Category: International Relations

Sir John Weston writes an interesting piece on today’s Guardian. It is worth a read:

Our two priorities should therefore be to ensure that UN authority over Iraq is upheld, not flouted; and that the US remains committed to the UN. If the second resolution passes, both seem possible. If the votes are not there, the prime minister should test Britain’s special relationship in Washington to the limits, in order to avoid a US/UN rupture. Our attitude could also turn out to have lasting implications for Britain’s overall standing in the UN and for our influence in shaping debate on the security council’s future. The stakes are high: we should look hard before we leap.

Naomi Klein is now imploring peace activists to take action – civil disobediance. Klein is always a good read, I look forward to her articles in the Guardian.

In this weeks piece she talks about the “voila moment” – the point at which Iraqi people turn against their leader. She is sceptical that the propaganda being used by the US will work, in order to achieve this moment. But her is her suggestion to all of us:

The civil disobedience the US military is hoping to provoke in Iraq is exactly the sort of thing the anti-war movement needs to inspire in our countries if we are really going to stop, or at least curtail, the pending devastation in Iraq. What would it take for large numbers of people in the US, the UK, Italy, Canada – and any other country assisting the war effort – truly to break with our leaders and refuse to comply? Can we create thousands of Voila Moments back home?

She goes on to say that the marches must continue, every weekend, that once war starts people should call sick for work, not watch CNN and not buy anything. This sort of activism is refreshing in a society that seems to apathetic towards politics.

George Monbiot continues to amaze me in how closely we think alike. His article this week is not only the read of the day, but one of the best articles I have read so far this year. I will therefore quote from it extensively. I will take you through his main points.

On Saturday, President Bush warned the UN security council that accepting a new resolution authorising a war with Iraq was its “last chance” to prove “its relevance”. Four days before, a leaked document from the Pentagon showed that this final opportunity might already have passed. The US is planning to build a new generation of nuclear weapons in order to enhance its ability to launch a pre-emptive attack. This policy threatens both the comprehensive test ban treaty and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty – two of the principal instruments of global security – while endangering the international compact that the UN exists to sustain.

If the Pentagon document is true, it marks a turning point in global affairs – one of the biggest changes since the Second World War. It will completely shift the nature of nuclear weapons – and may make their use more regular – and frighteningly more normal in the future.

The Republicans’ victory in the mid-term elections last November was secured with the help of $60m from America’s big drug firms. This appears to have been a straightforward deal: we will buy the elections for you if you abandon the concession you made in Qatar. The agri-business lobbies in both the US and Europe appear to have been almost as successful: the poor nations have been forced to discuss a draft document which effectively permits the rich world to continue dumping its subsidised products in their markets.

I had not realized that drug companies donations before the mid-term elections had been so huge. It looks like the Bush administration has done an about turn – after getting some money. Nothing new there then.

Of course an economically weakened nation in possession of overwhelming military force remains a very dangerous one. Already, as I suggested last week, the US appears to be using its military machine to extend its economic life. But it is not clear that the American people would permit their government to threaten or attack other nations without even a semblance of an international political process, which is, of course, what the Bush administration is currently destroying.

I am speechless by now. Not only is Monbiot is right, he is reading the situation correctly and applying that reading to the future, I believe. Truly brilliant writing – read it.

Paul Hamilos in the Guardian asks the question:

Given the fact that previous nominees include Adolf Hitler and Henry Kissinger, can anyone take the Nobel Peace Prize seriously?

His answer is really a big No, and I would be inclined to agree. Henry Kissinger?

Yes those Koreans are at it again, and this time they are threatening to pull out of the 1953 armistice that ceased hostilities. Technically it is still at war – and pulling out of the armistice is effectively declaring war again.

Jon E Wilson, a lecturer in history at King’s College London writes a piece in today’s Guardian. He is unhappy with the way the British Empire has been presented on Channel 4’s history programme, by Neil Ferguson. He argues that far from having a good effect on the world, the British Empire succeeded only in making the world more unequal. A thought inspiring article.

Gary Younge discusses France’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq, interestingly they have recently deployed a carrier to the eastern med.