I was reading the NY Times today and I came across something interesting: the power of the Pope. Months ago, the international patriarch of the orthodox Christian church (based in Istanbul, Turkey) invited the Pope for a visit to Turkey. The Turkish government rebuffed this invitation under the guise that "only state heads can invite a state head for a state visit." Later, the Pope makes a speech in Germany about the inherently violent culture of Islam--or he quotes a medieval scholar.
What is the result of this speech? It empowered the conservatives and allowed them to say "I told you so; those westerners want to destroy Islam." Additionally, Islamic conservatism is growing in Turkey.
That is, the Pope with a minor line was able to cause intense controversy. Imagine what damage and destabilization he can cause with an entire speech.
The Pope is in Turkey today. I guess Turkey thought twice about blocking a visit from the Pope this time.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Sunday, August 27, 2006
On the internet
"On the Internet" by Dr. Dreyfus, makes an interesting claim in the first sentence of his introduction. "The internet is not just a new technological innovation; it is a new type of technological innovation." Professor Dreyfus seems to be insinuating that the internet is a paradigm shift in technological innovation. In the past technological innovations were geared toward specific task and sometimes had consequences into other parts of our lives. The internet, on the other hand, transcends or has come to transcend the idea of being a “tool” or “device” and has become an alternative reality.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Horn of Africa: History of Instability
Horn of Africa: a history of instability
The term “Horn of Africa” generally refers to Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and perhaps Sudan. I like to believe that all geographical societies have “great” history. Some societies, due to better record keeping, remaining ancient monuments, and political dominance, have been better at telling their story. The Horn of Africa is a place of immense historical importance for Africa, the Arab and Muslim world, and the Christian world. I could be a classical romantic and talk about the great and lost accomplishments and civilization of the ancient Horn of Africa. I think this would be good for intellectual curiosity but futile for general development theory: technologically, economically, and socially.
I would rather focus on the modern Horn of Africa: a history of instability. The historical instability in the Horn is more due to exogenous forces than domestic. Unfortunately, my knowledge in the particulars of the historical influence of the Arabs and Westerners (particularly, the French, English, and Italians) is very limited; as such, I would rather refrain from elaborating. Yet, their influence in the instability cannot be ignored.
The recent instability, after World War II, is one of the residual affects of colonization, and the growth of the modern nation-state as the means of grouping, among others. The affects of colonization gets the most attention from popular news and publication. The more interesting and usually unknown is the issue of the rise of the nation-state.
The nation-state (Eritrea or Germany, for example) is a modern social construction that started in Europe and spread around the world. The modern nation-state is also a result of the capitalist system; the state serves as a market for the exchange of goods and services. So as the European dynastic states colonized regions and peoples they also formed nations out of their new colonies. So in the Horn of Africa—and around the world—the people did not recognize themselves as Ethiopians, Eritreans, or Somalians but members of smaller groups: Tigrinya, Amharic, among others. The creation of the modern nation-state, imposed on them by powerful foreign forces, regrouped existing groups into a unit that was historically and socially not failure to them. Now, instead of being Tigrinyian people they were Eritreans, instead of being Afars they were Dijiboutians, instead of being Oromo they were Ethiopians, instead of being Tunnis they were Somalians, instead of being Atwots they were Sudanese.
As a result, the current peoples of the Horn are forced to accept the rules and demeanor of the modern nation-state. For example, the Ethiopian state feels it necessary to incorporate all Habesha persons and territory under a single flag to become a strong state, and Somalia wants to regroup all of their lost territory from Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Kenya to become a strong state, and Eritrean (the smallest state in the region but is able to contribute influence more than one would think it could or should) political leaders are willing to go to any length to remain a state, even at the cost of severe suffering.
Combine the influences of colonization and the rise of the nation-state we get the current mess in the Horn—I don’t want to undermine other possible causes, like religion. The people, never mind the states, need to recognize they need to cooperate and improve their lives.
Disclaimer: The writing above is not researched in the proper manner of higher education scholarship. Though, I’m confident that the general theme is accurate. Please conduct your own research. Additionally, if one finds any mistakes in what I wrote please make me aware.
The term “Horn of Africa” generally refers to Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and perhaps Sudan. I like to believe that all geographical societies have “great” history. Some societies, due to better record keeping, remaining ancient monuments, and political dominance, have been better at telling their story. The Horn of Africa is a place of immense historical importance for Africa, the Arab and Muslim world, and the Christian world. I could be a classical romantic and talk about the great and lost accomplishments and civilization of the ancient Horn of Africa. I think this would be good for intellectual curiosity but futile for general development theory: technologically, economically, and socially.
I would rather focus on the modern Horn of Africa: a history of instability. The historical instability in the Horn is more due to exogenous forces than domestic. Unfortunately, my knowledge in the particulars of the historical influence of the Arabs and Westerners (particularly, the French, English, and Italians) is very limited; as such, I would rather refrain from elaborating. Yet, their influence in the instability cannot be ignored.
The recent instability, after World War II, is one of the residual affects of colonization, and the growth of the modern nation-state as the means of grouping, among others. The affects of colonization gets the most attention from popular news and publication. The more interesting and usually unknown is the issue of the rise of the nation-state.
The nation-state (Eritrea or Germany, for example) is a modern social construction that started in Europe and spread around the world. The modern nation-state is also a result of the capitalist system; the state serves as a market for the exchange of goods and services. So as the European dynastic states colonized regions and peoples they also formed nations out of their new colonies. So in the Horn of Africa—and around the world—the people did not recognize themselves as Ethiopians, Eritreans, or Somalians but members of smaller groups: Tigrinya, Amharic, among others. The creation of the modern nation-state, imposed on them by powerful foreign forces, regrouped existing groups into a unit that was historically and socially not failure to them. Now, instead of being Tigrinyian people they were Eritreans, instead of being Afars they were Dijiboutians, instead of being Oromo they were Ethiopians, instead of being Tunnis they were Somalians, instead of being Atwots they were Sudanese.
As a result, the current peoples of the Horn are forced to accept the rules and demeanor of the modern nation-state. For example, the Ethiopian state feels it necessary to incorporate all Habesha persons and territory under a single flag to become a strong state, and Somalia wants to regroup all of their lost territory from Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Kenya to become a strong state, and Eritrean (the smallest state in the region but is able to contribute influence more than one would think it could or should) political leaders are willing to go to any length to remain a state, even at the cost of severe suffering.
Combine the influences of colonization and the rise of the nation-state we get the current mess in the Horn—I don’t want to undermine other possible causes, like religion. The people, never mind the states, need to recognize they need to cooperate and improve their lives.
Disclaimer: The writing above is not researched in the proper manner of higher education scholarship. Though, I’m confident that the general theme is accurate. Please conduct your own research. Additionally, if one finds any mistakes in what I wrote please make me aware.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Berkeley Political Review
The New Missile Crisis
On July 4, 2006 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, known as North Korea, threatened the tenuous stability in East Asia, making it arguably one of the most dangerous regions in the world. North Korea fired six short range missiles into the Sea of Japan and a long range missile, which, if perfected, has the capability of reaching the United States, but that faltered seconds after fired. This unleashed an international fervor among superpower states and a regional crisis, wondering what provoked North Korea to act in such a manner.
The most immediate cause has been that the Bush administration has taken a much tougher stance toward North Korea than previous administrations. Additionally, President Bush has made explicit comments that have made the North Korean government uneasy about their national security, including the infamous “axis of evil” speech. The administration’s foreign policy, actions and rhetoric have been viewed by North Koreans as particularly aggressive, with a willingness to use military action. North Korea’s anxieties regarding United States aggression can be seen in their letter to the IAEA regarding their withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty: “…US tyrannical nuclear crushing policy toward the DPRK… As soon as the Bush administration officials took power, they made it a policy to crush the DPRK with force of arms, and completely blocked the already-begun DPRK-US dialogue… “
President Bush followed his January 2002 State of the Union ‘axis of evil’ speech, on June 1, by declaring a new doctrine of preemptive military action against rogue states that participate in nuclear proliferation. As expected the North Korean’s perceived this as a prelude to future threats. North Korean negotiators have insisted that they would continue with nuclear developments until the United States entered into bilateral talks to draft a non-aggression pact.
In October of 2002 the Bush administration confronted the North Koreans about their clandestine uranium-enrichment program. As a result, the 1994 Agreed Framework Treaty, which requires North Korea to halt its nuclear ambitions in return for energy supply, unraveled in 2003 when North Koreans pulled out. In a joint article Jean du Preez (International Organizations Nonproliferation Program) and William Potter (Center for Nonproliferation Studies) said that, “North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty is in reaction to its inclusion in the ‘axis of evil’ and being targeted by the preemptive strike policy”.
The Iraq invasion, and subsequent war, were deciphered by the North Koreans as an omen for future aggression. James B. Steinberg, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, points out that “[g]overnment officials and analysts in this region [East Asia] are looking at Iraq through the lens of its implications for the crisis that affects them most directly—North Korea. All the countries in the region are anxiously awaiting signs of whether the U.S. action in Iraq presages a more confrontational approach to the DPRK.” With the uncertainties of future US aggression and the fact that they are targeted as an “outpost of tyranny,” the building of a military deterrent, evidenced by the missile launch, is a way for North Korea to “flex its muscle.”
When North Korea pulled out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003, a series of talks, referred to as the six party talks, were initiated among China, Russia, North Korea, the United States, Japan, and South Korea. The purpose was to find a peaceful means to resolve the issue. Daniel A. Pinkston, a North Korea expert, believes that the six party talks are now “dead.” For the North Koreans, the six party talks were a mechanism to get a non-aggression pact from the United States and a means to talk directly with the United States instead through intermediaries. Yet, the United States has refused any form of “official” direct talks with North Korea and maintains that all military options in regard to North Korea are “on the table.” In other words, no non-aggression pact is being offered by the United States. These contrary policy goals and diplomatic approaches have led experts to conclude that the six party talks are “dead.”
With the backdrop of the “axis of evil” statement, the Iraq war, the failed six party talks and the policy of preventive military strikes it should be clear that the missile launch was a message to the United States. This is even more true because of the symbolic decision to begin launching on the fourth of July and the fact that one was a long range missile that could theoretically reach the United States. While the message can be deciphered in different ways, the cause for the missile launches are clear: the North Koreans feel they are threatened by the United States and its regional allies. North Korea has made it clear that they capable of defending themselves and are capable of causing havoc in the region—in particular to the two United States allies: South Korea and Japan.
While the US is, typically, confident in its ability to defend against state attacks, the missile crisis should make clear that if the tenuous stability in the Korean peninsula was to collapse, North Korea would act aggressively toward all its enemies, including the US. Major attacks on South Korea and Japan, would lead to catastrophic human lose and crippling affects to the international and American economy. From a defensive perspective, North Korea, by attempting to launch a long range missile, made it clear that it may also attempt to launch attacks on the United States. Additionally, with China and Russia being allies of North Korea and with United States responsibilities to its East Asian allies, there are worse scenarios possible. These reactions by North Korea to the actions of the US will, in turn, have further consequences in the international arena.
The New Missile Crisis
On July 4, 2006 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, known as North Korea, threatened the tenuous stability in East Asia, making it arguably one of the most dangerous regions in the world. North Korea fired six short range missiles into the Sea of Japan and a long range missile, which, if perfected, has the capability of reaching the United States, but that faltered seconds after fired. This unleashed an international fervor among superpower states and a regional crisis, wondering what provoked North Korea to act in such a manner.
The most immediate cause has been that the Bush administration has taken a much tougher stance toward North Korea than previous administrations. Additionally, President Bush has made explicit comments that have made the North Korean government uneasy about their national security, including the infamous “axis of evil” speech. The administration’s foreign policy, actions and rhetoric have been viewed by North Koreans as particularly aggressive, with a willingness to use military action. North Korea’s anxieties regarding United States aggression can be seen in their letter to the IAEA regarding their withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty: “…US tyrannical nuclear crushing policy toward the DPRK… As soon as the Bush administration officials took power, they made it a policy to crush the DPRK with force of arms, and completely blocked the already-begun DPRK-US dialogue… “
President Bush followed his January 2002 State of the Union ‘axis of evil’ speech, on June 1, by declaring a new doctrine of preemptive military action against rogue states that participate in nuclear proliferation. As expected the North Korean’s perceived this as a prelude to future threats. North Korean negotiators have insisted that they would continue with nuclear developments until the United States entered into bilateral talks to draft a non-aggression pact.
In October of 2002 the Bush administration confronted the North Koreans about their clandestine uranium-enrichment program. As a result, the 1994 Agreed Framework Treaty, which requires North Korea to halt its nuclear ambitions in return for energy supply, unraveled in 2003 when North Koreans pulled out. In a joint article Jean du Preez (International Organizations Nonproliferation Program) and William Potter (Center for Nonproliferation Studies) said that, “North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty is in reaction to its inclusion in the ‘axis of evil’ and being targeted by the preemptive strike policy”.
The Iraq invasion, and subsequent war, were deciphered by the North Koreans as an omen for future aggression. James B. Steinberg, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, points out that “[g]overnment officials and analysts in this region [East Asia] are looking at Iraq through the lens of its implications for the crisis that affects them most directly—North Korea. All the countries in the region are anxiously awaiting signs of whether the U.S. action in Iraq presages a more confrontational approach to the DPRK.” With the uncertainties of future US aggression and the fact that they are targeted as an “outpost of tyranny,” the building of a military deterrent, evidenced by the missile launch, is a way for North Korea to “flex its muscle.”
When North Korea pulled out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003, a series of talks, referred to as the six party talks, were initiated among China, Russia, North Korea, the United States, Japan, and South Korea. The purpose was to find a peaceful means to resolve the issue. Daniel A. Pinkston, a North Korea expert, believes that the six party talks are now “dead.” For the North Koreans, the six party talks were a mechanism to get a non-aggression pact from the United States and a means to talk directly with the United States instead through intermediaries. Yet, the United States has refused any form of “official” direct talks with North Korea and maintains that all military options in regard to North Korea are “on the table.” In other words, no non-aggression pact is being offered by the United States. These contrary policy goals and diplomatic approaches have led experts to conclude that the six party talks are “dead.”
With the backdrop of the “axis of evil” statement, the Iraq war, the failed six party talks and the policy of preventive military strikes it should be clear that the missile launch was a message to the United States. This is even more true because of the symbolic decision to begin launching on the fourth of July and the fact that one was a long range missile that could theoretically reach the United States. While the message can be deciphered in different ways, the cause for the missile launches are clear: the North Koreans feel they are threatened by the United States and its regional allies. North Korea has made it clear that they capable of defending themselves and are capable of causing havoc in the region—in particular to the two United States allies: South Korea and Japan.
While the US is, typically, confident in its ability to defend against state attacks, the missile crisis should make clear that if the tenuous stability in the Korean peninsula was to collapse, North Korea would act aggressively toward all its enemies, including the US. Major attacks on South Korea and Japan, would lead to catastrophic human lose and crippling affects to the international and American economy. From a defensive perspective, North Korea, by attempting to launch a long range missile, made it clear that it may also attempt to launch attacks on the United States. Additionally, with China and Russia being allies of North Korea and with United States responsibilities to its East Asian allies, there are worse scenarios possible. These reactions by North Korea to the actions of the US will, in turn, have further consequences in the international arena.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Order
My current research interest is in the realm of order in international relations. What is order? Particularly, what is order in social life? Does order among people differ than order among states? Once the "best" definition of order and the "best" end from order are discovered, what mechanisms are to be implemented in order to reach that end? These are problems in which I'll be thinking about for the remainder of this academic year, given that I don't change my research area.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
the nation-state
I'm beginning to lose my faith in the nation-state. The nation-state which is such a new institution, relative to human existence, has become a political dogma. There must be a better system.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Truth
Recently I was listening to Noam Chomsky being interviewed and there was one thing I thought was worth sharing. For those of you who have a natural disposition to think, it may be worth reflecting on.
He was talking about an interview in which he had with a popular US magazine. Prior to the interview he was scheduled for a photo shoot. First they took about 200 photos of him. At the end of the session he was asked to take his glasses off. At first he refused because he claimed that he only takes his glasses off when goes to bed. Then he agreed to take them off for one shot. When the magazine was published they chose to use the photo of him without his glasses.
This may seem very trivial and beg the response, big deal. The point is that when the magazine published the interview and his photo they were not necessarily interested in the truth, but in marketing or trying to get the best piece out. Chomsky was wondering, as should we, is truth no longer the best. Does everything have to be manufactured and marketed to get the best result?
I don't know if there is a right-wrong or good-bad answer but it is interesting.
He was talking about an interview in which he had with a popular US magazine. Prior to the interview he was scheduled for a photo shoot. First they took about 200 photos of him. At the end of the session he was asked to take his glasses off. At first he refused because he claimed that he only takes his glasses off when goes to bed. Then he agreed to take them off for one shot. When the magazine was published they chose to use the photo of him without his glasses.
This may seem very trivial and beg the response, big deal. The point is that when the magazine published the interview and his photo they were not necessarily interested in the truth, but in marketing or trying to get the best piece out. Chomsky was wondering, as should we, is truth no longer the best. Does everything have to be manufactured and marketed to get the best result?
I don't know if there is a right-wrong or good-bad answer but it is interesting.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Castro's life is waning
Ok, the title is a little harsh, but it seems to be fact. Today the internationally infamous and political legend Fidel Castro is passing his presidential powers to his brother as he recovers from surgery.
First, I don't believe he is recovery from surgery. I think he is either sick or healthy and pretending to be sick. Reason being, he does not want to give credence to the statement made by the US government that his death of imminent and that they were preparing to aid factions within Cuba transition into a democratic society. I know I'm speculating but the man just came back from a South American trip, in which he looked decent. Additionally, it has been known publicly for months now that he is sickly. To be frank, his days on earth are waning and he wants to maintain as much stability as possible.
Second, he wants to transfer his powers to his 75 years old brother Raul, like a real dictator. This is a good opportunity to have Raul take total control while big brother Fidel can keep a close eye.
I do not dislike Fidel. I think he as done some good things for his country and I believe the sanctions placed on Cuba by the United States are unjust and hegemonic in manner. He has done a great job with the Cuban educational system, particularly his medical programs. What does not sit well with me is his right to appoint his successor and to appoint his brother vexes me more. Though choosing his brother does have some logic; his brother is probably most aligned with him and would most likely carry on his policy and continue to oppose US pressure. I think nothing scares Fidel than to die and the US places an American friend government at the helm of the government, especially an American-Cuban.
With the waning of Castro's life, the death of Mrs. MLK, China and India becoming superpower capitalist states, among others, it illuminates that the world is in the mist of a transitional period into a new era. What is this new ear going to look like? Who will be the main political and economic actors in this new era? Yet, and sadly so, the only constant thing is the Middle East conflict, North Korea, and the relative poverty of Africa. Let the new era change these, though it will inevitably give rise to new social ills.
First, I don't believe he is recovery from surgery. I think he is either sick or healthy and pretending to be sick. Reason being, he does not want to give credence to the statement made by the US government that his death of imminent and that they were preparing to aid factions within Cuba transition into a democratic society. I know I'm speculating but the man just came back from a South American trip, in which he looked decent. Additionally, it has been known publicly for months now that he is sickly. To be frank, his days on earth are waning and he wants to maintain as much stability as possible.
Second, he wants to transfer his powers to his 75 years old brother Raul, like a real dictator. This is a good opportunity to have Raul take total control while big brother Fidel can keep a close eye.
I do not dislike Fidel. I think he as done some good things for his country and I believe the sanctions placed on Cuba by the United States are unjust and hegemonic in manner. He has done a great job with the Cuban educational system, particularly his medical programs. What does not sit well with me is his right to appoint his successor and to appoint his brother vexes me more. Though choosing his brother does have some logic; his brother is probably most aligned with him and would most likely carry on his policy and continue to oppose US pressure. I think nothing scares Fidel than to die and the US places an American friend government at the helm of the government, especially an American-Cuban.
With the waning of Castro's life, the death of Mrs. MLK, China and India becoming superpower capitalist states, among others, it illuminates that the world is in the mist of a transitional period into a new era. What is this new ear going to look like? Who will be the main political and economic actors in this new era? Yet, and sadly so, the only constant thing is the Middle East conflict, North Korea, and the relative poverty of Africa. Let the new era change these, though it will inevitably give rise to new social ills.
Extremely long letter from Iranian President to Bush
Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush
The following is a translation of the letter sent in Farsi by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to US President George W Bush. This version was released by United Nations diplomats. The letter was handed by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which then handed it to the Americans.
Mr George Bush, President of the United States of America
For some time now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena - which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and among university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.
Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH) [praise be upon his name], the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs [weapons of mass destruction], make war and terror his slogan, and finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time have countries attacked; the lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the ... of a ... criminals in a village or city, or convoy, or for example the entire village, city or convoy, set ablaze.
Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women - as occupation troops - put in harm's way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that every day some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.
On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.
Of course Saddam [Hussein] was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the ... war on Iran [in the 1980s], Saddam was supported by the West.
Mr President,
You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can these actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.
There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs [prisoners of war], accused or criminals.
European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, ie the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.
Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.
Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.
I tell them to study the history of World War I and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that 6 million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least 2 million families.
Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?
Mr President,
I am sure you know how - and at what cost - Israel was established: Many thousands were killed in the process.
Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for 60 years now.
A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique - or at the very least extremely rare - in recent memory.
Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands - inside and outside Palestine - whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?
The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.
If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying why are all UNSC [United Nations Security Council] resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?
Mr President,
As you are well aware, I live among the people and am in constant contact with them - many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.
It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.
Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D [research and development] one of the basic rights of nations?
You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.
Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.
Mr President,
Don't Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?
The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?
Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?
The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution [of 1979], transformation of an embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-a-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating with their country's progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.
Mr President,
September 11 was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.
All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems - and even hunts its opponents abroad. September 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?
All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9-11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people - who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks - some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity - some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?
American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?
Some believe that the hype paved the way - and was the justification - for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly - for the public to, finally, believe - and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.
Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?
Mr President,
In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.
The question here is what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?
As your excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist - to a larger or lesser extent - in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign - paid from the public treasury - be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?
What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention - which I am hoping you will agree to some of it - is: Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies.
Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful - thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs'? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns? Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people's rights? And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office - to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets- or not?
Mr President,
How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity - raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?
If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts where would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments?
Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone. If prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?
My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on word and that is monotheism or belief in a single God and no other in the world.
The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: (3.64) "O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)."
Mr President,
According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets. To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases. The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds. The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins. He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors. He is the Compassionate, the Merciful. He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness. He is witness to the actions of His servants, He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast . Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds. A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants. And a good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.
We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.
We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well; (19,36) "And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium."
Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.
The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans. We again read in the Holy Book: The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious.
All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.
Divine prophets have promised: the day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Heaven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.
All prophets, speak of peace and tranquility for man - based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.
Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets - and improve our performance?
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?
Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?
Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?
Mr President, History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.
Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.
The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.
The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.
The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.
The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: Do you not want to join them?
Mr President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.
Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
The following is a translation of the letter sent in Farsi by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to US President George W Bush. This version was released by United Nations diplomats. The letter was handed by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which then handed it to the Americans.
Mr George Bush, President of the United States of America
For some time now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena - which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and among university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.
Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH) [praise be upon his name], the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs [weapons of mass destruction], make war and terror his slogan, and finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time have countries attacked; the lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the ... of a ... criminals in a village or city, or convoy, or for example the entire village, city or convoy, set ablaze.
Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women - as occupation troops - put in harm's way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that every day some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.
On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.
Of course Saddam [Hussein] was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the ... war on Iran [in the 1980s], Saddam was supported by the West.
Mr President,
You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can these actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.
There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs [prisoners of war], accused or criminals.
European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, ie the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.
Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.
Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.
I tell them to study the history of World War I and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that 6 million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least 2 million families.
Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?
Mr President,
I am sure you know how - and at what cost - Israel was established: Many thousands were killed in the process.
Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for 60 years now.
A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique - or at the very least extremely rare - in recent memory.
Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands - inside and outside Palestine - whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?
The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.
If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying why are all UNSC [United Nations Security Council] resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?
Mr President,
As you are well aware, I live among the people and am in constant contact with them - many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.
It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.
Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D [research and development] one of the basic rights of nations?
You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.
Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.
Mr President,
Don't Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?
The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?
Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?
The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution [of 1979], transformation of an embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-a-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating with their country's progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.
Mr President,
September 11 was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.
All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems - and even hunts its opponents abroad. September 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?
All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9-11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people - who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks - some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity - some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?
American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?
Some believe that the hype paved the way - and was the justification - for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly - for the public to, finally, believe - and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.
Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?
Mr President,
In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.
The question here is what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?
As your excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist - to a larger or lesser extent - in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign - paid from the public treasury - be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?
What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention - which I am hoping you will agree to some of it - is: Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies.
Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful - thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs'? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns? Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people's rights? And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office - to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets- or not?
Mr President,
How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity - raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?
If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts where would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments?
Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone. If prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?
My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on word and that is monotheism or belief in a single God and no other in the world.
The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: (3.64) "O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)."
Mr President,
According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets. To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases. The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds. The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins. He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors. He is the Compassionate, the Merciful. He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness. He is witness to the actions of His servants, He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast . Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds. A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants. And a good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.
We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.
We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well; (19,36) "And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium."
Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.
The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans. We again read in the Holy Book: The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious.
All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.
Divine prophets have promised: the day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Heaven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.
All prophets, speak of peace and tranquility for man - based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.
Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets - and improve our performance?
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?
Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?
Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?
Mr President, History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.
Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.
The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.
The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.
The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.
The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: Do you not want to join them?
Mr President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.
Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Cabinet making
The Politics of President Cabinet Making and there messages
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (F.E.M.A) lackluster response to the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina roused criticism of an inept director Michael Brown and the perceived crony politics of the Bush administration. Critics lambasted the president for making an “appointment with a total lack of interest in any qualification other than loyalty.” In 2000, 40% of the high-level FEMA jobs were held by career bureaucrats. By 2004, 19% rose through the ranks of FEMA and related offices. Moreover, according to New York University Public Service professor Paul C. Light, “[t]he real problem here is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the appointments process. It's the people who decided to put [Brown] in place and put all those politicals in place." This raises the questions of how candidates like Brown get confirmed and whether there is a problem with our confirmation process.
The Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” whomever he likes. For the most part a president’s nominees, especially to cabinet positions, are “routinely” confirmed. Approximately “4,000 civilian and 65,000 military nominations are submitted to the Senate during each two-year session of Congress” and in the history of the chamber, only nine cabinet members have been rejected—ever. All of President Bush’s nominees were confirmed.
There are two good explanations for this: “senatorial courtesy,” and the “proper role” doctrine. The “proper role” doctrine observes that the senate is “obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence.” This is very vague language, designed to give the president full autonomy in constructing his advisors. Unlike a judicial nomination, the cabinet positions customarily end with the president term. Moderate Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, told National Public Radio, regarding the infamous John Bolton nomination for US ambassador to te United Nations, "The president gets to choose his people.”
The tradition of “senatorial courtesy” defers preference to nominees from the home state of senators from the same party. Moreover, if the president has or anticipates confirmation troubles, he may circumvent the process through a “recess appointment” when the senate is adjourned between recesses. Recess appointments, dictated by the constitution, are to expire at the end of the following congressional session, but may expire earlier in certain specified circumstances. Regardless, the blocking of a recess appointment is rare even though the practice does engender outrage among opponents.
Another reason why bureaucrat cabinet members are easier to confirm is because they have more to offer senators, relative to judges. For example, California Democrat Barbara Boxer agreed to vote to confirm Stephen Johnson as head of the Environmental Protection Agency after he agreed to cancel a pesticide program. With the ability to grant promises on policy, cabinet nominees can use that leverage to persuade their detractors. Such quid pro quo arrangements would be inappropriate for an official theoretically responsible for interpreting law without overt partisan intensions.
Professor Nelson Polsby, a specialist in executive branch politics at UC Berkeley, observed that Presidents mold their administrations utilizing three particular and sometimes contradictory approaches: specialists, generalists, or coalition. Specialists posses technical mastery, generalists are selected because of their political or personal connection to the administration, and a coalition is a cabinet made up of individuals with diverse perspectives. President Bush’s cabinet is a combination of specialist and generalist. The administrations nominations demonstrate that they are most concerned with loyalty and uniformity; the administration is not interested in dissenting or alternative perspectives.
Second and mid tier cabinet positions are where political spoils are more likely to occur. The Senate receives thousands of nominations and more than 300 for the cabinet, and a thorough review of every nominee is unrealistic. In general, the Bush cabinet is not composed of unqualified directors waiting to perform what some in Washington call “a Michael Brown.” The website www.progressivegovernment.org lists all the cabinet members along with a brief summary of their background. One should observe, having in mind the “proper role” doctrine, that the nominees are typically able.
In constructing a cabinet the president is institutionally, but not constitutionally, given nearly absolute autonomy. As one of only two elected officials in the executive branch of government, the president is given a mandate (with restraints) to implement policies in which he or she campaigned, including the recruitment of people who will aid in these endeavors. For better or worse the president is responsive to ratings, re-election, and party restraints. If the president was to nominate an egregiously incompetent candidate, the senate is theoretically obligated to block his or her ascendancy. Checks and balances are at work, even if the occasional Michael Brown slips through the cracks.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (F.E.M.A) lackluster response to the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina roused criticism of an inept director Michael Brown and the perceived crony politics of the Bush administration. Critics lambasted the president for making an “appointment with a total lack of interest in any qualification other than loyalty.” In 2000, 40% of the high-level FEMA jobs were held by career bureaucrats. By 2004, 19% rose through the ranks of FEMA and related offices. Moreover, according to New York University Public Service professor Paul C. Light, “[t]he real problem here is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the appointments process. It's the people who decided to put [Brown] in place and put all those politicals in place." This raises the questions of how candidates like Brown get confirmed and whether there is a problem with our confirmation process.
The Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” whomever he likes. For the most part a president’s nominees, especially to cabinet positions, are “routinely” confirmed. Approximately “4,000 civilian and 65,000 military nominations are submitted to the Senate during each two-year session of Congress” and in the history of the chamber, only nine cabinet members have been rejected—ever. All of President Bush’s nominees were confirmed.
There are two good explanations for this: “senatorial courtesy,” and the “proper role” doctrine. The “proper role” doctrine observes that the senate is “obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence.” This is very vague language, designed to give the president full autonomy in constructing his advisors. Unlike a judicial nomination, the cabinet positions customarily end with the president term. Moderate Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, told National Public Radio, regarding the infamous John Bolton nomination for US ambassador to te United Nations, "The president gets to choose his people.”
The tradition of “senatorial courtesy” defers preference to nominees from the home state of senators from the same party. Moreover, if the president has or anticipates confirmation troubles, he may circumvent the process through a “recess appointment” when the senate is adjourned between recesses. Recess appointments, dictated by the constitution, are to expire at the end of the following congressional session, but may expire earlier in certain specified circumstances. Regardless, the blocking of a recess appointment is rare even though the practice does engender outrage among opponents.
Another reason why bureaucrat cabinet members are easier to confirm is because they have more to offer senators, relative to judges. For example, California Democrat Barbara Boxer agreed to vote to confirm Stephen Johnson as head of the Environmental Protection Agency after he agreed to cancel a pesticide program. With the ability to grant promises on policy, cabinet nominees can use that leverage to persuade their detractors. Such quid pro quo arrangements would be inappropriate for an official theoretically responsible for interpreting law without overt partisan intensions.
Professor Nelson Polsby, a specialist in executive branch politics at UC Berkeley, observed that Presidents mold their administrations utilizing three particular and sometimes contradictory approaches: specialists, generalists, or coalition. Specialists posses technical mastery, generalists are selected because of their political or personal connection to the administration, and a coalition is a cabinet made up of individuals with diverse perspectives. President Bush’s cabinet is a combination of specialist and generalist. The administrations nominations demonstrate that they are most concerned with loyalty and uniformity; the administration is not interested in dissenting or alternative perspectives.
Second and mid tier cabinet positions are where political spoils are more likely to occur. The Senate receives thousands of nominations and more than 300 for the cabinet, and a thorough review of every nominee is unrealistic. In general, the Bush cabinet is not composed of unqualified directors waiting to perform what some in Washington call “a Michael Brown.” The website www.progressivegovernment.org lists all the cabinet members along with a brief summary of their background. One should observe, having in mind the “proper role” doctrine, that the nominees are typically able.
In constructing a cabinet the president is institutionally, but not constitutionally, given nearly absolute autonomy. As one of only two elected officials in the executive branch of government, the president is given a mandate (with restraints) to implement policies in which he or she campaigned, including the recruitment of people who will aid in these endeavors. For better or worse the president is responsive to ratings, re-election, and party restraints. If the president was to nominate an egregiously incompetent candidate, the senate is theoretically obligated to block his or her ascendancy. Checks and balances are at work, even if the occasional Michael Brown slips through the cracks.
knowledge
John Locke argues that our mind at its original state is a "blank tabulate." Then goes on to precede that knowledge is derived from experience and reflection. So for example, when one sees the color green for the first time the sensation becomes etched in ones mind and henceforth one will have the knowledge of green. And thus, all knowledge is garnered in similar fashion. The attractiveness of this argument is its simplicity and,in some sense, seems obviously correct. We tend to learn things or come to have knowledge of something after we have come in contact with the thing. The counter argument, one posit by Locke’s professors and very popular in his time, is that all humans are born with innate ideas. The scholastic philosophers of Locke’s days were highly religious men who believed that God (Christian God) imparts on all men certain ideals prior to birth.
Another interesting thing about Locke is his belief, similar to Descartes, that prior to any philosophizing it is necessary to gauge the mind; that is, to know if the mind is capable of such an endeavor. So for Locke, before one can ask questions like "does God/god exist" or is "reality the way in which I perceive it," it is important to ask "is the mind capable of answering such a question?" For Locke, the mind is incapable of resolving certain philosophical problems.
So where do I stand in this historical argument, I like Locke. Though it is a bit premature for me to classify myself has a "Lockeian." It also may be possible that I prefer Locke because compared to the other philosophers I understand him, more or less. Specially, I too believe that knowledge is contingent on our experiences.
But how would Locke respond to human instinct? At birth human babies know when they are hungry, an example among many more. Are our instincts a form of knowledge, if so, how would Locke respond. Will Locke is died, so I'll ponder it myself. Additionally, I tend to be very skeptical of what the mind can know, at least where we are at the current state of humanity.
Another interesting thing about Locke is his belief, similar to Descartes, that prior to any philosophizing it is necessary to gauge the mind; that is, to know if the mind is capable of such an endeavor. So for Locke, before one can ask questions like "does God/god exist" or is "reality the way in which I perceive it," it is important to ask "is the mind capable of answering such a question?" For Locke, the mind is incapable of resolving certain philosophical problems.
So where do I stand in this historical argument, I like Locke. Though it is a bit premature for me to classify myself has a "Lockeian." It also may be possible that I prefer Locke because compared to the other philosophers I understand him, more or less. Specially, I too believe that knowledge is contingent on our experiences.
But how would Locke respond to human instinct? At birth human babies know when they are hungry, an example among many more. Are our instincts a form of knowledge, if so, how would Locke respond. Will Locke is died, so I'll ponder it myself. Additionally, I tend to be very skeptical of what the mind can know, at least where we are at the current state of humanity.
update: human rights book
I'm currently about a quarter (100 pages) into the book The History of Human Rights. Thus far I believe my initial analysis was correct, that the current rhetoric of Human Rights is something that derived from our social history; that is, our experiences.
Notes on the book:
The book is a great read for anyone who is a novice to the field of Human Rights. The tone of the book is straight forward and the structure is will organized. She gives a good explanation of what to expect from each chapter and each chapter is grouped into sub-topics. More importantly, her language is not esoteric. Though I believe it would help if the reader had a fundamental knowledge of European history, and philosophy—though it is not crucial. Reason being, among others, she believes, rightly so, that the current Human Rights movement is Western in orientation and dominated by Western philosophy.
Thus far, the author has focused on three paradigms to trace the roots of the contemporary Human Rights movement. The first is ancient Western civilizations: Greek and Roman moral and political philosophers and their institutions. She illuminates the contributions to Human Rights movement by great luminaries like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, the Stoics, among others. Second she focuses on the contributions of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity), Hinduism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. Third, and one in which I'm in the middle of reading, is the period of the Enlightenment. This period I'm more inclined to be a patron of because the emphasis is on using our abilities as logical beings to explain our social responsibilities to one another as opposed to some revealed knowledge from "above."
More updates are to come.
Notes on the book:
The book is a great read for anyone who is a novice to the field of Human Rights. The tone of the book is straight forward and the structure is will organized. She gives a good explanation of what to expect from each chapter and each chapter is grouped into sub-topics. More importantly, her language is not esoteric. Though I believe it would help if the reader had a fundamental knowledge of European history, and philosophy—though it is not crucial. Reason being, among others, she believes, rightly so, that the current Human Rights movement is Western in orientation and dominated by Western philosophy.
Thus far, the author has focused on three paradigms to trace the roots of the contemporary Human Rights movement. The first is ancient Western civilizations: Greek and Roman moral and political philosophers and their institutions. She illuminates the contributions to Human Rights movement by great luminaries like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, the Stoics, among others. Second she focuses on the contributions of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity), Hinduism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. Third, and one in which I'm in the middle of reading, is the period of the Enlightenment. This period I'm more inclined to be a patron of because the emphasis is on using our abilities as logical beings to explain our social responsibilities to one another as opposed to some revealed knowledge from "above."
More updates are to come.
debating human rights
I purchased a book on Human Rights,over a year ago and I have yet to read a page. I forgot the exact title (it is currently boxed up) but it was something like the "Genesis of Human Rights." With the popularity of the human rights movement I felt I should probably acclamate myself with the fundamentals of the field..
Here is what I think about Human Rights before reading anything about it. After reading the book I’ll post an update.
The end of WWII brought with it a paradigm shift in international political relations and how we interact with one another. The United States emerged as the sole super-power, colonization of India came to an end, African colonization was waning, Europe was demolished by the war, Germany was partitioned, China came under communist rule, Soviet Union was emerging as a counterweight to the US, the murder of 20 million jews (the holocaust), and the construction of international organization—GATT, UN, IMF, and the WB. With this as a backdrop, particularly the holocaust, world super powers decided that there needed to be some form of tangible articulated international norms and rights protecting the “fundamental and natural” rights ascribed to all human beings.
The idea of human right is one derived from experience. In other words, there is no "natural," or "heavenly endowed," moral law that says humans proper by the virtue of being human have innate rights, whatever they may be. Experience has mirrored to us that certain acts are socially unacceptable and harmful to all. Additionally, because we would all like to live in a society that is peaceful it is in our interest to recognize certain rights for all, Human Rights. That is, no individual or group (ethnic, gender, racial, etc) would like to be treated in such a matter that is harmful to them physically, psychologically or any other "ically." So we must extend similar rights to others.
Human’s are emotional beings. We do not like to see people (or other animals) suffering. Humans are also rational; that is, we know how to calculate. We know that by creating a system of rights for all humans, those rights will also secure our rights—reciprocity. Humans are also intellectual beings. We can think. That is, we can analyze our actions, instincts, desires, motivations and control them.
This sounds like a utilitarian argument. It is.
I too believe in human rights. But my belief does not derive from the concept of natural or heavenly endowed rights, but from a utilitarian philosophy.
Here is what I think about Human Rights before reading anything about it. After reading the book I’ll post an update.
The end of WWII brought with it a paradigm shift in international political relations and how we interact with one another. The United States emerged as the sole super-power, colonization of India came to an end, African colonization was waning, Europe was demolished by the war, Germany was partitioned, China came under communist rule, Soviet Union was emerging as a counterweight to the US, the murder of 20 million jews (the holocaust), and the construction of international organization—GATT, UN, IMF, and the WB. With this as a backdrop, particularly the holocaust, world super powers decided that there needed to be some form of tangible articulated international norms and rights protecting the “fundamental and natural” rights ascribed to all human beings.
The idea of human right is one derived from experience. In other words, there is no "natural," or "heavenly endowed," moral law that says humans proper by the virtue of being human have innate rights, whatever they may be. Experience has mirrored to us that certain acts are socially unacceptable and harmful to all. Additionally, because we would all like to live in a society that is peaceful it is in our interest to recognize certain rights for all, Human Rights. That is, no individual or group (ethnic, gender, racial, etc) would like to be treated in such a matter that is harmful to them physically, psychologically or any other "ically." So we must extend similar rights to others.
Human’s are emotional beings. We do not like to see people (or other animals) suffering. Humans are also rational; that is, we know how to calculate. We know that by creating a system of rights for all humans, those rights will also secure our rights—reciprocity. Humans are also intellectual beings. We can think. That is, we can analyze our actions, instincts, desires, motivations and control them.
This sounds like a utilitarian argument. It is.
I too believe in human rights. But my belief does not derive from the concept of natural or heavenly endowed rights, but from a utilitarian philosophy.
Property Rights
The intellectual debate regarding property rights is very fascinating. What can people own individually and what things can only be owned collectively? The concept of private property is a well ingrained concept in American philosophy. But when the general public thinks about property rights they conceive of tangible items that have per se come to be recognized as a private property: ones home is a great example. What about intellectual property? If I discover the cure to AIDS is it just or my right to refuse to share my discovery on the grounds of private property? If I discover the code to a human gene can I patent it as my property? The last one is interesting because we like to believe that the code to a human gene is discovered no created. In other words, if it is discovered that means it has always existed. Is there a difference between things that are discovered and things that are created? In other words, can we give equality to things that are different?
I personally believe in private property. Reason being, private ownership and the benefits that we derive from it motivates individuals to invest their resources (time,money, energy, etc)to discover and create new property. I'm not confident enough to say that people own certain property because they discovered it or created it per se, but the utility derived from private property is a benefit to society as a whole.
I personally believe in private property. Reason being, private ownership and the benefits that we derive from it motivates individuals to invest their resources (time,money, energy, etc)to discover and create new property. I'm not confident enough to say that people own certain property because they discovered it or created it per se, but the utility derived from private property is a benefit to society as a whole.
Warren Buffet, the second riches person in the world, today announced that he will donate thirty billion dollars to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Buffet has planned for years to give his fortunes away and today he kept that promise. The gift is not a lump-some of 30 billion in cash but includes stocks and bonds; essential, according to CBS, the Gates foundation will receive around 1.5 billion dollars a year. Mr. Buffet is a peculiar individual. As opposed to many wealthy individuals, Mr. Buffet does not believe in the practice of transferring ones wealth to ones children, he believes in taxes (especially the estate tax), among others.
"Bill and I are absolutely honored and humbled by Warren's gift. It's really unprecedented in terms of what we can do to do good in the world," Melinda Gates said. The Gates Foundation gives to programs that improve education and global health. Buffet also gave to four other foundations, three of which are run by his own children.
Russia seems to be in a serious population predictament. Of late the Putin administration (the current president administration) have devised programs aimed at increasing the population of Russia. Russia's population has been shrinking do to high mortality rates and low birth rates. Immigration from regional states have helped, though it has increased ethnic conflict and racist attacks. The problem has been described by the Russian state as a threat to national security. Russia land mass is measured at 6, 592, 849 square miles, making it the largest country in the world. Its population is reported at 143, 246,000, making it the eighth most populated state. According to the Tehran Times, the population could wane to 100,000,000 by mid-century if the current rate is continued.
Recently the Russian government have promised financial assistance for women who have more children than a set number (I'm sorry I forgot how much). The latest plan has been an appeal to the Russian diaspora to return to Russia. There are hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians living outside of Russia.On the Russian government website a Russian is vaguely described. Describing them as people "brought up in the traditions of Russian culture ... who do not want to lose links with Russia". A Kremlin spokesman said that the plan embraced "holders of Russian passports, Russian-speakers with dual citizenship or people who are planning to apply for Russian passports". That appears to refer to the hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians in ex-Soviet republics, whose return has been a long-time goal of increasingly influential Russian nationalists. It remains unclear whether the incentives would be extended to millions of non-Russians from ex-Soviet states, who form the bulk of the mainly illegal migrants working in Russia or planning to come.
"Bill and I are absolutely honored and humbled by Warren's gift. It's really unprecedented in terms of what we can do to do good in the world," Melinda Gates said. The Gates Foundation gives to programs that improve education and global health. Buffet also gave to four other foundations, three of which are run by his own children.
Russia seems to be in a serious population predictament. Of late the Putin administration (the current president administration) have devised programs aimed at increasing the population of Russia. Russia's population has been shrinking do to high mortality rates and low birth rates. Immigration from regional states have helped, though it has increased ethnic conflict and racist attacks. The problem has been described by the Russian state as a threat to national security. Russia land mass is measured at 6, 592, 849 square miles, making it the largest country in the world. Its population is reported at 143, 246,000, making it the eighth most populated state. According to the Tehran Times, the population could wane to 100,000,000 by mid-century if the current rate is continued.
Recently the Russian government have promised financial assistance for women who have more children than a set number (I'm sorry I forgot how much). The latest plan has been an appeal to the Russian diaspora to return to Russia. There are hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians living outside of Russia.On the Russian government website a Russian is vaguely described. Describing them as people "brought up in the traditions of Russian culture ... who do not want to lose links with Russia". A Kremlin spokesman said that the plan embraced "holders of Russian passports, Russian-speakers with dual citizenship or people who are planning to apply for Russian passports". That appears to refer to the hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians in ex-Soviet republics, whose return has been a long-time goal of increasingly influential Russian nationalists. It remains unclear whether the incentives would be extended to millions of non-Russians from ex-Soviet states, who form the bulk of the mainly illegal migrants working in Russia or planning to come.
The Law is all around us
It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us – our governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers; they make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain-trusters are lawyers; they administer our laws. All the judges are lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all government power – in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is “a government of lawyers, not of men.”
It is not the businessmen, no matter how big, who run our economic world. Again it is the lawyers, the lawyers who “advise” and direct every time a company is formed, every time a bond or a share of stock is issued, almost every time material is to be bought or goods to be sold, every time a deal is made. The whole elaborate structure of industry and finance is a lawyer-made house. We all live in it, but the lawyers run it.
And in our private lives, we cannot buy a home or rent an apartment, we cannot get married or try to get divorced, we cannot die and leave our property to our children without calling on the lawyers to guide us. To guide us, incidentally, through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that lawyers have created.
Objection may be raised immediately that there is nothing strange or wrong about this. If we did not carry on our government and business and private activities in accordance with reasoned rules of some sort we would have chaos, or else a reversion to brute force as the arbiter of men’s affairs. True – but beside the point. The point is that it is the lawyers who make our rules and a whole civilization that follows them, or disregards them at its peril. Yet the tremendous majority of the men who make up that civilization, are not lawyers, pay little heed to how and why the rules are made. They do not ask, they scarcely seem to care, which rules are good and which are bad, which are a help and which a nuisance, which are useful to society and which are useful only to the lawyers. They shut their eyes and leave to the lawyers the running of a large part of their lives.
Of all the specialized skills abroad in the world today, the average man knows least about the one that affects him most – about the thing that lawyers call The Law. A man who will discourse at length about the latest cure for streptococci infection or describe in detail his allergic symptoms cannot begin to tell you what happened to him legally – and plenty did – when he got married. A man who would not dream of buying a car without an intricate and illustrated description of its mechanical workings will sign a lease without knowing what more than four of its forty-four clauses mean or why they are there. A man who will not hesitate to criticize or disagree with a trained economist or an expert in any one of a dozen fields of learning will follow, unquestioning and meek, whatever advice his lawyer gives him. Normal human skepticism and curiosity seem to vanish entirely whenever the layman encounters The Law.
The rest can be read at:http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm
It is not the businessmen, no matter how big, who run our economic world. Again it is the lawyers, the lawyers who “advise” and direct every time a company is formed, every time a bond or a share of stock is issued, almost every time material is to be bought or goods to be sold, every time a deal is made. The whole elaborate structure of industry and finance is a lawyer-made house. We all live in it, but the lawyers run it.
And in our private lives, we cannot buy a home or rent an apartment, we cannot get married or try to get divorced, we cannot die and leave our property to our children without calling on the lawyers to guide us. To guide us, incidentally, through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that lawyers have created.
Objection may be raised immediately that there is nothing strange or wrong about this. If we did not carry on our government and business and private activities in accordance with reasoned rules of some sort we would have chaos, or else a reversion to brute force as the arbiter of men’s affairs. True – but beside the point. The point is that it is the lawyers who make our rules and a whole civilization that follows them, or disregards them at its peril. Yet the tremendous majority of the men who make up that civilization, are not lawyers, pay little heed to how and why the rules are made. They do not ask, they scarcely seem to care, which rules are good and which are bad, which are a help and which a nuisance, which are useful to society and which are useful only to the lawyers. They shut their eyes and leave to the lawyers the running of a large part of their lives.
Of all the specialized skills abroad in the world today, the average man knows least about the one that affects him most – about the thing that lawyers call The Law. A man who will discourse at length about the latest cure for streptococci infection or describe in detail his allergic symptoms cannot begin to tell you what happened to him legally – and plenty did – when he got married. A man who would not dream of buying a car without an intricate and illustrated description of its mechanical workings will sign a lease without knowing what more than four of its forty-four clauses mean or why they are there. A man who will not hesitate to criticize or disagree with a trained economist or an expert in any one of a dozen fields of learning will follow, unquestioning and meek, whatever advice his lawyer gives him. Normal human skepticism and curiosity seem to vanish entirely whenever the layman encounters The Law.
The rest can be read at:http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm
ranting or IR
ranting on international relations
Post World War II
Pre World War II the United States eschewed a leadership role in the international system, especially in European domestic politics. The lesson learned from the interwar period and World War II made it clear that the United States must, by necessity and compulsion, take the laurels of western hegemon. This role was cast on the United States because its allies were in a dire need of recovery, it’s allies were unable to assume leadership, and the United States was militarily and economically superior. Additionally, with the sprouting of Soviet hostility, the United States, for its own sake and its allies, assumed it’s role.
Following the Second World War the European states were in complete ruin. The French were a defeated state, millions of people died and infrastructures destroyed. The economies and the social psychology of European states and Japan needed to be repaired; that is, Japan and the Europeans wanted to concentrate on repairing home—this left a power vacuum. The United States, though it lost a substantial amount of young men, came out a new superpower—filled the power vacuum left by Europeans and Japan. This position was illuminated by its role in the economic sphere. The United States became the international monetary leader. It financed the recovery of its European allies and Japan and provided a substantial amount of the budget for international regimes. Essentially the “[United States] became the residual source of global liquidity” (268). Why would the United States want to shoulder such responsibility? It could have easily crawled back into an isolationist state. “The United States did not actively seek global monetary leadership. Indeed, during the interwar period the responsibility of hegemony had been deliberately evaded…they soon came to welcome it, for reasons that were a mixture of altruism and self-interest” (268). This new found power allowed the United States to advance its own interest in foreign policy without much opposition, other than the Soviets. Additionally, I believe, this gave the United States much more control over the Americas; specifically it’s interest in Latin America and the Caribbean’s. Historically, South America’s and the Caribbean’s economy, resources, and political infrastructures were dominated by the European colonialist.
United State’s role in international monetary policy, that is, it’s role as the prime financier, was the response of all “governments agree[ing]…to avoid recurrence of the kind of economic warfare that had characterized the decade of the 1930s” (266). The position as the financier was solidified by its great wealth relative to the European states and Japan, and the “even more pathbreaking…decision to allocate voting rights among governments [IMF] not on a one-state, one-vote basis but rather in proportion to quotas” (266). The United States deposited one third of all the funds for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) quotas and “effective veto over future decision-making” (266).
Soviets rhetoric as an anti-capitalist state and the call for an international revolution was a threat to the United States and it’s principal allies. This threat compelled the United States to take the position as the main opposition to the Soviet Union and their international campaign. This required the United States to engage in an international strategic power game, or better known as spheres of influence. The Vietnam war exemplifies the extent the United States was willing to go in order to balance the power between itself and the Soviet Union, “We are also there [Vietnam] because there are great stakes in the balance of power” (278).
Following two great wars in the first half of the 20th century, the economic warfare of the interwar years, and the rise of a hostile super power, Russia, the United States, with its great military and economic strength, was compelled to act as the prime leader of the West, to rebuild it and oppose the Soviet Union.
Post World War II
Pre World War II the United States eschewed a leadership role in the international system, especially in European domestic politics. The lesson learned from the interwar period and World War II made it clear that the United States must, by necessity and compulsion, take the laurels of western hegemon. This role was cast on the United States because its allies were in a dire need of recovery, it’s allies were unable to assume leadership, and the United States was militarily and economically superior. Additionally, with the sprouting of Soviet hostility, the United States, for its own sake and its allies, assumed it’s role.
Following the Second World War the European states were in complete ruin. The French were a defeated state, millions of people died and infrastructures destroyed. The economies and the social psychology of European states and Japan needed to be repaired; that is, Japan and the Europeans wanted to concentrate on repairing home—this left a power vacuum. The United States, though it lost a substantial amount of young men, came out a new superpower—filled the power vacuum left by Europeans and Japan. This position was illuminated by its role in the economic sphere. The United States became the international monetary leader. It financed the recovery of its European allies and Japan and provided a substantial amount of the budget for international regimes. Essentially the “[United States] became the residual source of global liquidity” (268). Why would the United States want to shoulder such responsibility? It could have easily crawled back into an isolationist state. “The United States did not actively seek global monetary leadership. Indeed, during the interwar period the responsibility of hegemony had been deliberately evaded…they soon came to welcome it, for reasons that were a mixture of altruism and self-interest” (268). This new found power allowed the United States to advance its own interest in foreign policy without much opposition, other than the Soviets. Additionally, I believe, this gave the United States much more control over the Americas; specifically it’s interest in Latin America and the Caribbean’s. Historically, South America’s and the Caribbean’s economy, resources, and political infrastructures were dominated by the European colonialist.
United State’s role in international monetary policy, that is, it’s role as the prime financier, was the response of all “governments agree[ing]…to avoid recurrence of the kind of economic warfare that had characterized the decade of the 1930s” (266). The position as the financier was solidified by its great wealth relative to the European states and Japan, and the “even more pathbreaking…decision to allocate voting rights among governments [IMF] not on a one-state, one-vote basis but rather in proportion to quotas” (266). The United States deposited one third of all the funds for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) quotas and “effective veto over future decision-making” (266).
Soviets rhetoric as an anti-capitalist state and the call for an international revolution was a threat to the United States and it’s principal allies. This threat compelled the United States to take the position as the main opposition to the Soviet Union and their international campaign. This required the United States to engage in an international strategic power game, or better known as spheres of influence. The Vietnam war exemplifies the extent the United States was willing to go in order to balance the power between itself and the Soviet Union, “We are also there [Vietnam] because there are great stakes in the balance of power” (278).
Following two great wars in the first half of the 20th century, the economic warfare of the interwar years, and the rise of a hostile super power, Russia, the United States, with its great military and economic strength, was compelled to act as the prime leader of the West, to rebuild it and oppose the Soviet Union.
North Korea
The major issue for the United States, in terms of foreign policy, this week is North Korea. North Korea recently launched a few missiles (the reported amount differs depending on the State reporting it)that landed in the Sea of Japan. Among those launched, North Korea attempted to launch one long range missile that crashed seconds after launch. The reason this is significant is because the type of long range missile in their capacity has the ability to reach US territory. I believe it was reported that the missile would be able to reach Alaska.
The state that has the most to fear is Japan. Japan is a former imperialist state and some of its neighboring states feel ashamed and angered by the treatment they endured during Japanese occupation, in particular Korea and China. Additionally, North Korea has in the past launched missile over northern Japan and with the newest "avocations," Japan may feel much less secure in its defense system.
Japan reacted by circulating a resolution in the UN Security Council that would impose sanctions on North Korea. The sanctions the Japan is proposing is to bar all states from shipping goods, funds, and material that would aid North Korea in developing its missile and general arsenal. North Korea has said that any such sanctions would amount to a declaration of war and would react in necessary manner to any state that threatens it. Russia and China both have said that they would not support the Japanese resolution; China and Russia have veto power in the Security Council.
US other immediate issue: Israel and Palestine recent conflict, the Iraq occupation and insurrection, Afghanistan issue, Iran's nuclear program, the ranting Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in South America, etc. etc. etc.
Until again, I bid you adieu
The state that has the most to fear is Japan. Japan is a former imperialist state and some of its neighboring states feel ashamed and angered by the treatment they endured during Japanese occupation, in particular Korea and China. Additionally, North Korea has in the past launched missile over northern Japan and with the newest "avocations," Japan may feel much less secure in its defense system.
Japan reacted by circulating a resolution in the UN Security Council that would impose sanctions on North Korea. The sanctions the Japan is proposing is to bar all states from shipping goods, funds, and material that would aid North Korea in developing its missile and general arsenal. North Korea has said that any such sanctions would amount to a declaration of war and would react in necessary manner to any state that threatens it. Russia and China both have said that they would not support the Japanese resolution; China and Russia have veto power in the Security Council.
US other immediate issue: Israel and Palestine recent conflict, the Iraq occupation and insurrection, Afghanistan issue, Iran's nuclear program, the ranting Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in South America, etc. etc. etc.
Until again, I bid you adieu
Middle East Crisis
I have not written here for a long time, but the recent events (the last few weeks) in the Middle East are of such catastrophic effects that they necessitate some reflection and reporting.
The recent events in the Middle East started with the capture of an Israeli soldier by Hamas—a Palestinian political organization. In response Israel retaliated by unleashing a military operation. For weeks Palestine was under a constant military barrage. Palestinian infrastructures—electrical plants, bridges, roads, office buildings, among others—were destroyed. Additionally, Israel arrested many Hamas political officials, and killed others.
In the mist of the Palestinian and Israeli catastrophe, Hezbollah, an organization which operates in Southern Lebanon, went into Israel and captured two Israeli soldiers. As a result, for the last two weeks Lebanon has been under the worst military bombardment since Israeli’s invasion in the 1982. Lebanon, according to the Lebanese Prime Minister, has been “reversed fifty years,” in terms of their infrastructure. Israel has destroyed bridges, homes, roads, plants and anything that would isolate Lebanon from the world. The United Nations and other foreign capitals have deemed the recent Israeli operation as non-proportional; that is, the amount of damage Israel has committed in Lebanon does not equate to losing two soldiers. Initially the reasoning behind the non-proportional attacks was that Israel was afraid that Hezbollah would attempt to transfer the soldiers to Iran or Syria so it was necessary to destroy all physical connections to the outside world. Some political analyst have observed that the Israel operation is a classical military operation and one US committed against Germany and Japan during World War II. Essentially, destroy the country until the people turn on the government or until the aggressor gets an unconditional surrender. In other words, the political analyst suggest that Israel may simply want to destroy Lebanon economically and physically, and make the lives of the people so uncomfortable that the people will prefer surrender or will turn on Hezbollah and the government just to end the fighting.
Iran and Syria have been implicated as the partners of Hezbollah and their principal suppliers of arms. Both countries have denied the allegations, but it seems like most political analyst and international capitals are convinced that the connection is real. It has recently been observed that Iran has sent officials to Syria for a meeting on the recent events and that the leader of Hezbollah was present at the meeting—the credibility of that statement I cannot stand behind. Yet, Hezbollah does have unexpectedly sophisticated military arms for the type of organization that it is—the United States list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. This is one of the things that US and Israel point to as evidence that Iran through Syria have been providing Hezbollah with arms.
The fighting in Lebanon is currently ongoing. Israel today called up 30,000 army reserves for the operation in Lebanon. Some believe that Hezbollah has been greatly hurt and that Israel will not stop until the group is nearly destroyed or completely destroyed—and they have the capability to do it. Additionally, once a cease fire is completed it looks like an international peace keeping mission will be sent to Southern Lebanon to make sure Hezbollah does not return and the state of Lebanon regains control of its country.
One can write a whole series of books in the recent fighting in the Middle East. It is sad. People on both sides are suffering and it looks like there is no “light at the end of the tunnel” for this madness in the near future.
The recent events in the Middle East started with the capture of an Israeli soldier by Hamas—a Palestinian political organization. In response Israel retaliated by unleashing a military operation. For weeks Palestine was under a constant military barrage. Palestinian infrastructures—electrical plants, bridges, roads, office buildings, among others—were destroyed. Additionally, Israel arrested many Hamas political officials, and killed others.
In the mist of the Palestinian and Israeli catastrophe, Hezbollah, an organization which operates in Southern Lebanon, went into Israel and captured two Israeli soldiers. As a result, for the last two weeks Lebanon has been under the worst military bombardment since Israeli’s invasion in the 1982. Lebanon, according to the Lebanese Prime Minister, has been “reversed fifty years,” in terms of their infrastructure. Israel has destroyed bridges, homes, roads, plants and anything that would isolate Lebanon from the world. The United Nations and other foreign capitals have deemed the recent Israeli operation as non-proportional; that is, the amount of damage Israel has committed in Lebanon does not equate to losing two soldiers. Initially the reasoning behind the non-proportional attacks was that Israel was afraid that Hezbollah would attempt to transfer the soldiers to Iran or Syria so it was necessary to destroy all physical connections to the outside world. Some political analyst have observed that the Israel operation is a classical military operation and one US committed against Germany and Japan during World War II. Essentially, destroy the country until the people turn on the government or until the aggressor gets an unconditional surrender. In other words, the political analyst suggest that Israel may simply want to destroy Lebanon economically and physically, and make the lives of the people so uncomfortable that the people will prefer surrender or will turn on Hezbollah and the government just to end the fighting.
Iran and Syria have been implicated as the partners of Hezbollah and their principal suppliers of arms. Both countries have denied the allegations, but it seems like most political analyst and international capitals are convinced that the connection is real. It has recently been observed that Iran has sent officials to Syria for a meeting on the recent events and that the leader of Hezbollah was present at the meeting—the credibility of that statement I cannot stand behind. Yet, Hezbollah does have unexpectedly sophisticated military arms for the type of organization that it is—the United States list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. This is one of the things that US and Israel point to as evidence that Iran through Syria have been providing Hezbollah with arms.
The fighting in Lebanon is currently ongoing. Israel today called up 30,000 army reserves for the operation in Lebanon. Some believe that Hezbollah has been greatly hurt and that Israel will not stop until the group is nearly destroyed or completely destroyed—and they have the capability to do it. Additionally, once a cease fire is completed it looks like an international peace keeping mission will be sent to Southern Lebanon to make sure Hezbollah does not return and the state of Lebanon regains control of its country.
One can write a whole series of books in the recent fighting in the Middle East. It is sad. People on both sides are suffering and it looks like there is no “light at the end of the tunnel” for this madness in the near future.
Middle East Crisis
I have not written here for a long time, but the recent events (the last few weeks) in the Middle East are of such catastrophic effects that they necessitate some reflection and reporting.
The recent events in the Middle East started with the capture of an Israeli soldier by Hamas—a Palestinian political organization. In response Israel retaliated by unleashing a military operation. For weeks Palestine was under a constant military barrage. Palestinian infrastructures—electrical plants, bridges, roads, office buildings, among others—were destroyed. Additionally, Israel arrested many Hamas political officials, and killed others.
In the mist of the Palestinian and Israeli catastrophe, Hezbollah, an organization which operates in Southern Lebanon, went into Israel and captured two Israeli soldiers. As a result, for the last two weeks Lebanon has been under the worst military bombardment since Israeli’s invasion in the 1982. Lebanon, according to the Lebanese Prime Minister, has been “reversed fifty years,” in terms of their infrastructure. Israel has destroyed bridges, homes, roads, plants and anything that would isolate Lebanon from the world. The United Nations and other foreign capitals have deemed the recent Israeli operation as non-proportional; that is, the amount of damage Israel has committed in Lebanon does not equate to losing two soldiers. Initially the reasoning behind the non-proportional attacks was that Israel was afraid that Hezbollah would attempt to transfer the soldiers to Iran or Syria so it was necessary to destroy all physical connections to the outside world. Some political analyst have observed that the Israel operation is a classical military operation and one US committed against Germany and Japan during World War II. Essentially, destroy the country until the people turn on the government or until the aggressor gets an unconditional surrender. In other words, the political analyst suggest that Israel may simply want to destroy Lebanon economically and physically, and make the lives of the people so uncomfortable that the people will prefer surrender or will turn on Hezbollah and the government just to end the fighting.
Iran and Syria have been implicated as the partners of Hezbollah and their principal suppliers of arms. Both countries have denied the allegations, but it seems like most political analyst and international capitals are convinced that the connection is real. It has recently been observed that Iran has sent officials to Syria for a meeting on the recent events and that the leader of Hezbollah was present at the meeting—the credibility of that statement I cannot stand behind. Yet, Hezbollah does have unexpectedly sophisticated military arms for the type of organization that it is—the United States list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. This is one of the things that US and Israel point to as evidence that Iran through Syria have been providing Hezbollah with arms.
The fighting in Lebanon is currently ongoing. Israel today called up 30,000 army reserves for the operation in Lebanon. Some believe that Hezbollah has been greatly hurt and that Israel will not stop until the group is nearly destroyed or completely destroyed—and they have the capability to do it. Additionally, once a cease fire is completed it looks like an international peace keeping mission will be sent to Southern Lebanon to make sure Hezbollah does not return and the state of Lebanon regains control of its country.
One can write a whole series of books in the recent fighting in the Middle East. It is sad. People on both sides are suffering and it looks like there is no “light at the end of the tunnel” for this madness in the near future.
The recent events in the Middle East started with the capture of an Israeli soldier by Hamas—a Palestinian political organization. In response Israel retaliated by unleashing a military operation. For weeks Palestine was under a constant military barrage. Palestinian infrastructures—electrical plants, bridges, roads, office buildings, among others—were destroyed. Additionally, Israel arrested many Hamas political officials, and killed others.
In the mist of the Palestinian and Israeli catastrophe, Hezbollah, an organization which operates in Southern Lebanon, went into Israel and captured two Israeli soldiers. As a result, for the last two weeks Lebanon has been under the worst military bombardment since Israeli’s invasion in the 1982. Lebanon, according to the Lebanese Prime Minister, has been “reversed fifty years,” in terms of their infrastructure. Israel has destroyed bridges, homes, roads, plants and anything that would isolate Lebanon from the world. The United Nations and other foreign capitals have deemed the recent Israeli operation as non-proportional; that is, the amount of damage Israel has committed in Lebanon does not equate to losing two soldiers. Initially the reasoning behind the non-proportional attacks was that Israel was afraid that Hezbollah would attempt to transfer the soldiers to Iran or Syria so it was necessary to destroy all physical connections to the outside world. Some political analyst have observed that the Israel operation is a classical military operation and one US committed against Germany and Japan during World War II. Essentially, destroy the country until the people turn on the government or until the aggressor gets an unconditional surrender. In other words, the political analyst suggest that Israel may simply want to destroy Lebanon economically and physically, and make the lives of the people so uncomfortable that the people will prefer surrender or will turn on Hezbollah and the government just to end the fighting.
Iran and Syria have been implicated as the partners of Hezbollah and their principal suppliers of arms. Both countries have denied the allegations, but it seems like most political analyst and international capitals are convinced that the connection is real. It has recently been observed that Iran has sent officials to Syria for a meeting on the recent events and that the leader of Hezbollah was present at the meeting—the credibility of that statement I cannot stand behind. Yet, Hezbollah does have unexpectedly sophisticated military arms for the type of organization that it is—the United States list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. This is one of the things that US and Israel point to as evidence that Iran through Syria have been providing Hezbollah with arms.
The fighting in Lebanon is currently ongoing. Israel today called up 30,000 army reserves for the operation in Lebanon. Some believe that Hezbollah has been greatly hurt and that Israel will not stop until the group is nearly destroyed or completely destroyed—and they have the capability to do it. Additionally, once a cease fire is completed it looks like an international peace keeping mission will be sent to Southern Lebanon to make sure Hezbollah does not return and the state of Lebanon regains control of its country.
One can write a whole series of books in the recent fighting in the Middle East. It is sad. People on both sides are suffering and it looks like there is no “light at the end of the tunnel” for this madness in the near future.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
What is my personal view on the current violence in the Middle East? I really do not know what to believe. Some people believe that Israel is over reacting and acting in a hegemonic manner; that is, being a bully. Others claim that Hezbollah deserves some of the blame, if not all, because they operate in the mist of civilians.
Israel is the regional superpower. It has over 200 nuclear weapons. The United States supplies Israel with the best military technologies on the planet. Israel probably has decent to really good human intelligence. For those who claim that Israel has great human intelligence, that would beg the simple question, why do they kill hundreds of civilians if their human intelligence is so precise? Israel also has the capabilities, which it has shown in the past, to defeat several Arab conventional militaries simultaneously: mainly because of its nuclear deterrent and technological superiority. Moreover, the United States goes out of its may to use it influence in the region to persuade some important Arab governments (literally in some cases)to denounce "terrorist" organizations and make peace with Israel.
Thus, how else does one expect Hezbollah to fight Israel, which is its sworn enemy? Guerrilla warfare is a classic maneuver for poor countries, organizations, factions, and resistance fighters. Guerrilla warfare freed millions people from the yoke of oppression all over the world. Hezbollah would not survive a week if it attempted to fight the Israeli military in a conventional manner so it must resort to the approach better known as “by any means necessary,” a classic strategy.
The Jewish people on the other hand sees themselves as the persecuted and consistently condemned by other societies—though this is mostly true for those Jews that come from Europe. As a result, the state of Israel has become the sanctuary in which Jews can protect themselves. Regardless of what the facts are or what one believes it is important to understand that the general people of Israel do feel to be the victims.
All in all, both peoples are suffering. The insane politics of the Middle East conflict needs a new approach. The International superpower game strategic competition (for commercial interest) , I’m convinced, are not wholly interested in permanent stability in the Middle East unless it is on their terms or their regional partners terms. The Middle East cannot wait for the superpowers (which is the UN) to solve their issues.
Israel is the regional superpower. It has over 200 nuclear weapons. The United States supplies Israel with the best military technologies on the planet. Israel probably has decent to really good human intelligence. For those who claim that Israel has great human intelligence, that would beg the simple question, why do they kill hundreds of civilians if their human intelligence is so precise? Israel also has the capabilities, which it has shown in the past, to defeat several Arab conventional militaries simultaneously: mainly because of its nuclear deterrent and technological superiority. Moreover, the United States goes out of its may to use it influence in the region to persuade some important Arab governments (literally in some cases)to denounce "terrorist" organizations and make peace with Israel.
Thus, how else does one expect Hezbollah to fight Israel, which is its sworn enemy? Guerrilla warfare is a classic maneuver for poor countries, organizations, factions, and resistance fighters. Guerrilla warfare freed millions people from the yoke of oppression all over the world. Hezbollah would not survive a week if it attempted to fight the Israeli military in a conventional manner so it must resort to the approach better known as “by any means necessary,” a classic strategy.
The Jewish people on the other hand sees themselves as the persecuted and consistently condemned by other societies—though this is mostly true for those Jews that come from Europe. As a result, the state of Israel has become the sanctuary in which Jews can protect themselves. Regardless of what the facts are or what one believes it is important to understand that the general people of Israel do feel to be the victims.
All in all, both peoples are suffering. The insane politics of the Middle East conflict needs a new approach. The International superpower game strategic competition (for commercial interest) , I’m convinced, are not wholly interested in permanent stability in the Middle East unless it is on their terms or their regional partners terms. The Middle East cannot wait for the superpowers (which is the UN) to solve their issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)