Saturday, April 24, 2010
Monday, April 24, 2006
In the UKMonday, November 28, 2005
NOTES: THE EU-JUGGERNAUT, PRESERVING THE CHURCH, LOSING OUR MORALE OVER IRAQ, APPEARANCE OF NEW TORY FOREIGN POLICY?, ARMENIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM
Whilst I complained that many people in this country were going slack in regards to the expansion of EU (and less recently), that was more of an aside, I had little idea just how fast and far the EU was actually going. In the Speccie's cover story Anthony Brown recounts some of the major development from only the past few months. It is pretty dizzying reading. Whilst one could try to find solace in Brown's remark that
Whilst I complained that many people in this country were going slack in regards to the expansion of EU (and less recently), that was more of an aside, I had little idea just how fast and far the EU was actually going. In the Speccie's cover story Anthony Brown recounts some of the major development from only the past few months. It is pretty dizzying reading. Whilst one could try to find solace in Brown's remark that
Like a disabled person on crutches who defies his disability by climbing a mountain, or the cancer victim who runs marathons, the threat of paralysis seems to have spurred the EU into a frenzy of activity.
I fear the EU is simply doing its usual thing in flying under the radar. Again it's a shame that the main press doesn't really pick these stories up properly. In turn of course that leads to angry-old-man-syndrome when it suddenly becomes apparent that the EU has instigated some mind bogglingly stupid and rightfully unpopular move like forcing out the Red Ensign. Well, probably too late if true. By the time you see the result of EU regulations or an expansion of EU institutional competences it's probably already too late to do anything about it - that's how it works. It's time the wider public got to understand this better. It's good of the Speccie to run these stories (and reminds me why we really need it), but that is just not enough.
Having spent the day in Canterbury I am impressively reminded why I stand by the Church of England, despite some of its growing troubles. When you look at the Cathedral but also some of the smaller Church buildings spread around you are not immediately struck by it. It's when you look closer, that what really conveys the quiet splendour of the Anglican faith are the little details and the air of historical matter-of-courseness that accompanies the Church and its works. It certainly grew on me again while I was there.
In Saturday's Times Matthew Parris has an interesting comment on Iraq, in which he says that whatever we may consciously argue, subconsciously we all agree on Iraq having failed. I am afraid I know what he means. When Iraq hawks talk and particularly blog amongst themselves it all seems less bad, but the moment you open a newspaper, switch on the telly or the radio you can't avoid this sinking feeling. I see no reason (yet?) to change my mind over invading and occupying Iraq, but the emotional commitment to the enterprise had been gone for a long time. In the lead up to the invasion there was a real feeling that things were changing for the better, and this was a just and necessary war that it was a pleasure to be an advocate for. I can't really say when that tipping point came. Looking back there are two points that stand out for me.
The first was Bush's "mission accomplished" show. At the moment when the war was going into its more difficult phase of reestablishing order in Iraq Bush was effectively saying there's nothing to do anymore, let's go home. That built up exactly the wrong kind fo expectation both in the military and the public. After you've created the impression that the job is as good as done and you then say, "yes, but I need to send an extra two hundred thousand troops in for at least a year" (a realistic war plan I would wager), people are going baulk at that. I think this is when I began feeling that our leaders were possibly going to mess things up.
The second was the David Kelly affair. Whether or not Andrew Gilligan was journalistically right or not to blow the wmd story up at a time when public support was already beginning to wane I will leave to others to debate; ultimately there’s nothing that can be done about freedom of the press, even if that freedom gets used badly. But again like Bush’s speech this was in the transformationary phase of the war. To run a proper nation building war effort would have required public backing. The Kelly affair set off the then sheer endless stream of officials past and present rolling out supposed exposes about wmd lies. This helped undermine public morale. Why the Government was so incompetent in meeting this bad pr remains a mystery to me, given how good they are normally at spinning.
But both those incidences I think we’re instrumental in pushing the emotional dimension of the Iraq war debate in the wrong direction. To be sure, there is plenty that went wrong policy and argument wise to be sure.
If you read the Economist's fine leader on Iraq this week you are struck by the level of disappointment that seeps through the comment. That is a feeling I sadly share. What makes it worse is that I know it's possibly too late to make a real shift in strategy. That would also be politically difficulty increasingly in Iraq itself now I guess. Otherwise I think this posting from more than two years ago describes what would needed to be done.
(As an aside, advocating the invasion of Iraq may have been a pleasure, but socially comfortable it wasn't; I guess people don't really like debating politics properly in a social environment; it's more about finding commonality with other, which intensifies ten-fold the displaesure on realising the other side diagrees with you.)
So what template would a Tory Government do to deal with such a situation? Not easy to tell. Back in June I had pointed out that the Conservatives needed to debate and develop clear thinking on foreign policy. Whilst Michael Howard's positions had already hinted in an interventionist, hawkish and sovereignist direction, it seems that outlook is gaining traction amongst the Tories. In this week's Speccie Peter Oborne reports on a London meeting of the Henry Jackson Society. Plenty of up and coming Tories in there. It certainly looks like this is where the Conservatives seem to be heading in terms of forging a new foreign policy consensus. This will definitely help the Conservatives win the next election. After all, one of my favourites themes I like to go on about is how you can’t fight properly in politics if you don’t have certainty on the national strategy, Britain’s place in the world and on how you would decide matters of war and peace. Even if there is a wide political range in the Henry Jackson Society itself, most are centre-right and I think it is no safe to say that therefore the Tory revival edges closer.
(see also Stephen Pollard)
After the doubtful occurances during Azerbaijan’s elections recently, time to turn to another South Caucasus state and an expression of public will, the constitutional amendment referendum in Armenia. The proposal would most importantly have moved powers away from the presidency towards parliament. After first hearing about it I thought this looks a lot more promising avenue for bringing genuine democracy into the post-Soviet sphere than trying to do so in single big steps such as revolutions or general elections. By gradually starting to move things from the bottom up, piece by piece, chances are far better that the democracy that emerges from that will hold. Sadly, it seems the referendum has followed the dubious routes that similar events have gone in the ex-USSR. Shame really. Hopefully it will work one day.
Having spent the day in Canterbury I am impressively reminded why I stand by the Church of England, despite some of its growing troubles. When you look at the Cathedral but also some of the smaller Church buildings spread around you are not immediately struck by it. It's when you look closer, that what really conveys the quiet splendour of the Anglican faith are the little details and the air of historical matter-of-courseness that accompanies the Church and its works. It certainly grew on me again while I was there.
In Saturday's Times Matthew Parris has an interesting comment on Iraq, in which he says that whatever we may consciously argue, subconsciously we all agree on Iraq having failed. I am afraid I know what he means. When Iraq hawks talk and particularly blog amongst themselves it all seems less bad, but the moment you open a newspaper, switch on the telly or the radio you can't avoid this sinking feeling. I see no reason (yet?) to change my mind over invading and occupying Iraq, but the emotional commitment to the enterprise had been gone for a long time. In the lead up to the invasion there was a real feeling that things were changing for the better, and this was a just and necessary war that it was a pleasure to be an advocate for. I can't really say when that tipping point came. Looking back there are two points that stand out for me.
The first was Bush's "mission accomplished" show. At the moment when the war was going into its more difficult phase of reestablishing order in Iraq Bush was effectively saying there's nothing to do anymore, let's go home. That built up exactly the wrong kind fo expectation both in the military and the public. After you've created the impression that the job is as good as done and you then say, "yes, but I need to send an extra two hundred thousand troops in for at least a year" (a realistic war plan I would wager), people are going baulk at that. I think this is when I began feeling that our leaders were possibly going to mess things up.
The second was the David Kelly affair. Whether or not Andrew Gilligan was journalistically right or not to blow the wmd story up at a time when public support was already beginning to wane I will leave to others to debate; ultimately there’s nothing that can be done about freedom of the press, even if that freedom gets used badly. But again like Bush’s speech this was in the transformationary phase of the war. To run a proper nation building war effort would have required public backing. The Kelly affair set off the then sheer endless stream of officials past and present rolling out supposed exposes about wmd lies. This helped undermine public morale. Why the Government was so incompetent in meeting this bad pr remains a mystery to me, given how good they are normally at spinning.
But both those incidences I think we’re instrumental in pushing the emotional dimension of the Iraq war debate in the wrong direction. To be sure, there is plenty that went wrong policy and argument wise to be sure.
If you read the Economist's fine leader on Iraq this week you are struck by the level of disappointment that seeps through the comment. That is a feeling I sadly share. What makes it worse is that I know it's possibly too late to make a real shift in strategy. That would also be politically difficulty increasingly in Iraq itself now I guess. Otherwise I think this posting from more than two years ago describes what would needed to be done.
(As an aside, advocating the invasion of Iraq may have been a pleasure, but socially comfortable it wasn't; I guess people don't really like debating politics properly in a social environment; it's more about finding commonality with other, which intensifies ten-fold the displaesure on realising the other side diagrees with you.)
So what template would a Tory Government do to deal with such a situation? Not easy to tell. Back in June I had pointed out that the Conservatives needed to debate and develop clear thinking on foreign policy. Whilst Michael Howard's positions had already hinted in an interventionist, hawkish and sovereignist direction, it seems that outlook is gaining traction amongst the Tories. In this week's Speccie Peter Oborne reports on a London meeting of the Henry Jackson Society. Plenty of up and coming Tories in there. It certainly looks like this is where the Conservatives seem to be heading in terms of forging a new foreign policy consensus. This will definitely help the Conservatives win the next election. After all, one of my favourites themes I like to go on about is how you can’t fight properly in politics if you don’t have certainty on the national strategy, Britain’s place in the world and on how you would decide matters of war and peace. Even if there is a wide political range in the Henry Jackson Society itself, most are centre-right and I think it is no safe to say that therefore the Tory revival edges closer.
(see also Stephen Pollard)
After the doubtful occurances during Azerbaijan’s elections recently, time to turn to another South Caucasus state and an expression of public will, the constitutional amendment referendum in Armenia. The proposal would most importantly have moved powers away from the presidency towards parliament. After first hearing about it I thought this looks a lot more promising avenue for bringing genuine democracy into the post-Soviet sphere than trying to do so in single big steps such as revolutions or general elections. By gradually starting to move things from the bottom up, piece by piece, chances are far better that the democracy that emerges from that will hold. Sadly, it seems the referendum has followed the dubious routes that similar events have gone in the ex-USSR. Shame really. Hopefully it will work one day.
Labels: Armenia, Church, EU, global affairs, Iraq, media, religion
Sunday, November 06, 2005
MORE NOTES: AZERIS VOTE, GUY FAWKES, IRAQ INQUIRY, TROOP MORALE AND QUIZZES
Very busy in my real life at the moment so still no proper posts . . .
Very busy in my real life at the moment so still no proper posts . . .
There are elections in Azerbaijan today. The Economist has a good primer on this, Katy of blogrel is there now and Eurasianet is a good source for incoming news. This is quite an important event in a region whose strategic relevance has grown due to oil and being in the neighbourhood of Iran and the Nastystans. How the elections run today will have important ramifications. Ideally the elections will run smoothly and be fair. This in turn will enable the country to reform, make Western engagement such as military bases acceptable and help a peaceful resolution of the Karabagh conflict with Armenia. If this doesn't happen, and there is a real risk of this, there are two basic scenarios that are problematic. If incumbent holds on to power illicitly and the West stays, we will be compromising our moral standing and credibility. On the other hand, if we pull out, this might heighten the propensity of the Azerbaijan regime to seek a military solution to the conflict with Armenia. Needless to say such a war would be catastrophic for all involved but that's never stopped unstable dictatorships from going down that route for their egos and to cement crumbling regimes at home. As long as there is Western engagement in the region and the country, the West will try to quell any war as this would be deeply damaging to our interests. So I think we have a bit of a dilemma to solve if the current regime hangs on to power. (As for solving the Karabagh conflict, the first rule that outsiders should lay down and enforce would be one of absolute non-violence. And whichever side violates the ceasefire should then be treated as an illegitimate aggressor.)
Remember, remember, the fifth of November . . . The 400th time this year round. Clive Davis has some disappointing observations to make. Certainly the past five years the tradition of Bonfire Night has been pretty hollowed out. While I was at uni there was not a single event, but there were countless Halloween parties. I have nothing against Halloween, seeing as it connects to warm childhood memories, but it is still a shame that it is driving out Guy Fawkes. But that's the thing you see, if you abolish or downgrade national traditions like that what you end up with is not some bold global humanist utopia but rather more you will end with the resulting vacuum being filled by the commercially most available alternative. And that will normally be American for better or for worse. (I wrote an essay on Guy Fawkes' enduring relevance yesterday, but the footnoting went awol so you'll have to wait a little for that.) On the other hand, as our penchant for turning everything into a booze-fuelled mess, we all know what any festivities in this country tend to descend to . . . ;)
By the sounds of it so far this looks like an Iraq inquiry that makes sense: The failure to plan for the aftermath is likely to be at the heart of the committee’s inquiries now that Iraq is in the grip of a violent insurgency, says the Tory MP Douglas Hogg, one of the inquiry’s architects and who is canvassing support for the move.
For once we might actually get an investigation into the management of the war, particularly the post-invasion planning, rather than the endless and irrelevant arguments about wmd.
Sticking with Iraq, news is in that the stress levels of our troops have now reached those of World War Two. Things must have got much worse in Iraq, right? Well, not quite. It's mainly down to a fear of being prosecuted for killing an insurgent. The trial against seven Paras that collapsed this week is a good case in point. Despite no credible evidence for wrongdoing and witnesses who were allegedly being paid to make stuff up, it is fairly bizarre that the whole sordid affair could be drawn out for more than two years. DumbJohn is on form on this.
And now: quiz time! Oh dear, again? I hear you poor reader groan, but I'm having too much fun with this:
Sticking with Iraq, news is in that the stress levels of our troops have now reached those of World War Two. Things must have got much worse in Iraq, right? Well, not quite. It's mainly down to a fear of being prosecuted for killing an insurgent. The trial against seven Paras that collapsed this week is a good case in point. Despite no credible evidence for wrongdoing and witnesses who were allegedly being paid to make stuff up, it is fairly bizarre that the whole sordid affair could be drawn out for more than two years. DumbJohn is on form on this.
And now: quiz time! Oh dear, again? I hear you poor reader groan, but I'm having too much fun with this:
| You Are 50% Boyish and 50% Girlish |
You are pretty evenly split down the middle - a total eunuch. Okay, kidding about the eunuch part. But you do get along with both sexes. You reject traditional gender roles. However, you don't actively fight them. You're just you. You don't try to be what people expect you to be. |
Although not immediately apparent fromt his blog's politics, but in my real life this is probably quite true:
| Your Hidden Talent |
 Your natural talent is interpersonal relations and dealing with people. You communicate well and are able to bring disparate groups together. Your calming presence helps everything go more smoothly. People crave your praise and complements. |
Labels: Armenia, Azerbaijan, blogging and the blogger, defence, Iraq, nation, USA
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
ROUNDING UP
As you may have noticed my blog has fallen into one of its irregualar posting phases, apologies for that, especially because it’s going to last a little longer too, as I currenlty don’t have quite the neecessary peace of mind to blog properly at the moment. But at least you can look forward to some changes in a few weeks time, including a full site redesign and a proper concept for issue I will cover, which I will then cover consistently to boot. And that is surely something to look forward to.
Anyway, as this week’s stop-gap measure here’s a round-up of some interesrting bits and pieces:
- David Aaronovitch argues we were not lied to over Iraq’s wmd. Well, he makes it sound very compelling and as a hawk I’m inclined to agree, but something still doesn’t quite fit. I supported regime change anyway and continue to do so, but I’m not so sure about this issue. Let’s be honest Mr Blair hasn’t always been a hundred per cent accurate with the facts on other issue either has he? If it did turn out Blair lied, I would not change my mind about Iraq, and it wouldn’t change my mind about him either.
- Turkey continues its effort to become part of the European mainstream political culture:
As you may have noticed my blog has fallen into one of its irregualar posting phases, apologies for that, especially because it’s going to last a little longer too, as I currenlty don’t have quite the neecessary peace of mind to blog properly at the moment. But at least you can look forward to some changes in a few weeks time, including a full site redesign and a proper concept for issue I will cover, which I will then cover consistently to boot. And that is surely something to look forward to.
Anyway, as this week’s stop-gap measure here’s a round-up of some interesrting bits and pieces:
- David Aaronovitch argues we were not lied to over Iraq’s wmd. Well, he makes it sound very compelling and as a hawk I’m inclined to agree, but something still doesn’t quite fit. I supported regime change anyway and continue to do so, but I’m not so sure about this issue. Let’s be honest Mr Blair hasn’t always been a hundred per cent accurate with the facts on other issue either has he? If it did turn out Blair lied, I would not change my mind about Iraq, and it wouldn’t change my mind about him either.
- Turkey continues its effort to become part of the European mainstream political culture:
Turkey renames 'divisive' animals
Even animal names can become contentious in politics Turkey has said it is changing the names of three animals found on its territory to remove references to Kurdistan or Armenia. . . . Some Turkish officials say the names are being used to argue that Armenians or Kurds had lived in the areas where the animals were found. . . .
Well, it doesn’t really bother me too much, I support Turkish membership (just about) in an EU which is more a cooperative low-key stability structure rather than an integrated state for geopolitical reasons alone, so I guess this doesn’t really affect my views. But if I were on of those Europhile integrationist types who wants Turkey to join in his happy big new nation I think I would feel distinctly uncomfortable to see Turkey continuing its campaign to deny to Armenians and Kurds that they have any historical connection to territory that formed their ancient homelands for millenia before it came under Turkish control.
- John Rosenthal explains how the outrage about Rumsfeld’s “Old/New Europe” remarks was fabricated. Given the nigh on hysterical reactions by many parts of European opinion you think he was certainly hitting some raw nerve.
- If you have never heard of the Jewish refugees of the Middle East this gives you an idea.
- Libby Purves tells us to mind our language: what do we mean when we talk of “Middle England”? Purves says it’s simply daft or/and an insult and we should stop. Quite right.
- and finally . .. the porn joke of the week (yeah I know I’m getting desperate); even though it does attach itself to a serious story:
- John Rosenthal explains how the outrage about Rumsfeld’s “Old/New Europe” remarks was fabricated. Given the nigh on hysterical reactions by many parts of European opinion you think he was certainly hitting some raw nerve.
- If you have never heard of the Jewish refugees of the Middle East this gives you an idea.
- Libby Purves tells us to mind our language: what do we mean when we talk of “Middle England”? Purves says it’s simply daft or/and an insult and we should stop. Quite right.
- and finally . .. the porn joke of the week (yeah I know I’m getting desperate); even though it does attach itself to a serious story:
A £6m campaign to spread information about the EU Constitution could be illegal, a Conservative MEP has said.
EU officials claim the drive will only inform and not promote a "yes" vote in referendums on the Constitution.
But Den Dover, who led the fight against the plan approved by MEPs on Tuesday, said it was part of an agenda to win support for the treaty.
I wonder if in any way he is related to Ben Dover? Or is it just a chnage in the nome de guerre? I think we should be told.
Labels: Armenia, blogging and the blogger, EU, Iraq, Israel, nation, Turkey
Thursday, February 03, 2005
RECOGNIZING GENOCIDE
I just thought I’d do my bit by flagging this story up:
I just thought I’d do my bit by flagging this story up:
TURKEY WINS REMOVAL OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE FROM GERMAN SCHOOLS
(dpa) - Pressure from Turkey has resulted in the removal of a reference to the Armenian genocide from a German school curriculum, reports said Wednesday.
The eastern German state of Brandenburg has eliminated half a sentence on the Armenians included in ninth and tenth grade history classes after a Turkish diplomat complained to state Prime Minister Matthias Platzeck, the newspaper Die Welt reported.
In a chapter entitled "War, Technology and Civilian Populations" the school book text said "for example, the genocide of the Armenians population of Anatolia." That passage has now been removed from school textbooks, the newspaper said.
I first found this via blogrel. An excellent repository of the full details and more can be found at this new blog Yessem. I urge you to go and read it all. I have to say I find this particularly vile that this happened in the week commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz. Standing up for the victims of genocide? What of those lessons learnt? A bitterly ironic question really coming to think of it given that the Armenian genocide took place two decades before the Holocaust. Learning lessons? Not very quickly it seems. Well, I suppose Hitler learnt the lesson.
But there’s quite a contrast here, which is why I am flagging this up. There is no reason to blame modern Turks for what happened as little as it makes sense to blame modern day Germans for the Shoa. That is not what this is about.
What this is about is something very dark indeed. In the scientific study of genocide several stages of the process are identified. The final stage is not, as one might initially assume, the extermination; the final stage is the denial of the extermination. This is what the current Turkish government is doing right now. It is in effect completing the genocidal work of the Young Turks regime.
But there’s quite a contrast here, which is why I am flagging this up. There is no reason to blame modern Turks for what happened as little as it makes sense to blame modern day Germans for the Shoa. That is not what this is about.
What this is about is something very dark indeed. In the scientific study of genocide several stages of the process are identified. The final stage is not, as one might initially assume, the extermination; the final stage is the denial of the extermination. This is what the current Turkish government is doing right now. It is in effect completing the genocidal work of the Young Turks regime.
Labels: Armenia, Germany, history, Turkey
