For en uge siden kunne man i en leder i New York Times læse at man redaktionens side ikke godtager Bush-administrationens udtalelser om at handlingerne der foretoges mod de indsatte i fængslet, ikke var forbundne hændelser, men foretaget af sociopater.
I stedet mener man fra NYTimes redaktionelle hold at:
"The abuses grew out of President Bush’s decision to ignore the Geneva Conventions and American law in handling prisoners after Sept. 11, 2001."
"Abusive interrogations, many of them amounting to torture, were first developed for Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, after Mr. Bush declared that international and American law did not protect members of Taliban or Al Qaeda, or any other foreigner he chose to designate as an “unlawful enemy combatant.” Once the signal was sent that prisoners in the “war on terror” were not entitled to decent treatment, cynical lawyers, including Alberto Gonzales, who was then the White House counsel, conjured up perverse legal arguments to ensure that the jailers’ bosses would not be prosecuted for abusing them. The techniques and attitudes developed in Guantánamo Bay were exported to Afghanistan, and then to Iraq."
"Pentagon officials say they have learned the bitter lessons of Abu Ghraib, but their civilian bosses clearly have not. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 did not provide adequate protection to military prisoners, and it gave the Central Intelligence Agency carte blanche to run overseas prisons to which anonymous men are sent for indefinite detention and abuse. In July, Mr. Bush issued an executive order reaffirming his policy of ignoring the Geneva Conventions when he chooses, and approving abusive interrogations at C.I.A. prisons."
kilde: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/opinion/30thu1.html
onsdag den 5. september 2007
tirsdag den 4. september 2007
Giulianis Realistiske Fred
I September/Oktober nummeret af det toneangivende udenrigspolitiske tidsskrift Foreign Affairs kan man læse hvordan den republikanske præsidentkandidat Rudolph Giuliani ønsker at udforme den fremtidige amerikanske udenrigspolitik. Hans artikel har han valgt at kalde “Toward a Realistic Peace” og jeg vil i det følgende kommentere lidt på artiklens indhold.
Det første trin mod det Giuliani kalder “en realistisk fred” er at være realistisk omkring hvem USA’s fjender er. Disse fjender følger iflg. ham en voldelig ideologi som han kalder “radical Islamic fascism”. Det er her særdeles interessant hvordan Giuliani benytter et retorisk kneb hvormed han søger at associere et gammelt fjendebillede, nemlig fascismen, med islamisk terrorisme. Denne retoriske sammenkobling af to fjendebilleder, et gammelt og et nyt, har han tilfælles med den nuværende administration der som bekendt har forsøgt sig med retorisk at sammenkoble fjendebilledet som akse-magterne repræsenterede under anden verdenskrig, med den fjendtlighed som såkaldte slyngelstater hævdes at repræsentere. En kobling vi finder i den nysproglige vending “The Axis of evil”. Denne sammenkobling må karakteriseres som værende ret tomhovedet idet der er åbenlyse forskelle på radikal islamisme og fascisme.
Den største og mest åbenlyse forskel er den, at den radikale islamisme er en religiøst funderet ideologi, mens fascismen, selvom den i stort omfang nød opbakning blandt højtstående medlemmer indenfor den katolske kirke, må siges primært at være en verdsligt funderet ideologi. En anden forskel er den, at Mussolini proklamerede at “fascisme er korporatisme” dvs. at fascismen indbygget i dens ideologi var meget venligt stillet overfor kapitalinteresser, hvorfor han da også et langt stykke henaf vejen modtog en vis opbakning fra vestlige magthavere blandt andet illustreret ved at Roosevelt i 1933 betegnede Mussolini som “that admirable Italian gentleman”, ligesom Roosevelt stadig i 1939 havde pæne ord tilovers for fascismen, idet han mente at ideologien var “of great importance to the world [though] still in the experimental stage.” [1] Fascismens opbakning af kapitalinteresser, må siges at stå i komplet modsætning til store dele af den radikale islamisme, der som bekendt er fjendtligt indstillede overfor vestlige kapitalinteresser, som illustreret ved angrebet på World Trade Center den 11. september 2001. For det tredje skal det da også lige nævnes at både fascismen og nazismen kom på fode i nogle af verdens højest udviklede lande hvad i datiden angik kultur og videnskab, hvilket vist næppe kan siges at være tilfældet for mange af de radikale islamisters vedkommende, selvom det iranske præstestyre nok må siges at være en undtagelse.
Konklusionen herfra må følgelig være, at hvis Rudolph Giuliani ønsker at være realistisk omkring hvem der er USA's umiddelbare fjender, skulle han måske undlade at foretage en så stærkt revisionistisk kobling mellem fascisme og islamisme, da denne kobling ikke kan siges at være funderet i nogen tidligere eller nuværende realitet.
Et stærkere forsvar er for Giuliani en forudsætning for en succesfuld fremtidig udenrigspolitik. Giuliani hævder at man fra både demokratisk og republikansk hold gennem de seneste 15 år, har bedt det amerikanske forsvar om at gøre “increasingly more with increasingly less”, hvilket selvfølgelig må siges at være en sandhed med modifikationer, idet det amerikanske forsvarsbudget ikke kan siges at være blevet mindre gennem de sidste 15 år.
Giuliani ønsker at forbedre det amerikanske forsvar ved at videreudvikle missilforsvaret, som George W. Bush følgelig fortjener hævd for at have sat i værk. Endvidere er det for Giuliani vigtigt at man, for at imødegå et potentielt angreb på amerikansk jord, via satellitkonstellationer, overvåger våbenfabrikker overalt på jorden, både dag og nat og både over og under jorden.
Som middel til at tjene amerikanske interesser udenrigs mener Giuliani endvidere, at det er nødvendigt at tage propagandistiske foranstaltninger i brug, idet effektiv kommunikation iflg. ham kan være en stærkt virkningsfuld måde at fremme amerikanske interesser på, og for at USA kommer til at vinde det han kalder “the war of ideas.”
Giuliani har også et interessant bud på hvorledes et fremtidigt FN bør se ud. Historien har nemlig indtil videre vist, at sådanne institutioner virker bedst hvis USA leder dem, og FN er da heller ikke meget at råbe hurra for i Giulianis optik, da organisationen “har vist sig at være irrelevant i løsningen af næsten alle større kontroverser gennem de sidste 50 år”, herunder international terrorisme og brud på menneskerettighederne. Interessant er det vel at nævne i denne sammenhæng, at en af grundene til at FN ikke har været succesfuld mht. bekæmpelse af krænkelser af menneskerettighederne, er det forhold at USA konsekvent har blokeret alle sådanne tiltag mod staten Israel, men det er da ganske rigtigt at FN indtil videre ikke har kunnet udvirke de store resultater hvad angår de menneskerettighedskrænkelser som til stadighed foregår på Guantanamo basen på Cuba, hvor tortur og generel hård og forsømmelig behandling af de indsatte, som i manges tilfælde har siddet indespærret i årevis uden at få mulighed for en fair rettergang, har været reglen snarere end undtagelsen. Dette er efterhånden blevet dokumenteret særdeles grundigt, hvorfor jeg ikke mener det er nødvendigt at gentage det her.
Men tag ikke mit ord for det, læs selv resten:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
[1] David Schmitz, The United States and Fascist Italy, North Carolina 1988.
Det første trin mod det Giuliani kalder “en realistisk fred” er at være realistisk omkring hvem USA’s fjender er. Disse fjender følger iflg. ham en voldelig ideologi som han kalder “radical Islamic fascism”. Det er her særdeles interessant hvordan Giuliani benytter et retorisk kneb hvormed han søger at associere et gammelt fjendebillede, nemlig fascismen, med islamisk terrorisme. Denne retoriske sammenkobling af to fjendebilleder, et gammelt og et nyt, har han tilfælles med den nuværende administration der som bekendt har forsøgt sig med retorisk at sammenkoble fjendebilledet som akse-magterne repræsenterede under anden verdenskrig, med den fjendtlighed som såkaldte slyngelstater hævdes at repræsentere. En kobling vi finder i den nysproglige vending “The Axis of evil”. Denne sammenkobling må karakteriseres som værende ret tomhovedet idet der er åbenlyse forskelle på radikal islamisme og fascisme.
Den største og mest åbenlyse forskel er den, at den radikale islamisme er en religiøst funderet ideologi, mens fascismen, selvom den i stort omfang nød opbakning blandt højtstående medlemmer indenfor den katolske kirke, må siges primært at være en verdsligt funderet ideologi. En anden forskel er den, at Mussolini proklamerede at “fascisme er korporatisme” dvs. at fascismen indbygget i dens ideologi var meget venligt stillet overfor kapitalinteresser, hvorfor han da også et langt stykke henaf vejen modtog en vis opbakning fra vestlige magthavere blandt andet illustreret ved at Roosevelt i 1933 betegnede Mussolini som “that admirable Italian gentleman”, ligesom Roosevelt stadig i 1939 havde pæne ord tilovers for fascismen, idet han mente at ideologien var “of great importance to the world [though] still in the experimental stage.” [1] Fascismens opbakning af kapitalinteresser, må siges at stå i komplet modsætning til store dele af den radikale islamisme, der som bekendt er fjendtligt indstillede overfor vestlige kapitalinteresser, som illustreret ved angrebet på World Trade Center den 11. september 2001. For det tredje skal det da også lige nævnes at både fascismen og nazismen kom på fode i nogle af verdens højest udviklede lande hvad i datiden angik kultur og videnskab, hvilket vist næppe kan siges at være tilfældet for mange af de radikale islamisters vedkommende, selvom det iranske præstestyre nok må siges at være en undtagelse.
Konklusionen herfra må følgelig være, at hvis Rudolph Giuliani ønsker at være realistisk omkring hvem der er USA's umiddelbare fjender, skulle han måske undlade at foretage en så stærkt revisionistisk kobling mellem fascisme og islamisme, da denne kobling ikke kan siges at være funderet i nogen tidligere eller nuværende realitet.
Et stærkere forsvar er for Giuliani en forudsætning for en succesfuld fremtidig udenrigspolitik. Giuliani hævder at man fra både demokratisk og republikansk hold gennem de seneste 15 år, har bedt det amerikanske forsvar om at gøre “increasingly more with increasingly less”, hvilket selvfølgelig må siges at være en sandhed med modifikationer, idet det amerikanske forsvarsbudget ikke kan siges at være blevet mindre gennem de sidste 15 år.
Giuliani ønsker at forbedre det amerikanske forsvar ved at videreudvikle missilforsvaret, som George W. Bush følgelig fortjener hævd for at have sat i værk. Endvidere er det for Giuliani vigtigt at man, for at imødegå et potentielt angreb på amerikansk jord, via satellitkonstellationer, overvåger våbenfabrikker overalt på jorden, både dag og nat og både over og under jorden.
Som middel til at tjene amerikanske interesser udenrigs mener Giuliani endvidere, at det er nødvendigt at tage propagandistiske foranstaltninger i brug, idet effektiv kommunikation iflg. ham kan være en stærkt virkningsfuld måde at fremme amerikanske interesser på, og for at USA kommer til at vinde det han kalder “the war of ideas.”
Giuliani har også et interessant bud på hvorledes et fremtidigt FN bør se ud. Historien har nemlig indtil videre vist, at sådanne institutioner virker bedst hvis USA leder dem, og FN er da heller ikke meget at råbe hurra for i Giulianis optik, da organisationen “har vist sig at være irrelevant i løsningen af næsten alle større kontroverser gennem de sidste 50 år”, herunder international terrorisme og brud på menneskerettighederne. Interessant er det vel at nævne i denne sammenhæng, at en af grundene til at FN ikke har været succesfuld mht. bekæmpelse af krænkelser af menneskerettighederne, er det forhold at USA konsekvent har blokeret alle sådanne tiltag mod staten Israel, men det er da ganske rigtigt at FN indtil videre ikke har kunnet udvirke de store resultater hvad angår de menneskerettighedskrænkelser som til stadighed foregår på Guantanamo basen på Cuba, hvor tortur og generel hård og forsømmelig behandling af de indsatte, som i manges tilfælde har siddet indespærret i årevis uden at få mulighed for en fair rettergang, har været reglen snarere end undtagelsen. Dette er efterhånden blevet dokumenteret særdeles grundigt, hvorfor jeg ikke mener det er nødvendigt at gentage det her.
Men tag ikke mit ord for det, læs selv resten:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
[1] David Schmitz, The United States and Fascist Italy, North Carolina 1988.
Hvis du missede den: Cheney i '94. Invading Baghdad would result in a quagmire
Dette klip er så umådeligt interessant i lyset af, at manden gjorde det præcis modsatte ni år senere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&eurl=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&eurl=
Mere kritik af amerikansk irak-politik fra en britisk øversbefalende
Den britiske Generalmajor Tim Cross, kommer i forlængelse af general Sir Mike Jackson, med en bidende kritik af den amerikanske irak-politik. Generalmajoren påstår at han indtil flere gange har luftet seriøse bekymringer for den måde den amerikanske administration håndterede Irak efter krigens officielle afslutning.
"Right from the very beginning we were all very concerned about the lack of detail that had gone into the post-war plan and there is no doubt that Rumsfeld was at the heart of that process," he said.
"I had lunch with Rumsfeld in February in Washington - before the invasion in March 2003 - and raised concerns about the need to internationalise the reconstruction of Iraq and work closely with the United Nations."
Maj Gen Cross, 59, who was deputy head of the coalition's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, said he also raised concerns over the number of troops available to maintain security in Iraq.
"He didn't want to hear that message," he said. "The US had already convinced themselves that following the invasion Iraq would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy."
He added: "There is no doubt that with hindsight the US post-war plan was fatally flawed and many of us sensed that at the time."
kilde: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6974611.stm
"Right from the very beginning we were all very concerned about the lack of detail that had gone into the post-war plan and there is no doubt that Rumsfeld was at the heart of that process," he said.
"I had lunch with Rumsfeld in February in Washington - before the invasion in March 2003 - and raised concerns about the need to internationalise the reconstruction of Iraq and work closely with the United Nations."
Maj Gen Cross, 59, who was deputy head of the coalition's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, said he also raised concerns over the number of troops available to maintain security in Iraq.
"He didn't want to hear that message," he said. "The US had already convinced themselves that following the invasion Iraq would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy."
He added: "There is no doubt that with hindsight the US post-war plan was fatally flawed and many of us sensed that at the time."
kilde: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6974611.stm
mandag den 3. september 2007
P1's Orientering om potentiel Iran-krig
Programmet der sendtes den 31. August kan høres her:
http://www.dr.dk/P1/orientering/indslag/2007/08/31/183714.htm
http://www.dr.dk/P1/orientering/indslag/2007/08/31/183714.htm
Hvis du missede den: Den Foruroligende Oxfam rapport
Iflg. Oxfam rapporten:
- Four million Iraqis – 15% - regularly cannot buy enough to eat.
- 70% are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% in 2003.
- 28% of children are malnourished, compared to 19% before the 2003 invasion.
- 92% of Iraqi children suffer learning problems, mostly due to the climate of fear.
- More than two million people – mostly women and children - have been displaced inside Iraq. - A further two million Iraqis have become refugees, mainly in Syria and Jordan.
læs den her:
http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/briefingpapers/bp105_humanitarian_challenge_in_iraq_0707
- Four million Iraqis – 15% - regularly cannot buy enough to eat.
- 70% are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% in 2003.
- 28% of children are malnourished, compared to 19% before the 2003 invasion.
- 92% of Iraqi children suffer learning problems, mostly due to the climate of fear.
- More than two million people – mostly women and children - have been displaced inside Iraq. - A further two million Iraqis have become refugees, mainly in Syria and Jordan.
læs den her:
http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/briefingpapers/bp105_humanitarian_challenge_in_iraq_0707
UK's General Sir Mike Jackson angriber USA vedr. Irak
Highlights:
"Sir Mike, who took command of the British Army one month before US-led forces invaded Iraq, said Mr Rumsfeld was "one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq".
Crucially, the general writes, he refused to deploy enough troops to maintain law and order after the collapse of Saddam's regime, and discarded detailed plans for the post-conflict administration of Iraq that had been drawn up by the US State Department.
In the book, Sir Mike says he believes the entire US approach to tackling global terrorism is "inadequate" because it relies too heavily on military power at the expense of nation-building and diplomacy."
"Sir Mike says the failure of the US-led coalition to suppress the Iraqi insurgency four years after Saddam's overthrow was down to the Pentagon's refusal to deploy enough troops. A combined force of 400,000 would be needed to control a country the size of Iraq, but even with the extra troops recently deployed for the US military's "surge" the coalition has struggled to reach half that figure.
Sir Mike is particularly critical of President Bush's decision to hand control of the post-invasion running of Iraq to the Pentagon, when all the post-war planning had been done by the State Department.
"All the planning carried out by the State Department went to waste," he writes. For Mr Rumsfeld and his neo-conservative supporters "it was an ideological article of faith that the coalition forces would be accepted as a liberating army.
"Once you had decapitated Saddam Hussein's regime, a model democratic society would inevitably emerge."
Læs resten:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UUI4XW1GEXIN3QFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/09/01/wirq101.xml
Sir Mike Jackson's kritik af den amerikanske administrations håndtering af Irak, bakkes op af flere. Generalmajor Patrick Cordingley, som ledte de såkaldte Desert Rats under Golfkrigen i 1991, kalder således Sir Mike Jackson's analyse for "absolutely spot on".
Sir Malcolm Rifkind siger endvidere: "I think one of the most fundamental criticisms is not just that Rumsfeld was incompetent - which he was - but it was actually his boss, George Bush, who actually made the extraordinary decision to put the Pentagon and Rumsfeld in control of political nation-building after the actual war ended."´
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6890347,00.html
"Sir Mike, who took command of the British Army one month before US-led forces invaded Iraq, said Mr Rumsfeld was "one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq".
Crucially, the general writes, he refused to deploy enough troops to maintain law and order after the collapse of Saddam's regime, and discarded detailed plans for the post-conflict administration of Iraq that had been drawn up by the US State Department.
In the book, Sir Mike says he believes the entire US approach to tackling global terrorism is "inadequate" because it relies too heavily on military power at the expense of nation-building and diplomacy."
"Sir Mike says the failure of the US-led coalition to suppress the Iraqi insurgency four years after Saddam's overthrow was down to the Pentagon's refusal to deploy enough troops. A combined force of 400,000 would be needed to control a country the size of Iraq, but even with the extra troops recently deployed for the US military's "surge" the coalition has struggled to reach half that figure.
Sir Mike is particularly critical of President Bush's decision to hand control of the post-invasion running of Iraq to the Pentagon, when all the post-war planning had been done by the State Department.
"All the planning carried out by the State Department went to waste," he writes. For Mr Rumsfeld and his neo-conservative supporters "it was an ideological article of faith that the coalition forces would be accepted as a liberating army.
"Once you had decapitated Saddam Hussein's regime, a model democratic society would inevitably emerge."
Læs resten:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UUI4XW1GEXIN3QFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/09/01/wirq101.xml
Sir Mike Jackson's kritik af den amerikanske administrations håndtering af Irak, bakkes op af flere. Generalmajor Patrick Cordingley, som ledte de såkaldte Desert Rats under Golfkrigen i 1991, kalder således Sir Mike Jackson's analyse for "absolutely spot on".
Sir Malcolm Rifkind siger endvidere: "I think one of the most fundamental criticisms is not just that Rumsfeld was incompetent - which he was - but it was actually his boss, George Bush, who actually made the extraordinary decision to put the Pentagon and Rumsfeld in control of political nation-building after the actual war ended."´
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6890347,00.html
Pentagons Blitzkriegsplan for Iran
I The Sunday Times kunne man igår læse om Pentagon's nyeste paln for et angreb på Iran. Pentagon vil iflg. The Times ikke foretage såkaldte nålestiksangreb mod Iran, men har planlagt at destruere størstedelen af Irans militære kapacitet, gennem luftbombardementer af 1200 mål.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
torsdag den 30. august 2007
TIME Magazine om Rudolph Giuliani
TIME har et spændende portræt af Rudolph Giuliani med titlen "Behind Giuliani's Tough Talk" hvori hans postulerede viden om udenrigspolitik betvivles. Et par highlights fra artiklen.
Vedrørende Giulianis påståede "30 års studier af terrorisme":
"Giuliani and his aides have said he has been 'studying Islamic terrorism' for 30 years. This is an exaggeration. As a prosecutor and Justice Department official in the 1970s and '80s, Giuliani had many successes—against white collar criminals and the Mafia. He did not direct major terrorism prosecutions that led to convictions."
Vedrørende Giulianis udenrigpolitiske erfaring:
"Giuliani has also claimed he knows more about foreign policy than other candidates, but that's exceedingly unlikely. John McCain spent 22 years as a Navy pilot and five as a prisoner of war and is now the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, where he has served for 20 years. He has been to Iraq six times; Giuliani has never been there. (Of the major candidates, only Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John Edwards have never visited Iraq.)"
Vedrørende Giulianis udtalelser under valgkampen:
"On the campaign trail, Giuliani's foreign policy comments have sometimes come off more confident than competent. In New Hampshire this spring, according to the New York Times, Giuliani said it was unclear whether Iran or North Korea was further along on building a nuclear bomb. (North Korea tested a nuclear device in October 2006. Iran has not done so.) Then, in his speech at the Maryland synagogue in July, Giuliani mocked Democratic candidate Barack Obama for claiming that North Korea was the nation's No. 1 enemy. "North Korea is an enemy. North Korea is dangerous. I mean, I grant that. And boy, we have to be really careful about North Korea," Giuliani said, his voice iced with sarcasm. "But I don't remember North Koreans coming to America and killing us."
North Korea is known to sell advanced weaponry to other states that sponsor terrorists. The State Department has listed North Korea as a sponsor of terrorism. The reason North Korea keeps U.S. terrorism experts up at night is not that North Korean operatives will come here and attack us; it's that they might sell a nuclear bomb to people who will."
Artiklen ender med at konkludere følgende:
"In addition to extraordinary grace under fire, Giuliani developed an intimate knowledge of emergency management and an affinity for quantifiable results. On 9/11, he earned the trust of most Americans. ...
The evidence also shows great, gaping weaknesses. Giuliani's penchant for secrecy, his tendency to value loyalty over merit and his hyperbolic rhetoric are exactly the kinds of instincts that counterterrorism experts say the U.S. can least afford right now."
læs resten: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1655262-1,00.html
P1's Irak Hvad nu?
P1 har en programrække bestående af fem radioprogrammer der vedrører Irak-krigen. Jeg vil her specielt anbefale læseren, at lytte til programmet med Henrik Nedergaard som har været i Irak for at arbejde for Røde Kors og Verdensbanken.
http://www.dr.dk/Tema/exitirak/irakhvadnu/samtale4_1.htm
http://www.dr.dk/Tema/exitirak/irakhvadnu/samtale4_1.htm
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)