s courage and resolve are hopeful examples to all who seek to restore Iraq’s place among the world’s greatest civilisations. Their efforts inspire individuals throughout the Middle East who seek a future based on equality, respect, and rule of law.”

DEMOCRACY INITIATIVES
In 2004, the United States launched two major initiatives to support women’s participation in the building of Iraqi democracy and civil society. The Iraqi Women’s Democracy Initiative, a $10-million program first announced in March, is designed to help women in such areas as leadership and management training, entrepreneurship and management, support for nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and media training.

Each of the organisations receiving grants under the Democracy Initiative, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “will work with Iraqi partners on the ground to prepare women to compete in Iraq’s January 2005 elections and encourage women to vote.... These grants will directly help Iraqi women deepen their involvement in Iraq’s reconstruction, and mobilise women across the land to build a secure, prosperous, and democratic Iraq.”

The second initiative established a voluntary, public-private partnership, called the U.S.-Iraq Women’s Network (USIWN), to connect American and Iraqi women’s networks and to match private-sector resources with local needs, and to help administer the Women’s Democracy Initiative.

“The U.S.-Iraq Women’s Network is modelled after the pioneering work of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council,” then-Secretary Secretary Powell said. “Thanks to that council, women’s centres are being created in cities and rural areas throughout Afghanistan to provide job training and other economic opportunities.”

The grant recipients for Iraq have undertaken a wide range of programs inside and outside the country, according to Paula Dobriansky, under secretary of state for global affairs. The Johns Hopkins School of Strategic and International Studies, for example, is working with Iraqi NGOs to collect and translate national constitutions, international covenants, and other conventions on women’s rights into Arabic to serve as resource tools in an Iraqi women’s rights centre they will build.

The Kurdish Human Rights Watch organised women’s and other groups to help engage as many as 6,000 households in the election process.

Michelle Bernard, a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, said that the grant money is being used to recruit 150 Iraqi women to participate in a Woman Leaders Program and Democracy Information Centre. “We’d like to train women on the fundamentals of democracy, women’s political activism in a democracy ... basically to enable Iraqi women to help Iraq develop a democracy that best suits the needs of that country.”

These are not just women who might be interested in holding political office, Bernard says. “We’re just looking for people who want to participate at the community level, people who are interested in education, people who might want to be policy makers in the equivalent of a think tank here.”

The National Democratic Institute is working with political parties and civic organisations by helping establish a women’s political network and providing workshops to assist with such areas as public speaking and training in the legislative process.

For its part, the International Republican Institute (IRI) has assisted the Iraqi Foundation for Development and Democracy, headed by political figure and editor Ghassan Atiyyah. The foundation has conducted a number of seminars and conferences, including the convening in May 2004 of the Supreme Council of Iraqi Tribes, a gathering of 500 of the most influential sheikhs in Iraq. At the meeting, according to IRI, these tribal leaders pledged to uphold the principles of democracy and national unity, and to support the Interim Iraqi Government.

IRI has also conducted political party training for groups representing a range of views and interests in Iraq; among them: Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Da’wa Party, and other civic and political organisations.

In a nationwide public opinion survey conducted in November and early December 2004, IRI concluded that, despite the insurgency, 83 percent of Iraqis surveyed indicated that they planned to vote in the January elections, 66 percent expected life to be better one year later, and 60 percent expressed confidence that the Transitional National Assembly elected in January would represent their interests. Virtually half of those surveyed (49 percent) were women.

WOMEN’S PLACES
Iraqi women are also taking their rightful place in international activities and exchanges as well. Iraqi delegations, for example, attended the United Nations 48th Annual Commission on the Status of Women Conference, the Global Summit of Women in Seoul, and a number of conferences and consultations under the auspices of the U.S. Middle East Partnership Initiative.

Six women were among the 25 Iraqi Fulbright students and scholars when the program was renewed after being suspended for 14 years. “You are the future for an open, democratic, prosperous Iraq. The hopes of your countrymen and women are with you,” then Secretary Powell told them when they arrived in the U.S. in February 2004.

The establishment of women’s centres throughout Iraq is another source of their empowerment. The U.S. has supported the creation of nine women’s centres in Baghdad and 11 regional centres throughout Iraq. The centres offer computer, financial, and literacy classes, along with access to information on health care, legal services, and women’s rights.

As Minister Berwari observed on International Women’s Day, March 8, 2004: “I firmly believe that Iraq cannot advance itself — that advancement would be severely restricted — unless Iraqi women contribute substantially to reconstruction. Iraqi women are ready, willing, and very able to do their part.

FREEDOM
In his second inaugural address on January 20, 2005, President Bush said: “Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose its own style of government on the willing. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.”.

Syria’s Hidden World of State Subversion

2005-03-25T16:31:00.000+10:30

The recent withdrawal of Syria’s feared intelligence services, the Mukhabarat, from Lebanon is allowing the world to properly examine their impact on the country. In this week’s Australian, Rania Abouzaid writes about the numbers of Lebanese who are still missing as a result of Syrian government abduction.

It underlines the pervasive role that Syria has played in every aspect of Lebanese life. An effective democracy in Lebanon will require more than the withdrawal of 14,000 Syrian troops before it can flourish.

The 5,000 secret service officers who have also withdrawn belie a much deeper involvement in the structures of Lebanese society that will have to be re-examined. Not the least of these is the economic dependency that Syria has on Lebanon, which has played a large role in Syrian reticence towards disengagement.

Whilst economic and other ties are no doubt beneficial to the neighbours, some elements of the relationship must be expunged. For instance, mutual trade is obviously to be encouraged, whilst Syrian dominance of the Lebanese economy to gain advantage for corrupt investors is not. A free and democratic Lebanon could only be positive for the two nations. Perhaps the real element at play is how negative it will be for the Syrian Ba’athist regime.

Introductions

2005-03-23T00:50:00.000+10:30

Hello all, and welcome to my new blog.

Over the course of the next few weeks, I will begin posting links to topical websites and stories, as well as some offerings of my own.

Please stay tuned as things gradually get off the ground!