Hi People,
sorry for posting so irregularly. I have been very busy. Especially examwise. You know, my masters thesis needs to be finished... also my ex girl friend and I may or may not get together again. Anyway, lots of things to do. I'll post something as soon as I can.
Actually, my studies and my love life were not intended to be talked about here. I just wanted to use this way to address political issues. I guess, I will stick to that. So, no more posts on studies or girl friends will appear here from my part. :-) Just wanted to tell you why I am not posting.
Bye
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
Drawing parallels: The Late Roman Republic?
Recently, I had quite a debate over drawing parallels of current events to historic events. Generally, I think that drawing parallels can help to grasp a current situation. On the other hand, situations rarely resemble each other completely. Therefore one could come to false conclusions about the present by looking at the past for an answer.
Just an hour ago I read Steph's weblog. (The article entitled "Jakarta Visits Russia".) Miguel commented on it. Reading that comment I was suddenly struck by a parallel. Being aware of all the shortcomings that are involved with such parallels I would like to share it with you, nonetheless. I hope you can help me to make it more accurate or find good reasons for not drawing the parallel at all. I am sorry for the rather long intro and beware: here comes another one, this time referring to the parallel directly:
The United states are the only Superpower in the world. The UN is a supernational organisation, clearly not the world government. In some ways it resembles a government (like in setting rules or "international law") in other ways - very vital ways - it is short of a world government, like enforcing those rules with police or an army. The USA are just one member of this institution. They are more powerful in it than many others because of the veto power, but that veto power can also be executed by four other nations who are less powerful than the USA.
It seems like other nations are expecting from the US to ignore the fact that they are the only superpower and go back to the UN to be only one out of five again. This is were the parallel comes into play. (I 'll give a very brief intro to the period in italics. If you want to hit the parallel directly just skip the italics)
In roman history one period is called the late roman republic. Usually we are talking about a time between 133 BC (When the Gracchi brothers first appeared) and the end of the republic in 27BC (when Gaius Octavianus, the later Augustus, came to power).
This time was charaterized by instability. For many reasons. I cannot give all of them here, that would fill books and I couldn't write them cos I am not an expert. One reason was the inability of the Senate to reform the system. In the old days, the romans had been very traditional when it comes to government. After they had kicked out their king and formed a republic they could still select a quasi king in times of trouble. The selected official would be called dictator, would rule like a king but had to step down after six months. He couldn't be held acountable for his actions during the reign, though.
ok, strangely enough that worked. None of the dictators abused his power to set up a kingdom again. They all stepped down and became normal citizens. In the late roman republic though, things had changed. Roman generals marched on Rome and set up their own governments. First it was Marius, then Sulla who kicked out Marius. Their reigns were unconstitutional. Sulla stayed in power for three years, then he stepped down ( in the tradtition of the office) but during his reign he had killed nearly all of his rivals so that it was safe for him to step down. Anyway, half a year later he died and the roman republic was there again. But every ambitious roman had seen the examples set out by Marius and Sulla.
Still, the most powerful men sat in the Senate but everyone mistrusted each other. For a long time there was fear that Pompeius or Crassus Dives would become kings of Rome, Later Caesar was feared. everyone plotted against everyone. The problem of the time was that Rome needed large powerful armies but was afraid of its generals. These generals were wielding the greatest power in the world and were aware of it. How could the other Romans expect them to lay their power down and transform into one out of 500 again? (I think there were 500 senators.) I will not judge who was most responsible for the civil war in which eventually Caesar came to power beating the senate army under Pompeius.
Historians today still argue whether Caesar wanted to built a monarchy or was driven to his quasi kingship by the mistrust of the senate.
The parallel I am trying to get at is that like in the late roman republic there is fear today that a superpower could form a quasi world government. Back then, many rivals of Caesar and Pompeius very nothing more then envious and wanted the same power. This may be the case today, too. I am a little worried that the world gets divided into pro-USA and pro-France-Russia factions or whatever other factions one can think of. I am sure, that no Roman back then wanted the civil war that started when Caesar crossed the Rubicon river. Also, today noone is interested in a war between european powers and America.
Let me point out, I don't think that the USA want to rule the world. They don't want to be bullied by it, though. The same is true for other countries. They don't want to be bullied by the US.
Many people want the UN to play the vital role in Iraq and in the world. They ask the US to go back to the UN. Count me in here, too. I have had the same opinion. The thing, that makes me question my own position here is that it may have been the same kind of pressure that drove Caesar to cross the Rubicon.
I don't know, I guess I AM an idealist still believing in the concept of the UN. The senate had such idealists, too. Not all the senators were envious rivals. Maybe we can say that the rivalry was important for the failure of the senate. I hope the rivalry among states will not be the end of the UN leading to WW3.
Ok, here was my parallel. I know it has many shortcomings. For example, the senate really ruled the imperium romanum but the UN Security Council never really ruled the world. However, in the Senate where the most powerful people of their time debating and deciding on politics. That is true for the UN Sec. Council as well. There may be other distortions in my parallel as well, I am sure you can help me to point them out.
You know,it took me about a second to come up with this parallel when I read Miguel's comment in Steph's log. All the things I mentioned were in my head at the same time. So many bells ringing. I am saying that to point out that this is nothing more than brainstorming. Every comment is welcome.
Just an hour ago I read Steph's weblog. (The article entitled "Jakarta Visits Russia".) Miguel commented on it. Reading that comment I was suddenly struck by a parallel. Being aware of all the shortcomings that are involved with such parallels I would like to share it with you, nonetheless. I hope you can help me to make it more accurate or find good reasons for not drawing the parallel at all. I am sorry for the rather long intro and beware: here comes another one, this time referring to the parallel directly:
The United states are the only Superpower in the world. The UN is a supernational organisation, clearly not the world government. In some ways it resembles a government (like in setting rules or "international law") in other ways - very vital ways - it is short of a world government, like enforcing those rules with police or an army. The USA are just one member of this institution. They are more powerful in it than many others because of the veto power, but that veto power can also be executed by four other nations who are less powerful than the USA.
It seems like other nations are expecting from the US to ignore the fact that they are the only superpower and go back to the UN to be only one out of five again. This is were the parallel comes into play. (I 'll give a very brief intro to the period in italics. If you want to hit the parallel directly just skip the italics)
In roman history one period is called the late roman republic. Usually we are talking about a time between 133 BC (When the Gracchi brothers first appeared) and the end of the republic in 27BC (when Gaius Octavianus, the later Augustus, came to power).
This time was charaterized by instability. For many reasons. I cannot give all of them here, that would fill books and I couldn't write them cos I am not an expert. One reason was the inability of the Senate to reform the system. In the old days, the romans had been very traditional when it comes to government. After they had kicked out their king and formed a republic they could still select a quasi king in times of trouble. The selected official would be called dictator, would rule like a king but had to step down after six months. He couldn't be held acountable for his actions during the reign, though.
ok, strangely enough that worked. None of the dictators abused his power to set up a kingdom again. They all stepped down and became normal citizens. In the late roman republic though, things had changed. Roman generals marched on Rome and set up their own governments. First it was Marius, then Sulla who kicked out Marius. Their reigns were unconstitutional. Sulla stayed in power for three years, then he stepped down ( in the tradtition of the office) but during his reign he had killed nearly all of his rivals so that it was safe for him to step down. Anyway, half a year later he died and the roman republic was there again. But every ambitious roman had seen the examples set out by Marius and Sulla.
Still, the most powerful men sat in the Senate but everyone mistrusted each other. For a long time there was fear that Pompeius or Crassus Dives would become kings of Rome, Later Caesar was feared. everyone plotted against everyone. The problem of the time was that Rome needed large powerful armies but was afraid of its generals. These generals were wielding the greatest power in the world and were aware of it. How could the other Romans expect them to lay their power down and transform into one out of 500 again? (I think there were 500 senators.) I will not judge who was most responsible for the civil war in which eventually Caesar came to power beating the senate army under Pompeius.
Historians today still argue whether Caesar wanted to built a monarchy or was driven to his quasi kingship by the mistrust of the senate.
The parallel I am trying to get at is that like in the late roman republic there is fear today that a superpower could form a quasi world government. Back then, many rivals of Caesar and Pompeius very nothing more then envious and wanted the same power. This may be the case today, too. I am a little worried that the world gets divided into pro-USA and pro-France-Russia factions or whatever other factions one can think of. I am sure, that no Roman back then wanted the civil war that started when Caesar crossed the Rubicon river. Also, today noone is interested in a war between european powers and America.
Let me point out, I don't think that the USA want to rule the world. They don't want to be bullied by it, though. The same is true for other countries. They don't want to be bullied by the US.
Many people want the UN to play the vital role in Iraq and in the world. They ask the US to go back to the UN. Count me in here, too. I have had the same opinion. The thing, that makes me question my own position here is that it may have been the same kind of pressure that drove Caesar to cross the Rubicon.
I don't know, I guess I AM an idealist still believing in the concept of the UN. The senate had such idealists, too. Not all the senators were envious rivals. Maybe we can say that the rivalry was important for the failure of the senate. I hope the rivalry among states will not be the end of the UN leading to WW3.
Ok, here was my parallel. I know it has many shortcomings. For example, the senate really ruled the imperium romanum but the UN Security Council never really ruled the world. However, in the Senate where the most powerful people of their time debating and deciding on politics. That is true for the UN Sec. Council as well. There may be other distortions in my parallel as well, I am sure you can help me to point them out.
You know,it took me about a second to come up with this parallel when I read Miguel's comment in Steph's log. All the things I mentioned were in my head at the same time. So many bells ringing. I am saying that to point out that this is nothing more than brainstorming. Every comment is welcome.
Saturday, April 19, 2003
Letter to Gene Simmons
I read on Miguel's log a statement by Gene Simmons (KISS frontman). I felt like responding to it because Gene has a letters section on his home page. I post my resonse here as well.
Hello Gene, I just read your statement about Saddam and the Iraq war. (I read it on a weblog).
What will be done if the Iraqi people elect an ayatola regime similar to that in Iran? From the protests currently held in Iraq that seems likely to me.
You know, I am from Germany and I agree that going to WW2 was the right thing to do for the US. Hitler needed to be removed from power. I am grateful that this happened and I understand why you are grateful as well. My question is, if America may go to any other war now and in the future because they did the right thing in WW2?
You say America is not interested in ruling other countries. Generally I agree to that. However, it seems to be interested in WHO rules HOW in the case of countries where America has a national interest in. Why does America support some dictatorships and fights others? Why does it leave most dictatorships alone, neither supporting nor fighting them?
I am not saying America should be the world police mingling in every conflict on this planet. I just don't like the fact that it behaves like world police only when national interest is involved at the same time selling it as an unselfish well-spirited strive for a better world.
In my opinion neither France nor Russia nor the US administration cared for the Iraqi people, they cared for oil. For Russia and France it was easier to get the oil with Hussein in power, for the US it is easier to get it with a new regime. That is a clear interest, it is understandable to persue it even if we don't like it.
Germany has the most ridiculous role in this conflict, I guess. Cos our chancellor cried pacifism for fear not to be reelected. After he won the election he needed to maintain this position in order not to be called a liar. It seems like everyone has an agenda of economic interest in this conflict. Germany however is playing big politics without the chance to gain anything.
Personally, I didn't like this war. Mainly for three reasons.
1. I don't think that international terrorism will be weakened, instead it may be strengthened if Arabic nations regard the US as conquerers and not as liberators.
2. I am afraid that democracy in Iraq will not be successful. Instead an islamistic authoritarian regime may be installed (similar to Iran), probably as oppressive as Saddam's regime.
3. The war was a "pre-emptive" strike. That is a dangerous precedent. India may strike pre-emptively against Pakistan, for example. If America does it, why shouldn't anyone else be doing it? This war makes it easier for war-mongers all over the world to argue pro-war. If we just stay with the India-Pakistan example, a nuclear war may be ahead of us.
I read on Miguel's log a statement by Gene Simmons (KISS frontman). I felt like responding to it because Gene has a letters section on his home page. I post my resonse here as well.
Hello Gene, I just read your statement about Saddam and the Iraq war. (I read it on a weblog).
What will be done if the Iraqi people elect an ayatola regime similar to that in Iran? From the protests currently held in Iraq that seems likely to me.
You know, I am from Germany and I agree that going to WW2 was the right thing to do for the US. Hitler needed to be removed from power. I am grateful that this happened and I understand why you are grateful as well. My question is, if America may go to any other war now and in the future because they did the right thing in WW2?
You say America is not interested in ruling other countries. Generally I agree to that. However, it seems to be interested in WHO rules HOW in the case of countries where America has a national interest in. Why does America support some dictatorships and fights others? Why does it leave most dictatorships alone, neither supporting nor fighting them?
I am not saying America should be the world police mingling in every conflict on this planet. I just don't like the fact that it behaves like world police only when national interest is involved at the same time selling it as an unselfish well-spirited strive for a better world.
In my opinion neither France nor Russia nor the US administration cared for the Iraqi people, they cared for oil. For Russia and France it was easier to get the oil with Hussein in power, for the US it is easier to get it with a new regime. That is a clear interest, it is understandable to persue it even if we don't like it.
Germany has the most ridiculous role in this conflict, I guess. Cos our chancellor cried pacifism for fear not to be reelected. After he won the election he needed to maintain this position in order not to be called a liar. It seems like everyone has an agenda of economic interest in this conflict. Germany however is playing big politics without the chance to gain anything.
Personally, I didn't like this war. Mainly for three reasons.
1. I don't think that international terrorism will be weakened, instead it may be strengthened if Arabic nations regard the US as conquerers and not as liberators.
2. I am afraid that democracy in Iraq will not be successful. Instead an islamistic authoritarian regime may be installed (similar to Iran), probably as oppressive as Saddam's regime.
3. The war was a "pre-emptive" strike. That is a dangerous precedent. India may strike pre-emptively against Pakistan, for example. If America does it, why shouldn't anyone else be doing it? This war makes it easier for war-mongers all over the world to argue pro-war. If we just stay with the India-Pakistan example, a nuclear war may be ahead of us.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Bagdad Museum:
First of all, let me tell you that I am glad that the war is over with Saddam being removed from power.
I understand the danger of shooting at looters with relatively few troops present. Urban warfare might have erupted with lots of casualties.
But some things should have been protected by troops along with the oil ministry building, especially hospitals and the national museum.
That can't be too hard. Put a tank and three soldiers at the front door and that's it. When the Russians took Berlin they immediately secured the museums for example. They had cultural officers with them who took care of that. I mean scientists, experts in the field. Of course, Russia wanted to take some of the goods from the museums, so they had to secure them first, but that is beside the point.
If America can take reporters with them they could have taken cultural experts as well.
From what I read in the papers, American scientists had demanded from the Pentagon that this one museum had to be secured immediately because it is one of the six great museums in the world for the ancient near east. (The others being the Louvre in Paris, the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, the Museum in Kairo, the British Museum in London and The Met in New York)
A sidenote to the museum:
My father is an archaeologist. He has excavated in Iraq in the 1950s. He found the tomb of the latest ancient olympic champion in the boxing competition. It was a persian prince. In this tomb his boxing gear and his golden olympic branch were found. (You know, the thing that would be the gold medal today).
As far as I know, it was the only such antique award ever found. It used to be in the Bagdad museum which was looted. This is the only item from the museum I personally know of. Many way more important items are gone. The first traces of writing on this planet, for example. And what could not be carried away was destroyed: Great statues were smashed and so on.
One tank in front of the museum might have been enough.
Yes, the living are more important than the dead, so why weren't the hospitals secured?
You know, I don't want to badmouth everything the troops do in Iraq. It is great how fast Saddam was kicked out with few casualties. I am not easily carried away into cheering escapades, though when anarchy takes Saddam's place.
Well, it seems, that the neighborhood watches being formed are doing a fine job by now. Good, I cannot give merit to coalition troops for it, though. Basically, they faced the Iraqi people with two options: Let your country go to waste or protect it yourself.
However, I am glad that American troops have joined in by now, assisting Iraqis in protecting hospitals, patrolling the streets and stuff like that.
First of all, let me tell you that I am glad that the war is over with Saddam being removed from power.
I understand the danger of shooting at looters with relatively few troops present. Urban warfare might have erupted with lots of casualties.
But some things should have been protected by troops along with the oil ministry building, especially hospitals and the national museum.
That can't be too hard. Put a tank and three soldiers at the front door and that's it. When the Russians took Berlin they immediately secured the museums for example. They had cultural officers with them who took care of that. I mean scientists, experts in the field. Of course, Russia wanted to take some of the goods from the museums, so they had to secure them first, but that is beside the point.
If America can take reporters with them they could have taken cultural experts as well.
From what I read in the papers, American scientists had demanded from the Pentagon that this one museum had to be secured immediately because it is one of the six great museums in the world for the ancient near east. (The others being the Louvre in Paris, the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, the Museum in Kairo, the British Museum in London and The Met in New York)
A sidenote to the museum:
My father is an archaeologist. He has excavated in Iraq in the 1950s. He found the tomb of the latest ancient olympic champion in the boxing competition. It was a persian prince. In this tomb his boxing gear and his golden olympic branch were found. (You know, the thing that would be the gold medal today).
As far as I know, it was the only such antique award ever found. It used to be in the Bagdad museum which was looted. This is the only item from the museum I personally know of. Many way more important items are gone. The first traces of writing on this planet, for example. And what could not be carried away was destroyed: Great statues were smashed and so on.
One tank in front of the museum might have been enough.
Yes, the living are more important than the dead, so why weren't the hospitals secured?
You know, I don't want to badmouth everything the troops do in Iraq. It is great how fast Saddam was kicked out with few casualties. I am not easily carried away into cheering escapades, though when anarchy takes Saddam's place.
Well, it seems, that the neighborhood watches being formed are doing a fine job by now. Good, I cannot give merit to coalition troops for it, though. Basically, they faced the Iraqi people with two options: Let your country go to waste or protect it yourself.
However, I am glad that American troops have joined in by now, assisting Iraqis in protecting hospitals, patrolling the streets and stuff like that.
Monday, April 14, 2003
The War is over - when will Chaos end?
I am relieved that it seems to be safe to say that the war in Iraq is over now. Actually, it ended pretty quickly. I am positively surprised about the early defeat of Saddam's regime.
It is unfortunate, that chaos followed immediately after the regime was dethroned. So much looting in Bagdad!
It is understandable that Iraqi people want to take something from the dying regime. The sad thing is even hospitals were robbed. Additionally, I watched a TV report on the Bagdad national museum yesterday. It was filmed like two days ago. The whole thing is empty. It was the most important collection of Mesopotamian history as far as I know. The collection must be woth several hundred million Dollars.
Now, I don't know if the collection had been hidden before Americans conquered Bagdad or if the museum fell prey to looters. In any case, this is a great loss for mankind, since we are talking about Mesopotamia, the first high culture on this planet.
Some pictures I have seen suggest that troops watched the lootings in the city but did not interfere. Well it is not easy to judge such a behavior. If they prevent lootings they might stirr up sentiments against them, since the looters may feel they only take things that Saddam had stolen from them. On the other hand this is a very bad start for a post-dictatorian Iraq as a democratic constitutional state.
I am relieved that it seems to be safe to say that the war in Iraq is over now. Actually, it ended pretty quickly. I am positively surprised about the early defeat of Saddam's regime.
It is unfortunate, that chaos followed immediately after the regime was dethroned. So much looting in Bagdad!
It is understandable that Iraqi people want to take something from the dying regime. The sad thing is even hospitals were robbed. Additionally, I watched a TV report on the Bagdad national museum yesterday. It was filmed like two days ago. The whole thing is empty. It was the most important collection of Mesopotamian history as far as I know. The collection must be woth several hundred million Dollars.
Now, I don't know if the collection had been hidden before Americans conquered Bagdad or if the museum fell prey to looters. In any case, this is a great loss for mankind, since we are talking about Mesopotamia, the first high culture on this planet.
Some pictures I have seen suggest that troops watched the lootings in the city but did not interfere. Well it is not easy to judge such a behavior. If they prevent lootings they might stirr up sentiments against them, since the looters may feel they only take things that Saddam had stolen from them. On the other hand this is a very bad start for a post-dictatorian Iraq as a democratic constitutional state.
Friday, April 04, 2003
international law 101
Miguel posted something very interesting on international law in his weblog.
He uses a nice analogy of a village and its inhabitants to illustrate the relations between countries in the world.
An analogy is helpful to illustrate complicated facts in a simple way. Of course, simplifications bear the risk not to be precise enough. Also, since matters are usually not that simple they can be interpreted differently by some people. Therefore someone may tell another story of that village. I disagree with some parts of Miguel's story. I would like to point them out here. Please read his post first, otherwise mine doesn't make any sense.
I will give some names to the peole involved (to make it easier following the story):
The person who supposedly has the candlesticks is called Saddam
The person who is acting informally as the sherif is called George.
Miguel named George's best friend Tony, already.
Ok, what had happened? (Caution: some major differences here to Miguel's story)
The village has rules but not a sherif to enforce them. Usually the villagers enforce the rules as they see fit.
Someone had broken into George's house destroyed something he was really proud of and roughed up his wife.
No candlesticks have been stolen. The person breaking in was not Saddam but Osama. While Saddam probably enjoyed the fact that Osama broke in, it remains unclear if he was supporting Osama in doing so.
Everything else is like in Miguel's story up to the point were George calls Tony and they go to Saddam's house. Let us be clear on some circumstances here:
George is not looking for candlesticks but for a machine gun. It hadn't been stolen but sold by George's ancestors as well as by some other villagers.
Now, Saddam claims not to have been involved in the break in. He claims that he does not have the machine gun anymore. The village council actually wanted to investigate the matter but Saddam was only reluctantly letting them enter his house. Too slow for George.
So the house is being dismantled. By now George and Tony have dismantled half of the house. The machine gun has not been found, yet. By now George has acused a neighbor of Saddam to hide the machine gun for him. That neighbor has a history of disliking George as well as Saddam, though.
By now, basically George has announced that he would have to look into every of the neighboring houses. Some of the other villagers are questioning George's motif. They are suspicious that he may have been looking for excuses to enter their houses. Maybe he just wants the extremely good soil in that area of the village. Most villagers urge for a meeting to discuss everything before more harm is done. There are people in the village who also have interests in Saddam's house. A guy called Jaques and another one called Vladimir had made agreements with Saddam about the use of Saddam's soil. They don't want someone else in that house.
By now, George has shifted his arguments. He doesn't really seem to care about the gun, he emphasizes that Saddam had beaten his wife and children. George wants to free them from their oppression. After Saddam is removed, he wants to take care of them for a while before he will let them decide on their own about what to do. The familiy indeed had suffered from Saddam. However, some family members fear that George wants to get the goodies in the house and the right to use Saddam's soil before givng them their freedom.
Saddams neighbors don't like the whole plan. They are distant relatives of Saddam and feel that Saddam's family will be forced to live life George's way. They feel threatened, that George might try to change their own way of life, too. Also, if Saddam will lose his house why shouldn't they get the goodies? They really don't like the idea, that George will decide on where these goodies go to. Some of Saddam's neighbors have also maltreated their families in the past. Up until now, neither George nor any of the other villagers had shown great interest in that matter. They were too interested in trading goods with each other. Is George going to remove them as well? On what grounds? Up until recently all the villagers had agreed not to interfere with matters that only concerned members of a single household.
Also, many familiy members in the houses of Saddam's neighbors feel more threatened by George coming into their houses than by their patriarchs.
So some villagers keep calling for meetings in order to settle the issues without violence, by way of compromise. They want to investigate the matter.
George doesn't want that. He may want the other villagers to help in rebuilding Saddam's house later, though. People wonder why the whole village should pay for rebuilding the house because most of them didn't want to destroy it in the first place. But of course, Saddam's family needs shelter. So they will eventually agree on rebuilding the house. George will have to pay, too. But at least he gets the goodies in return.
Saddam's neighbors fear that soon George will start to dismantle another house if he wants more soil, more goodies. Nobody can prove that, but the suspicions are there. This is why mistrust, or even hatred and vioence may occur. Many factors suggest that George may have (accidentally) started something that leads into a large scale feud splitting the village into two or more factions. In the end, most houses might be damaged if not destroyed.
How can this be resolved?
Joint action is the only way to really SOLVE the problem. If Osama and Saddam get their way, then maybe the whole village will sink into chaos and destruction. If George continues the dismantling and walks into other neighborhood houses, the same thing may happen.
The rules set by the community are the only hope to exit the vicious circle of destruction. Some villagers have seen that and have remained calm and rational and these people try to make the community work.
Bottom line: international law exists but is often rather vague and difficult to enforce. The USA can not be sued and sanctioned by the UN for taking matters into their own hands. (point taken)
But the decision to go to war was still wrong:
parts of the UN (for example the German government) pleeded to bear the goal of peace and stability in mind and argued that war on Iraq is counterproductive.
Only joint action in the UN can break the vicious circle of violence. Therefore, everybody should help to make international law stricter and easier to enforce.
A UN-super-state doesn't exist. Probably it shouldn't even exist. It would be hard to administer such a monster. But moves need to be made into that direction if we want to break the rule-of-the-fist. It is dangerous to be happy with the rule-of-the-fist only because one is the strongest. Envy, hatred, famine... a lot of things make this planet insecure, even for the strongest.
The safest way is cooperation on a supernational level. That is why we have international law. We should enforce it.
I said, we should enforce it. America, doesn't. It only enforces a small portion of it against the will of many/most members of the UN because it wants Iraqi oil. America seems not to agree in the need to break the vicious circle. America does not believe in supernational cooperation it only believes in national interest. I think I have pointed out, why that is a short sighted attitude.
Miguel posted something very interesting on international law in his weblog.
He uses a nice analogy of a village and its inhabitants to illustrate the relations between countries in the world.
An analogy is helpful to illustrate complicated facts in a simple way. Of course, simplifications bear the risk not to be precise enough. Also, since matters are usually not that simple they can be interpreted differently by some people. Therefore someone may tell another story of that village. I disagree with some parts of Miguel's story. I would like to point them out here. Please read his post first, otherwise mine doesn't make any sense.
I will give some names to the peole involved (to make it easier following the story):
The person who supposedly has the candlesticks is called Saddam
The person who is acting informally as the sherif is called George.
Miguel named George's best friend Tony, already.
Ok, what had happened? (Caution: some major differences here to Miguel's story)
The village has rules but not a sherif to enforce them. Usually the villagers enforce the rules as they see fit.
Someone had broken into George's house destroyed something he was really proud of and roughed up his wife.
No candlesticks have been stolen. The person breaking in was not Saddam but Osama. While Saddam probably enjoyed the fact that Osama broke in, it remains unclear if he was supporting Osama in doing so.
Everything else is like in Miguel's story up to the point were George calls Tony and they go to Saddam's house. Let us be clear on some circumstances here:
George is not looking for candlesticks but for a machine gun. It hadn't been stolen but sold by George's ancestors as well as by some other villagers.
Now, Saddam claims not to have been involved in the break in. He claims that he does not have the machine gun anymore. The village council actually wanted to investigate the matter but Saddam was only reluctantly letting them enter his house. Too slow for George.
So the house is being dismantled. By now George and Tony have dismantled half of the house. The machine gun has not been found, yet. By now George has acused a neighbor of Saddam to hide the machine gun for him. That neighbor has a history of disliking George as well as Saddam, though.
By now, basically George has announced that he would have to look into every of the neighboring houses. Some of the other villagers are questioning George's motif. They are suspicious that he may have been looking for excuses to enter their houses. Maybe he just wants the extremely good soil in that area of the village. Most villagers urge for a meeting to discuss everything before more harm is done. There are people in the village who also have interests in Saddam's house. A guy called Jaques and another one called Vladimir had made agreements with Saddam about the use of Saddam's soil. They don't want someone else in that house.
By now, George has shifted his arguments. He doesn't really seem to care about the gun, he emphasizes that Saddam had beaten his wife and children. George wants to free them from their oppression. After Saddam is removed, he wants to take care of them for a while before he will let them decide on their own about what to do. The familiy indeed had suffered from Saddam. However, some family members fear that George wants to get the goodies in the house and the right to use Saddam's soil before givng them their freedom.
Saddams neighbors don't like the whole plan. They are distant relatives of Saddam and feel that Saddam's family will be forced to live life George's way. They feel threatened, that George might try to change their own way of life, too. Also, if Saddam will lose his house why shouldn't they get the goodies? They really don't like the idea, that George will decide on where these goodies go to. Some of Saddam's neighbors have also maltreated their families in the past. Up until now, neither George nor any of the other villagers had shown great interest in that matter. They were too interested in trading goods with each other. Is George going to remove them as well? On what grounds? Up until recently all the villagers had agreed not to interfere with matters that only concerned members of a single household.
Also, many familiy members in the houses of Saddam's neighbors feel more threatened by George coming into their houses than by their patriarchs.
So some villagers keep calling for meetings in order to settle the issues without violence, by way of compromise. They want to investigate the matter.
George doesn't want that. He may want the other villagers to help in rebuilding Saddam's house later, though. People wonder why the whole village should pay for rebuilding the house because most of them didn't want to destroy it in the first place. But of course, Saddam's family needs shelter. So they will eventually agree on rebuilding the house. George will have to pay, too. But at least he gets the goodies in return.
Saddam's neighbors fear that soon George will start to dismantle another house if he wants more soil, more goodies. Nobody can prove that, but the suspicions are there. This is why mistrust, or even hatred and vioence may occur. Many factors suggest that George may have (accidentally) started something that leads into a large scale feud splitting the village into two or more factions. In the end, most houses might be damaged if not destroyed.
How can this be resolved?
Joint action is the only way to really SOLVE the problem. If Osama and Saddam get their way, then maybe the whole village will sink into chaos and destruction. If George continues the dismantling and walks into other neighborhood houses, the same thing may happen.
The rules set by the community are the only hope to exit the vicious circle of destruction. Some villagers have seen that and have remained calm and rational and these people try to make the community work.
Bottom line: international law exists but is often rather vague and difficult to enforce. The USA can not be sued and sanctioned by the UN for taking matters into their own hands. (point taken)
But the decision to go to war was still wrong:
parts of the UN (for example the German government) pleeded to bear the goal of peace and stability in mind and argued that war on Iraq is counterproductive.
Only joint action in the UN can break the vicious circle of violence. Therefore, everybody should help to make international law stricter and easier to enforce.
A UN-super-state doesn't exist. Probably it shouldn't even exist. It would be hard to administer such a monster. But moves need to be made into that direction if we want to break the rule-of-the-fist. It is dangerous to be happy with the rule-of-the-fist only because one is the strongest. Envy, hatred, famine... a lot of things make this planet insecure, even for the strongest.
The safest way is cooperation on a supernational level. That is why we have international law. We should enforce it.
I said, we should enforce it. America, doesn't. It only enforces a small portion of it against the will of many/most members of the UN because it wants Iraqi oil. America seems not to agree in the need to break the vicious circle. America does not believe in supernational cooperation it only believes in national interest. I think I have pointed out, why that is a short sighted attitude.
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
Cluster bombs: How shall the hearts and minds be won by using them?
According to Human Rights Watch US forces use cluster bombs in their assault on Iraq. These weapons have a high failure rate, meaning many of them don't explode on impact. Basically, they turn into antipersonnel landmines. Civilians, as well as friendly soldiers will suffer from that.
German Journalists reported out of Iraqi hospitals today: They visited over three hundred civilian victims of coalition attacks from the last few days. A high percentage of them were children. They reported about picking up small yellow packages that had fallen from the sky. They exploded on touch.
German journalists insisted that while some information on this topic may be Iraqi propaganda parts of it must be true. In any case, Iraq is using antipersonnel landmines as well.
Horrible.
But don't you wonder how the "liberation of Iraq" shall be welcomed by one-legged children and their parents due to American cluster bombs?
Evidence on this whole matter is still very scattered, I haven't seen it on BBC or CNN, yet. Maybe Saddam is fooling the rest of the world right now. It could be, though, that the US and the UK are fooling us at the moment.
According to Human Rights Watch US forces use cluster bombs in their assault on Iraq. These weapons have a high failure rate, meaning many of them don't explode on impact. Basically, they turn into antipersonnel landmines. Civilians, as well as friendly soldiers will suffer from that.
German Journalists reported out of Iraqi hospitals today: They visited over three hundred civilian victims of coalition attacks from the last few days. A high percentage of them were children. They reported about picking up small yellow packages that had fallen from the sky. They exploded on touch.
German journalists insisted that while some information on this topic may be Iraqi propaganda parts of it must be true. In any case, Iraq is using antipersonnel landmines as well.
Horrible.
But don't you wonder how the "liberation of Iraq" shall be welcomed by one-legged children and their parents due to American cluster bombs?
Evidence on this whole matter is still very scattered, I haven't seen it on BBC or CNN, yet. Maybe Saddam is fooling the rest of the world right now. It could be, though, that the US and the UK are fooling us at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
