This is very good news. The problem of course with piracy in this part of the world is not a straight forward case of good versus evil. Although the pirates have to be stopped it's worth pointing out that some sources have stated that the collapse of Somalia's fishing industry has much to do with the EU. However the EU and NATO do now need to secure its shipping. Furthermore it's likely that the relative anarchy in the region will be exploited by Al Qaeda.
The good news is that this operation is a good show of mettle on behalf of those opposed to such brigandry. Furthermore it’s a further indication of how well the US armed forces are responding to asymmetrical warfare.
The good news is that this operation is a good show of mettle on behalf of those opposed to such brigandry. Furthermore it’s a further indication of how well the US armed forces are responding to asymmetrical warfare.
7 comments:
Dear Paul,
I work with a film company and we've just found some extremely ironic footage of Jack Straw on the cutting room floor. It's currently being edited but I think it would be perfect for your readers. Is there an email address that I can use to send it to you?
Thank you!
Best wishes,
Rachel
rachel.bird@live.com
I agree entirely. The problem with a 'more integrated approach' is who will do it? The US tried such a high minded scheme under Clinton and with full UN approval in 1993. Ultimately the mission ended in disaster. What I fear is that the approach will be purely punitive with convoys being utilised and perhaps air power against Pirate bases. To be honest I don't know the solution. Perhaps if the convoys deployed were also to police the illegal fishing and dumping that has blighted this area might be a start. Certainly the Royal Navy has experience in doing this.
YA, thanks for your comment. I must admit unlike you when it comes to this sort of thing I’m less idealistic and take more of a ‘Kissinger’ type pragmatic out look. Absolutely the US,EU and/or NATO must organise armed escorts for convoys in this area. Also it may be possible to use the Navy to cut out illegal fishing and dumping. However when you say ‘perhaps economic assistance to provide jobs, and an end to the destabilizing role the U.S has played through Ethiopia. Perhaps it would make sense to back moderate Islamists, both to head of an eventual extremist takeover and to provide the stability needed to curb the piracy problem.’ Then none of that is workable I’m afraid. Any ‘economic assistance’ supplied will end up in Swiss bank accounts I fear and without venturing onto the land in a large Iraq style venture it will be impossible to guarantee good governance.
One final point you sound a bit like Obama when you say ‘back moderate Islamists’. What moderate Islamists? There aren’t any anywhere in the world; there are moderate Muslims however of course. The Ethiopian intervention was done in the first place to ward off the Islamists and their Al Qaeda followers. There are no easy solutions in this part of the world; we are perhaps limited to punitive measures to prevent both piracy and illegal dumping.
We may for once be very close to actually agreeing without realising it. What I meant by the Kissinger approach was to put our security paramount of all other interests. Of course it is not a moral argument but I was concerned when you said we could back 'moderate Islamists'. All Islamists are hostile to our interests as secular democracies. They are seeking to implement a trans-national aggressive theocracy. Of course some Islamists such as Al Qaeada are ultra-violent others such as Hizb Ut Tahir (check out the comments made by HBT members on blogs linked to Karin) are less so but they are working to the same goal. My point as I have already made regarding this piracy is we need an international approach by the world's navies to end it. Also we need to end illegal dumping and fishing. I simply don't think it’s possible to achieve anything else in that region.
Turkey incidentally is not an Islamist state (at least not yet). It follows modern secular traditions imposed by Kamal Ataturk. Nonetheless the human rights situation leaves a lot to be desired especially for non-Turkic Muslims (Kurds) and Christians.
Look at this report by the BBC for just one indication as to how the Turkish government views Christians in its country:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7701527.stm
A diplomatic aim of the west should be to sponsor equality and democracy in all regions. Sadly Obama (bowing to that obscene Saudi autocrat) is not up to that.
Yeah I may be up for that debate thanks the problem is finding the time!
'there is even the potential for moderate theocratic democracies such as Tibetan Government in Exile.' That may well be true with regards to Tibet but I honestly do not know much about that country. I fear you may be hoping that what happens with political traditions in Europe can for instance be replicated in Islamism, it can not. You can't hope that say a modern political party such as the Christian democrats in Germany will find an Islamic parallel. That is not to say there is no place for secular politics in the Middle East, there is but Islamism is different. It draws for tradition upon Sharia law and Islamic jurisprudence. Sadly all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence are basically illiberal. They back the idea of violent Jihad (this in itself raises the possibility any future Caliphate will attack the west, certainly the others did). Also in Sharia women and non Muslims have to endure a lesser legal status. I could provide references to back these claims up a mile long. However that is going off a tangent from our current discussion. In a nutshell, I will say that a major diplomatic aim of the west should be to encourage secular policies in this part of the world. Sadly your young President had the opposite affect when he appealed to Iran as a 'Islamic republic'. The Islamists (in this case Mullahs) will have loved that.
The case of Iqbal may have more to it than what the BBC has reported but I do not know. From the outset in may opinion it looks somewhat harsh but I don't know, I would need to study the case in more detail. I mean how much jail time do you get for operating an illegal porn channel in the US for instance? Although there may be more at stake perhaps.
As to 'We are on the same page when you talk about Obama following Bush's policies with respect to Arab dictators/proxies, however doesn't this contradict your statement that we should "put our security paramount of all other interests". That is a fair point. I have argued for some time however that the west needs to realign itself in this region. Certainly militant Islam threatens us, but where does that come from? Two sources are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. As to Saudi? Well buying oil from them and selling them weapons is short sighted. The west should invest in alternate energy sources and tell the Saudis politely to go hang. Pakistan teeters on becoming a Taliban state (a nuclear one!). Any aid given should be attached to rigid bench marks the Pakistan government has to achieve. On this latter issue SOS Clinton has shown a limited amount of wisdom thus far time will tell, time however may not be on our side.
‘If you look at the Bible or the Torah and compare them to the Koran the Koran is much more in line with modern standards of human rights than the other two.’ Supposing that were true then the Muslim world would be a shining beacon of tolerance and democracy and it would be Europe and the USA who would lag behind culturally, economically, politically, economically etc etc.
‘If there can be moderate Christian and Jewish parties in spite of barbaric things in those texts I don't see why the same could not be replicated with Islam.’ Again that’s wishful thinking. Note I am not saying that modern political cultures do not exist in these countries. My point is that Islamism is the opposite of progress. Just look at any Islamist group’s attitude to women, non-Muslims and freedom of expression. I would strongly urge you to do exactly that before continuing this discussion. I’m not saying you should agree with me but I feel you are sugar coating some unsavoury facts.
‘U.S and Israeli abuses in the Middle East have fostered the rise of religious fundamentalism.’ I can’t agree on this as the Muslim brotherhood was founded nearly a quarter of a century before Israel existed. Indeed if groups like Hamas had their way and Israel was dissolved into a Sharia Islamic state, I can only predict the Islamist threat to the free world would increase exponentially. That’s not to say that I feel western policy in general in the region is not flawed I feel it is as it does not generally recognise the problem.
‘I am not convinced that promoting secularism will help the problem. Turkey's military is secular and is, perhaps after Israel (another nation with an ostensibly secular army) the worst violator of human rights in the region’. Promoting secularism like we have a choice? I certainly do not wish to live under a Caliphate. Indeed there are problems with Turkey (the EU should say a big fact NO to membership). But is Israel the worst violator of human rights in the region? How many apostates have been executed in Israel? Or homosexuals hung publicly from cranes? Or rape victims afforded lashes? I have stated previously that the last two military campaigns by Israel were defensive in nature and sought to avoid unnecessary suffering to civilian populations. But have you seen how Israel’s neighbours conduct similar operations? What did Syria do to Hama in 1982? How did Saddam suppress Kurdish and Shia uprisings? How many thousands were killed by the Ayatollah’s revolution in Iran? Also we have the conduct of Bashir in Sudan for which he gets a full licence from the Arab league.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7971624.stm
Please note that there is not a peep of discussion amongst any Muslim population or the anti-Israeli left about any of the above. Much less condemnation when Muslim kills Muslim.
I’m prepared to accept you may find excuses for all of the above and blame the west somehow. It doesn’t matter we can discuss the issues relating to Israel later. I know some of the links are Wiki but they are factually correct.
‘With Pakistan I don't think the U.S air strikes are helping at all. They are definitely destabilizing the country. I mean they have cause a million IDPs and since Washington won't let the government do anything about it other than register their protest it drives a wedge between the government and the people.’ Fair point YA but I would bet my bottom dollar that the drone strikes do have the consent of Pakistan’s government. For one thing the US has switched from targeting Al Qaeda members to attacks on the Taleban leadership in the tribal areas.
Lastly you say ‘With Iqbal this appears not only overly harsh but also a violation of freedom of speech, wouldn't you agree?’ Totally agree but I never knew you felt so strong about freedom of speech? So this guy can have his say and propagate for terrorists but an elected politician Geert Wilders can’t say what he feels about Islam? I really hope you don’t just like freedom of speech when it is opinions you agree with?
‘How is buying oil from and selling weapons to the Arab dictators short sighted from the premise that we should "put our security paramount of all other interests"? Good question I’ll save the response for a rainy day.
'The point is not that there are not problems in the Middle East, the point is Islam is not one of those problems. Have you ever read any of the texts I'm talking about, the Bible and the Torah both describe certain genocides as diving plans, is this what is meant by western civilization?.'
Yes indeed I have. But any reasonable person can see that the west has progressed from being what it was in medieval times to the modern post-enlightenment period. However looking at places where the popular culture supports limb amputation as a punishment for theft it would appear that progress has been far from universal. Also as I have made clear numerous times the archaic aspects of some practices in the Middle East. For example limb amputation for thieves, the death penalty for apostates etc etc. Such practices have their roots in Islam in particular the Hadith and Qur'an from which the Islamic law or Sharia is drawn. Furthermore as numerous campaigns are afoot to expand the writ of Islamic law and even bring it to the west. I am entirely happy to be called intolerant of such ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_Al-Tahrir
http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/
Please note young activist, I am not anti-Muslim, I am against Sharia law however and firmly believe that when people live under a secular democratic regime their rights and freedoms are better protected. I did ask you to look at Islamism and it seems the best you can come up with is some nonsense about a woman in Morocco. Please do more than that and look at what the status of women and non-Muslims is under Sharia. What's this about me associating with Bar Kochba? How do you know that tonight I'm going bowling with him and afterwards we'll have a couple of beers? I agree with him on a couple of things so what? I mean by a similar measure of churlishness, I note that you associate with Karin from http://1158munich.blogspot.com/. On Karin's blog in the comments section she has expressed doubts about whether Muslims were responsible for 9/11. On another blog of which Karin is a member along with members of Hizb ut Tahir, members called for apostates to be killed and Christians and Jews to be subjugated.
http://muslimunity.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-is-apostate-to-be-executed-in-islam.html
Now of course in a similar vein I could attack you for views attributed to others you discuss with. However that would be discourteous as well as unfair. But just one of the numerous threats that Islamism represents to the west was witnessed with the Mohammad cartoons or the Salman Rushdie affair.
'I stand by my statement about Israel, but I regret saying it, it is important to distinguish between moral and intellectual judgments and it appears that you don't understand the importance of that in a discussion. For example you obviously don't like Islam so you constantly attack it while ignoring I stand by my statement about Israel, but I regret saying it, it is important to distinguish between moral and intellectual judgments and it appears that you don't understand the importance of that in a discussion. For example you obviously don't like Islam so you constantly attack it while ignoring comparable trends in other religions..'
Come again? Take a deep breath and tell me where I have actually done that? Okay I'll make it clear for you IF there was any attempt to bring laws into place in America or Europe based on what you call 'comparable trends in other religions', rest assured I would oppose it. However could you please point me in their direction? You know those Christians, Jews or Buddhists who are seeking to impose such tyranny in the west? I just want to know so I can oppose them. I mean are the Mexican's in America importing a radical blend of Catholicism? One that imposes limb amputation for theft or death for criticising Christianity? I just want to understand your relativism. If they are I'll be the first to complain.
I'm not going to discuss your claim that claim that Israel is the worse violator of human rights in the region, as we both know we'll get nowhere. I think I understand where you come from though. You have accused me elsewhere of being a tribalist or cultural supremacist. Well it's hardly surprising we disagree then. You come from the left, but common to a few leftists is intense self abasement. The belief that all problems the west faces are because of western policy and no one else is to blame. Such individuals apply that model to anything. Hence the belief that Jihadist terrorism is somehow because of something we ourselves have done. Also you cannot bring yourself to criticise Islamism because there’s nothing you like about westernism. You can't see that a secular democracy with a history of brave introspection (something I believe the US certainly is more than the UK)is something worth defending or even being a part of. I can and it is to America and not from that people seem to flee.
'And where have I ever said that I support Hezbollah?'
You have not I don't think I said you did but if it came across that way I'm sorry. But as to the issue of free speech, in all fairness YA the hypocrisy is yours not mine. You did state previously you wanted Wilders prosecuted; now you say not this guy why? That's all for now it is a weekend after all; hope you have had a good one.
Post a Comment