The “Arab Democratic Uprising” is going to need the support of people from neighbouring countries, and from ordinary people in long established democracies outside of the region.
In Syria the large scale escalation of violent suppression by Bashir Al-Assad’s security brigades has provoked the usual suspects Russia and China, to signal that they will veto any UN security resolutions against Syria, of the type issued against Libya. Remember it was Russia and China who attempted to delay and muzzle UN Security Resolution 1973 against Gaddafi.
In Egypt Robert Frisk says in a recent article…. “Field Marshal Tantawi, the head of the Egyptian army, for example, is now running Egypt. Yet he is not only a close friend of America, but a childhood and lifelong friend of Mubarak, who was allowed to whinge the usual ex-dictator’s self-congratulatory excuses on al-Arabia television (‘my reputation, my integrity and my military and political record’) prior to his own questioning – and inevitable emergency entry into hospital. When the latest Tahrir Square crowds also called for Tantawi’s resignation, the field marshal’s mask slipped. He sent his troops to ‘cleanse’ the square.”[ British Newspaper: The Independent “A long Time Coming” 15/4/2011 Robert Fisk]
Added to this Saudi Arabia is willing to underwrite any Gulf State in fighting democracy, as it has done in Bahrain. They are also offering help to the Syrian regime, in addition to help from long term ally Iran. While Algeria is suspected of secretly sending arms to Gaddafi’s regime, via it’s 600 miles shared border.
Going back to Robert Fisk’s article “And now let’s go a little further. On 31 March, the Israelis – who have steadfastly opposed the overthrow of the Middle East’s dictators – published a series of photo-reconnaissance pictures of southern Lebanon, supposedly marking the exact locations of 550 Hezbollah bunkers, 300 ‘monitoring sites’ and 100 weapons storage facilities run by Syria’s Lebanese Shia militia allies in the country. They had been built, the Israelis claimed, next to hospitals, schools and public utilities. The documentation was fake. Visits to locations marked on the map uncovered no such bunkers. Indeed, the real Hezbollah bunkers known to the Lebanese are not marked on the map. The Hezbollah quickly understood the meaning. ‘They are setting us up for the next war’, a veteran Hezbollah ruffian from the village of Jibchit told me……. But last week, the Turkish air force forced down an Iranian transport aircraft supposedly flying over Diyarbakir en route to the northern Syrian city of Aleppo with ‘auto spare parts’. On board the Ilyushin-76, the Turks found 60 Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles, 14 BKC machine guns, 8,000 rounds of ammunition, 560 60mm mortar shells and 1288 120mm mortar shells.” Forget Facebook. These are not part of any Arab “reawakening” or “uprising”, but further supplies for the Hezbollah to use in their next conflict with Israel. All of which raises a question. Is there a better way of taking people’s minds off [democratic] revolution than a new war against an enemy which has resolutely opposed the democratisation of the Arab world?”. [The Independent “The Arab awakening began not in Tunisia this year, but in Lebanon in 2005” 15/4/2011 Robert Frisk]
He is suggesting there is evidence of immanent preparations for another Lebanon war, which would simultaneously serve the purposes of Syria, Iran and Israel. It would provide the perfect excuse for the regimes involved to crack down on internal revolt.
In the same article Robert Frisk goes on to warn of the use of the phrase “civil war”, which was used by Western governments to delay intervention in halting the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia. Many western media commentators have wanted to apply this concept on the basis of the filmiest evidence to the conflict in Libya, without I think a great deal of success.
Ordinary Arabs have direct experience of their rulers trying to encourage sectarian conflict to increase their hold on power. The internal colonizers using the same tactics as the external colonizers of empires past. Ordinary people have seen the consequences following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and learnt the lesson that avoiding sectarian conflict is essential, rather than the misunderstanding picked up by western media pundits that sectarian conflict is inevitable.
It is the responsibility of people in Western countries to question their governments lack of intervention based on the excuse of “civil war”. It is also our responsibility to stop our government’s foreign polices, returning to the old policy of seeing the Middle East as a region fought over by rival powers using local dictators to secure advantage. This has been the case since the late nineteenth century, and the rivalry continues with the rise of China. In the past undemocratic foreign policies have been pursued by democracies, because their publics have been misinformed and disinterested. This must stop. Helping to secure true democracy abroad is in the interests of ordinary people in Western countries (rather than sometimes immoral elites) . It is evidently moral, and will in the long term secure real advantage over our undemocratic rivals.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
5 Reasons To Support Libyan Rebels
Five Good Reasons To Support Libyan Pro Democracy Rebels.
1. The conflict in Libya is between Gaddafi's security brigades and the Libyan people. It is not a civil war.
2. Gaddafi's security brigades have been armed and trained by foreigners for years, with money stolen from the Libyan people. This is the real foreign intervention. Arming and training the pro democracy rebels is reversing the effects of foreign intervention.
3. UN Security Resolution 1973 allows all reasonable means to defend Libyan civilians. This must mean defending civilians who are pursuing reasonable activities, which must include demanding a representative government (especially in the context of the current regional wave of pro democracy movements). Given the violent and uncomprising response of Gaddafi's regime, they cannot defend themselves while pursuing democratic change without arms and training. Recent events have shown that the direct assistance of foreign air forces is required to remove the threat of advanced weaponry. There is no other way that Libyans can stop Gaddafi terrorizing the public with planes, missiles and artillery.
4. To avoid chaos after Gaddafi's regime is removed, there must be a functioning and representative provisional government to replace it. This has been shown strongly in the Iraq and Afghanistan. The new government must have a functioning army to provide security. This obviously cannot happen without arms and training. Supplying these and other resources gives the rebel leadership more credibility, and gives leverage to foreign governments to ensure the rebels follow up on their democratic vision statement (see http://ntclibya.org/english/libya/). The process of creating a practical federal constitution, free media, independent judiciary .... must all start now.
5. Egypt has only started on the process of democratic transformation. The fall of Mubarak's government was due to a popular revolt and a split among the country's powerful elite. Groups close to the Army who were sidelined by Mubarak will attempt to steal power, which will then involve mass violent repression. Therefore Gaddafi's identical tactics must be shown to have failed, and this has to happen quickly. The same argument applies strongly to Syria, which is poised to revert back to the mass violence of Hafez Assad's era.
1. The conflict in Libya is between Gaddafi's security brigades and the Libyan people. It is not a civil war.
2. Gaddafi's security brigades have been armed and trained by foreigners for years, with money stolen from the Libyan people. This is the real foreign intervention. Arming and training the pro democracy rebels is reversing the effects of foreign intervention.
3. UN Security Resolution 1973 allows all reasonable means to defend Libyan civilians. This must mean defending civilians who are pursuing reasonable activities, which must include demanding a representative government (especially in the context of the current regional wave of pro democracy movements). Given the violent and uncomprising response of Gaddafi's regime, they cannot defend themselves while pursuing democratic change without arms and training. Recent events have shown that the direct assistance of foreign air forces is required to remove the threat of advanced weaponry. There is no other way that Libyans can stop Gaddafi terrorizing the public with planes, missiles and artillery.
4. To avoid chaos after Gaddafi's regime is removed, there must be a functioning and representative provisional government to replace it. This has been shown strongly in the Iraq and Afghanistan. The new government must have a functioning army to provide security. This obviously cannot happen without arms and training. Supplying these and other resources gives the rebel leadership more credibility, and gives leverage to foreign governments to ensure the rebels follow up on their democratic vision statement (see http://ntclibya.org/english/libya/). The process of creating a practical federal constitution, free media, independent judiciary .... must all start now.
5. Egypt has only started on the process of democratic transformation. The fall of Mubarak's government was due to a popular revolt and a split among the country's powerful elite. Groups close to the Army who were sidelined by Mubarak will attempt to steal power, which will then involve mass violent repression. Therefore Gaddafi's identical tactics must be shown to have failed, and this has to happen quickly. The same argument applies strongly to Syria, which is poised to revert back to the mass violence of Hafez Assad's era.
Friday, April 22, 2011
The Myth Of Democratic Inevitability
Like many people I have waited a long time for the Arab Democratic Spring. I have been both amazed and humbled by the sacrifices ordinary Arabs have made to win freedom. It is good to see all the rubbish spouted by so called experts that has demeaned Arab society, culture and religion to be exposed as rubbish. However I am also worried this pro-democracy movement could be crushed and reversed.
Recent sociological theory on the transformation of societies to democracy ("democratization") claims that democratic change is inevitable due to the creation of middle classes, reaction to inequality and the inherent inefficiency and corruption of autocratic systems. The idea is to promote peaceful economic and political cooperation between states and wait for autocratic states to sort their own internal political systems.
It is therefore not very surprising, given the severe problems following politically botched interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the current theories of democratization, that it is fashionable to heavily criticize intervention in pro-democracy struggles in the Middle East.
China and Russia are authoritarian regimes. According to the Democracy Index 2010 rankings (Economist Intelligence Unit) China is 136th and Russia is 107th , while the US is 17th and the UK 19th (what unites them however is they all have an equal veto vote in the UN's security council, what then of the reasonableness of this organization's mandates?). Both China and Russia are stable and are making economic progress, with no movement towards democracy.
A recent paper "The Myth of the Autocratic Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail" by Deudney and Ikenberry 2009, makes the now standard arguments for the inevitability of democracy. It presents a false dichotomy between autocracy and full democracy. Recent events in Libya, Syria and Bahrain show repressive states crushing mass protests demanding freedom and equality with well armed security brigades. Given the state of sophisticated military technology available to today's unprincipled despot, what power does the fear of mass revolt really have? The arguments of accommodating the emerging middle classes and increasing economic efficiency still apply. Therefore the autocracy gives way to a hybrid system with wider democracy and strong legal protection (except for the poor), but which still leaves a large percentage of the consequently poor population with no representation.
Many Indians claim that there own country is like this. Aravind Adiga, author of "White Tiger"(2008) explained in an interview in 2009 with Brad Frenette. "The age old divide between the rich and poor takes a heavy toll on people who bear the brunt of poverty; leading impoverished lives. The chasm between the haves and have-nots defies all logic and reason. The burgeoning nexus between the corrupt public servants and the perverted political class is devouring the lesser mortals. This rot is not just killing but soul destroying. In the largest democracy of the world, BPL [Below Poverty Line] families are at the receiving end, used as pawns to be exploited and eliminated. There seem to be just two classes- the oppressor and the oppressed; the victor and the victim that define our social fabric." India is ranked 40th in the Economist rankings, despite the state sanctioned political violence that allows everyone to vote, but only some people to stand for election.
I know that the increase in the percentage of people who could vote, and concessions made to the poor in general, in nineteenth century Europe depended to a significant extent on the fear of a repeat of the French Revolution and the revolts of 1848. Democracy was then further extended in the twentieth century by the need to get entire populations motivated to fight two world wars. We underestimate in Western countries how much our success in creating democracies depended on the state of technology, that gave the masses economic as well as military power.
In summary democracy may well not prevail. If democracies do not support pro democracy revolts in other countries, then these waves of change may fail. The result will be a world in which democracies compete economically with countries with economies that only give meaningful support to small sections of their populations. The result will be a pressure for democracies to ditch their principles. In the words of President Lincoln in his famous 1858 House Divided Speech. ".....Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South." If you think this is an overblown comparison, then imagine also a world that has a climate, food, resource and population crisis. We need good governance more than ever.
Recent sociological theory on the transformation of societies to democracy ("democratization") claims that democratic change is inevitable due to the creation of middle classes, reaction to inequality and the inherent inefficiency and corruption of autocratic systems. The idea is to promote peaceful economic and political cooperation between states and wait for autocratic states to sort their own internal political systems.
It is therefore not very surprising, given the severe problems following politically botched interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the current theories of democratization, that it is fashionable to heavily criticize intervention in pro-democracy struggles in the Middle East.
China and Russia are authoritarian regimes. According to the Democracy Index 2010 rankings (Economist Intelligence Unit) China is 136th and Russia is 107th , while the US is 17th and the UK 19th (what unites them however is they all have an equal veto vote in the UN's security council, what then of the reasonableness of this organization's mandates?). Both China and Russia are stable and are making economic progress, with no movement towards democracy.
A recent paper "The Myth of the Autocratic Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail" by Deudney and Ikenberry 2009, makes the now standard arguments for the inevitability of democracy. It presents a false dichotomy between autocracy and full democracy. Recent events in Libya, Syria and Bahrain show repressive states crushing mass protests demanding freedom and equality with well armed security brigades. Given the state of sophisticated military technology available to today's unprincipled despot, what power does the fear of mass revolt really have? The arguments of accommodating the emerging middle classes and increasing economic efficiency still apply. Therefore the autocracy gives way to a hybrid system with wider democracy and strong legal protection (except for the poor), but which still leaves a large percentage of the consequently poor population with no representation.
Many Indians claim that there own country is like this. Aravind Adiga, author of "White Tiger"(2008) explained in an interview in 2009 with Brad Frenette. "The age old divide between the rich and poor takes a heavy toll on people who bear the brunt of poverty; leading impoverished lives. The chasm between the haves and have-nots defies all logic and reason. The burgeoning nexus between the corrupt public servants and the perverted political class is devouring the lesser mortals. This rot is not just killing but soul destroying. In the largest democracy of the world, BPL [Below Poverty Line] families are at the receiving end, used as pawns to be exploited and eliminated. There seem to be just two classes- the oppressor and the oppressed; the victor and the victim that define our social fabric." India is ranked 40th in the Economist rankings, despite the state sanctioned political violence that allows everyone to vote, but only some people to stand for election.
I know that the increase in the percentage of people who could vote, and concessions made to the poor in general, in nineteenth century Europe depended to a significant extent on the fear of a repeat of the French Revolution and the revolts of 1848. Democracy was then further extended in the twentieth century by the need to get entire populations motivated to fight two world wars. We underestimate in Western countries how much our success in creating democracies depended on the state of technology, that gave the masses economic as well as military power.
In summary democracy may well not prevail. If democracies do not support pro democracy revolts in other countries, then these waves of change may fail. The result will be a world in which democracies compete economically with countries with economies that only give meaningful support to small sections of their populations. The result will be a pressure for democracies to ditch their principles. In the words of President Lincoln in his famous 1858 House Divided Speech. ".....Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South." If you think this is an overblown comparison, then imagine also a world that has a climate, food, resource and population crisis. We need good governance more than ever.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Rebuttal of criticism of aiding the pro democracy rebels in Libya.
(copy of recent letter to a well intentioned critic of aiding the pro democracy rebels in Libya)
Hello [........],
I was surprised to see your letter in the [.........] newspaper. The wider vision is that the people in the Middle East have risen up against tyranny to demand democracy. I am sure we agree that Western democracies should be doing all that they can to support this. Experience shows that democratic governments do more to redistribute wealth among their own people on the whole than dictatorships.
Libya under Gaddafi is a police state, where dissent means torture and death. He has spent over 40 years building up security brigades to defend his regime. Libya obviously has oil wealth, which is not distributed to it's people as Gaddafi's government statistics claims (international bodies treat these as propaganda only). Even without these concerns, the ordinary people in Libya deserve the dignity of a truly representative government, as people in Western countries have.
For God's sake man, can you not see that if Gaddafi (the least trusted Middle Eastern leader) succeeds in crushing pro democracy rebels with overwhelming military force, this is the green light for the Syrian, Algerian, Bahraini, Yemeni .... regimes to do exactly the same, knowing the West will do nothing. The transformation in Egypt has only just begun, and there are powerful rivals to Mubarak waiting to recreate his regime under new management.
How is the looming war in Iran going to averted without a STRONG successful democratic movement in the Middle East, which will encourage the Iranian pro-democracy Green movement. Do you think Russians, Indians, Chinese ... will be content to see the wrongly demeaned Arabs take back control of their countries from internal colonization, and still be content to live with their governments who sometimes play lip service to democracy, while consistently stealing from their own people.
What happens if the pro democracy Arab Democratic Awakening fails? What will the threatened regimes do? They will embark on strengthening their secret police, and ruthlessly persecuting opposition. They will build up thier security brigades to make sure they have the resources to crush any future popular revolt. There are no second chances here. Ordinary people in the Middle East know they must act now, and we must support them. If you are comfortable with doing nothing, then ask yourself would you live in a police state?
War is a bastard for everyone, most of all children. We should be arming and training the pro democracy rebels to get this over with as quickly as possible. While making every generous move on our part, dependent on movement by the rebel government to do the things that make democracy work now (setup free media, create practical federal constitution, create a free judiciary ....).
Please see that the big picture is that there are no good choices only less terrible ones, we made our mistakes when the West derailed the whole region after the First World War, the people of the Middle East have had enough, it is time to heed their demands to us to help them defend their dignity.
God Bless You
John (see http://reasonandgoddemands.blogspot.com/)
Hello [........],
I was surprised to see your letter in the [.........] newspaper. The wider vision is that the people in the Middle East have risen up against tyranny to demand democracy. I am sure we agree that Western democracies should be doing all that they can to support this. Experience shows that democratic governments do more to redistribute wealth among their own people on the whole than dictatorships.
Libya under Gaddafi is a police state, where dissent means torture and death. He has spent over 40 years building up security brigades to defend his regime. Libya obviously has oil wealth, which is not distributed to it's people as Gaddafi's government statistics claims (international bodies treat these as propaganda only). Even without these concerns, the ordinary people in Libya deserve the dignity of a truly representative government, as people in Western countries have.
For God's sake man, can you not see that if Gaddafi (the least trusted Middle Eastern leader) succeeds in crushing pro democracy rebels with overwhelming military force, this is the green light for the Syrian, Algerian, Bahraini, Yemeni .... regimes to do exactly the same, knowing the West will do nothing. The transformation in Egypt has only just begun, and there are powerful rivals to Mubarak waiting to recreate his regime under new management.
How is the looming war in Iran going to averted without a STRONG successful democratic movement in the Middle East, which will encourage the Iranian pro-democracy Green movement. Do you think Russians, Indians, Chinese ... will be content to see the wrongly demeaned Arabs take back control of their countries from internal colonization, and still be content to live with their governments who sometimes play lip service to democracy, while consistently stealing from their own people.
What happens if the pro democracy Arab Democratic Awakening fails? What will the threatened regimes do? They will embark on strengthening their secret police, and ruthlessly persecuting opposition. They will build up thier security brigades to make sure they have the resources to crush any future popular revolt. There are no second chances here. Ordinary people in the Middle East know they must act now, and we must support them. If you are comfortable with doing nothing, then ask yourself would you live in a police state?
War is a bastard for everyone, most of all children. We should be arming and training the pro democracy rebels to get this over with as quickly as possible. While making every generous move on our part, dependent on movement by the rebel government to do the things that make democracy work now (setup free media, create practical federal constitution, create a free judiciary ....).
Please see that the big picture is that there are no good choices only less terrible ones, we made our mistakes when the West derailed the whole region after the First World War, the people of the Middle East have had enough, it is time to heed their demands to us to help them defend their dignity.
God Bless You
John (see http://reasonandgoddemands.blogspot.com/)
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Aljazeera discussion on helping Libyan rebels
Excellent Aljazeera discussion on helping Libyan rebels.
See http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2011/04/201141964916405691.html
"The siege of Misurata".
Brilliant discussion on what can be done to help the Libyan rebels. Muhammad Abdelmalik of "Libya Watch" says that what we should be doing is 1. Arming and training the rebels. 2. Quicker link between identifying the locations of Gaddafi's forces on the ground and air strikes (he says currently 8 hours!).
Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation was very relaxed about the fact that some revolutions fail. The problem with this is that the Egyptian revolution can still be stolen, and the revolutions in Syria and Yemen are uncertain. Gaddafi must not be allowed to show that extreme violence can crush democratic revolt. Steve Clemons then stated that perhaps there will be another revolution in Libya in the future that will succeed. Gaddafi's first instinct if he recovers power, will be to persecute all opposition ruthlessly and build up his security brigades. This will be echoed elsewhere in the region if the Arab Democratic Awakening fails. The process has started, there is no going back. If the chance is lost now, there will be no future chances. Arabs know this, even if American academics in comfortable safe think tanks do not.
See http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2011/04/201141964916405691.html
"The siege of Misurata".
Brilliant discussion on what can be done to help the Libyan rebels. Muhammad Abdelmalik of "Libya Watch" says that what we should be doing is 1. Arming and training the rebels. 2. Quicker link between identifying the locations of Gaddafi's forces on the ground and air strikes (he says currently 8 hours!).
Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation was very relaxed about the fact that some revolutions fail. The problem with this is that the Egyptian revolution can still be stolen, and the revolutions in Syria and Yemen are uncertain. Gaddafi must not be allowed to show that extreme violence can crush democratic revolt. Steve Clemons then stated that perhaps there will be another revolution in Libya in the future that will succeed. Gaddafi's first instinct if he recovers power, will be to persecute all opposition ruthlessly and build up his security brigades. This will be echoed elsewhere in the region if the Arab Democratic Awakening fails. The process has started, there is no going back. If the chance is lost now, there will be no future chances. Arabs know this, even if American academics in comfortable safe think tanks do not.
Russian Government propaganda on Arab Democratic Revolution.
Russian Government propaganda exposes why we should support Arab Democratic Revolution.
Below is the full text of an article that appeared in the British Newspaper "The Telegraph" on Tuesday 19th April, in a special supplement "Russia Now", supplied by the Russian State News Agency RIA Novosti. This piece of propaganda is the best evidence I have seen, for why Western democracies should be giving as much support as possible to the Arab Democratic Awakening.
The problems with this article are as follows:
1. If Arab countries achieve democratic transformation, then the pride of Russian citizens will no longer put up with the very limited democracy they now have to endure.
2. The problem with Tunisia is that the economy has being growing but the wealth, in this until recently brutal “police state”, has been controlled by a small elite. The democratic transformation has only started in this country.
3. The Russian 1917 Revolution is a prefect argument against the kind of non intervention that the Russian government is now urging in the Middle East. In Russia in the chaos of a country losing the First World War and with internal revolution, without foreign assistance for the provisional government, an extremist group (the Bolsheviks) were able to grab military control.
4. Gaddafi is running a police state, in which any dissent is met with torture and death. According to his government’s propaganda he enjoys popular support. Clearly this is a lie. What he does have is approximately 20,000 to 30,000 well armed and trained security brigades, who are able to terrorise an entire nation. How can you make meaningful peace agreements with this man?
5. Mr Babich then bizarrely quotes Joseph de Maistre, an 18th century staunch absolute monarchist whose ideas have been utterly rejected by every European nation, apart from perhaps Putin’s Russian Government. We should worry.
Here is the article, judge for yourself………………
“You say you want a revolution?” Russia Now , April 19 2011 .
Why aren't Russians brimming with admiration for the Arab revolutions? I have heard this question at least 20 times in the past three months. It came from BBC journalists interviewing me; from Western university professors lecturing Russian students; sometimes even from West European diplomats.
Somehow, we Russians (according to others) are never supposed to be free, A refusal to see our condition as anything but the most miserable of states crying for an immediate new revolution is seen at best as resignation before evil; at worst, as a gross injustice. "Don't you want to have the same freedom as Tunisians now have? How rotten of you not to want it! "This was a question with a readily attached answer from a friend of mine, a British journalist whose every report from Moscow starts with the words, "In another blow to Russia's democracy..."
No, I don't want to be one of those 25,800 Tunisians currently waiting for the Italian government to decide their fate as illegal immigrants on the island of Lampedusa. We Russians have learnt the hard way since 1917 - or maybe even since 1789, when the first refugees from the French Revolution started coming to Russia - that a revolution's quality is best defined by migratory flows.
Having overthrown the Tsar's autocracy in 1917, millions of Russians suddenly found themselves in the situation of émigrés, enduring such humiliations that the Tsar's "humiliating" rule seemed a paradise lost in comparison. Worse still, those who stayed in Russia, and found themselves under Lenin and Stalin, envied their relatives who had left. So, if the wind of change is so sweet as the European press describes it, why are so many people now fleeing North Africa?
But this is a different kind of revolution, my British reader will tell me, one that is not about Communism but freedom. My answer will be: how do you know which form the now flowing Arab lava will take? To the tune of heated debates about a few hundred niqabs in France, a longtime ban on this sort of Muslim dress was lifted in Tunisia and Syria, and I wouldn't be surprised to see hundreds of thousands of them appear. Why? Because Tunisia, for example, which was expected to post economic growth of 4-5% this year, will actually muster no more than 1% not a good time to have to find work for 80,000 young college graduates who will join the labour market this year in Tunisia alone. Consequently, the heightened expectations of the young are going to dash with reality, and then we shall hear the familiar slogan: "Islam is the solution."
Much has been written about the "conflict" between the Russian president and his prime minister over the Libyan problem. In reality, their two approaches reflect the complicated nature of the problem, which only self-assured ignoramuses could deny. Dmitry Medvedev explained why Russia did not block the UN Security Council's resolution on helping Libyan civilians, while Vladimir Putin expressed his doubts about the ease with which Western nations resort to force in humanitarian interventions.
Aren't there grounds for such doubts? Hope is not a strategy, as American president Barack Obama rightly said recently, and Nato action in Libya seems to be more based on hope than on actual knowledge of the situation. The hope, obviously, was that Colonel Gaddafi's defenses would collapse with the first news about French air strikes. The hope was unfounded. But now Nato members are disqualified from working as intermediaries in the Libyan conflict. Would it help if Russia and China, as well as Brazil, disqualified themselves from this role too, by giving their full support to resolution 1973?
One may try to acquit the "French George Bush," President Sarkozy, by his not having sufficient information on Libya. But who is to blame for Nato and the EU having such sketchy intelligence about the life of their close African neighbour? How did a situation arise where the French president recognizes the National Transition Council in March 2011, while the identities of two thirds of its members were still a mystery?
Of course, establishing contacts with the Libyan opposition during Gaddafi's rule was hard; talking to the "star" of the Russian opposition, Boris Nemtsov, in a fancy Moscow restaurant is much easier. But isn't it the responsibility of governments and media to see real leaders and threats instead of invented ones?
The European press and the EU's policy planners failed the Libyan exam horribly, concentrating on imaginary threats for decades. It is enough to recall the sheer amount of stories written about how to respond to Russia's eventual decision to cut gas supplies to the EU. Whole institutes and policy centres made their living on such plans. But I don't remember a single story or policy plan discussing a cut in energy supplies from Libya.
Russians learnt the hard way to appreciate the wisdom of the words of philosopher Joseph de Maistre, a refugee from the French Revolution who lived in Russia in the early 19th century: "Revolutions happen because of the government's iniquities; but no government iniquity is as bad for people as revolution itself ."The West seems to have forgotten its own wisdom on revolutions, despite the pain of its original acquisition.
Dmitry Babich is a political analyst for RIA Novosti.
(for more of this kind of worrying propaganda see http://rbth.ru/)
(for more of this kind of worrying propaganda see http://rbth.ru/)
The Kingdom Of God and the nature of God........
The Kingdom Of God and the nature of God.....the question I would like to ask.
Recently I came across the "Lost Message Of Jesus" by Steve Chalke (pub: 2003). On page 28 he says "But by far the most shocking, outrageous and scandalous thing about this version of the Kingdom [presented by Jesus] was that it wasn't just for Israel but for the whole world." He then goes on to quote the Swiss theologian Emil Brunner on page 45 "The most daring statement that has ever been made in human language 'God is love' (1 John 4:8)." Then again on page 28 he makes the familiar Christian statement "The heart of Jesus' message was simply this: 'The Kingdom, the in-breaking of shalom [meaning peace, completeness and general welfare], of God is available to everyone through me." The question I would like to ask is that if you believe in the nature of God and the Kingdom of God presented very clearly in this book, then is there any overwhelming difference between believing in these things and believing in Jesus? Does the believe in God and his Kingdom, amount in terms of inner substance, to the same level as a specific believe in Jesus? A clue lies in another quote from the book "In the words of John Stott, perhaps we in the West 'have been dogmatic about what we should be agnostic about and agnostic about what we should be dogmatic over.' "
I think this book is dead on target, however I wonder how many Christians will ever really believe in the Jesus beyond the slogan. As one reviewer on amazon put it, with depressing inevitability, "Unfortunately, his arguments only reveal his own misunderstanding of basic Christian doctrine. The idea of Penal Substitutionary Atonement that Chalke is so keen to dispel is taught again and again and again throughout the Bible, and even a casual glance at Romans confirms that Chalke's thesis is totally unbiblical." I think John Scott was right.
Recently I came across the "Lost Message Of Jesus" by Steve Chalke (pub: 2003). On page 28 he says "But by far the most shocking, outrageous and scandalous thing about this version of the Kingdom [presented by Jesus] was that it wasn't just for Israel but for the whole world." He then goes on to quote the Swiss theologian Emil Brunner on page 45 "The most daring statement that has ever been made in human language 'God is love' (1 John 4:8)." Then again on page 28 he makes the familiar Christian statement "The heart of Jesus' message was simply this: 'The Kingdom, the in-breaking of shalom [meaning peace, completeness and general welfare], of God is available to everyone through me." The question I would like to ask is that if you believe in the nature of God and the Kingdom of God presented very clearly in this book, then is there any overwhelming difference between believing in these things and believing in Jesus? Does the believe in God and his Kingdom, amount in terms of inner substance, to the same level as a specific believe in Jesus? A clue lies in another quote from the book "In the words of John Stott, perhaps we in the West 'have been dogmatic about what we should be agnostic about and agnostic about what we should be dogmatic over.' "
I think this book is dead on target, however I wonder how many Christians will ever really believe in the Jesus beyond the slogan. As one reviewer on amazon put it, with depressing inevitability, "Unfortunately, his arguments only reveal his own misunderstanding of basic Christian doctrine. The idea of Penal Substitutionary Atonement that Chalke is so keen to dispel is taught again and again and again throughout the Bible, and even a casual glance at Romans confirms that Chalke's thesis is totally unbiblical." I think John Scott was right.
A lesson from the Islamic Hadith.
According to the Hadith (collected sayings of the prophet Mohamed) "None of you believes until he wants for his brother what he would want for himself." This sums up my concern about our lacklustre response to the Arab Democratic Awakening. Clearly not all people in Western countries are believers in God, whether they be Jews, Christians or Muslims, and so can be excused for not seeing the common believe in the same God that should unite believers. However reason alone must lead us all, to believe that other people deserve the dignity of a representative government, just as we do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)