We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said on Tuesday that it was unlikely Moscow would abstain on a U.N. vote on authorizing war against Iraq and strongly indicated it will use its Security Council veto to stop it if necessary.
At a joint news conference with Jack Straw yesterday the Russian softened his stance slightly. “The Iraqi issue is one that is unlikely that one of us would abstain…We have not ruled out using a veto over the crisis.”
The French/Chirac’s interests in Iraq have already been examined in some detail but I am yet to see a comparable analysis of the Russian motives. At the moment it seems that Russia is giving itself ample room to support America and Britain in future military action despite declaring its opposition to war in Iraq.
It is clear that Moscow expects to extract maximum amount for its support of military action in the UN. Perhaps the price has not been high enough. They will want guarantees that Russia’s economic interests in Iraq will be preserved, particularly its contracts to develop rich oil fields once sanctions are lifted.
Also, Iraq is one of Russia’s traditional allies. Russian hardware makes up 95 per cent of Iraq’s arms and the two developed strong ties in Soviet times. It is hard to believe that they do not see that they would be much better off supporting the US and the UK in its strategy.
The problem seems to be not only the Russian government’s need to protect huge investments and deals already made but also its inability to recognise that the kind of blackmail Iraqis are trying on them, is not necessarily ‘understood’ by the Bush administration.
Last year, a week before Christmas, a row broke out between Russia and Iraq when Baghdad declared “null and void” a �200 billion deal with Lukoil to develop the West Qurna oil field.
Russia’s energy and foreign ministries reacted furiously to the news. Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s deputy prime minister, said the cancellation was to punish Lukoil for negotiating with America over its future interests in the region. Given Iraq’s record, the cancellation of the deal was probably a crude attempt to blackmail Moscow into offering greater diplomatic support during the crucial developments in the UN in the coming months.
At that time Igor Ivanov, the Russian foreign minister, called for talks on the deal. If America had offered Moscow the guarantees it was seeking for Lukoil, the balance of power (or rather of obstructiveness) might have looked rather different today. Russia’s aim is to get the US to convince it that Saddam’s downfall would be to its economic advantage. Or in other words, pay them now or in future lucrative contracts, or else. Who said that the UN was a street market of sordid bargains?
Update: Earlier today on MTV, Mr Blair said that in a post-conflict Iraq, the country’s oil should go into a UN supervised reserve which would be for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Oh dear, oh dear…
In news which will surprise no one who has actually been following events and listening to what Tony Blair has been saying consistently for more than a month, it has been reported that 300 British SAS troops are already operating inside Iraq. God speed, Gentlemen.
Now please stop this preposterous charade of pretending to need the imprimatur of that exclusive club for mass murderers, thieves, thugs and tyrants (The United Nations) to justify anything whatsoever. We are already well past the point of no return, so just leave those friends of Saddam Hussain and Ba’athist Socialism who write for and advocate the views of the Guardian newspaper to their delusions of relevance.
The moon in silence goes its way and heeds no yelping cur.
knock, knock…
So the ‘heroic’ human shields found Iraq not worth laying down their lives for? I previously asked why they weren’t in Kuwait City when Iraq invaded. David Carr suggested jokingly next year North Korea, but I doubt if they would be welcome. The place that needs defending right now from the threat of massive chemical and possibly nuclear destruction is South Korea.
If the human shields were anything more than stooges for Communist evil, they would be in Seoul, Pusan, or forming a chain across the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ). If it is of any help to the peacenik who may be reading, try this link for info on places to visit along the border.
I’m not holding my breath.
This has been my 100th posting on Samizdata. Thanks to Brian, Adriana and especially Perry for their patient explanations of this medium, and to all the readers and commentators, who make it all worthwhile. Well sort of 
If you have played the computer game America’s Army, now you have the opportunity to try a… different… sort of real-life based first-person-shooter game:
Hizbullah has launched a computer game allowing players to simulate its fighters during military operations on Israeli soldiers prior to the liberation of the South. Special Force, which took two long year s of development by the Hizbullah Central Internet Bureau, hit the market on Feb. 16. The game consists of different stages all inspired by actual Hizbullah operations in the South. Players face the same conditions as Hizbullah fighters, including geographic locations, mines, the number of Israeli troops and even the weather conditions. Special Force also offers a training simulation, where players can practice their shooting skills on targets such as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other Israeli political and military figures.
The medium of computer games is neutral… what next? A mod for a civilian airliner flight sim that re-creates some rather well known flights on September 11th? I would not be surprised. After that, maybe a ‘role playing computer game’ set in Poland in 1943 called Einzatsgruppen?
Unfortunately the good guys do not have a monopoly on creativity.
I urge you to read a post by Stephen Pollard. He links to a Guardian articled headed, breathtakingly, “Welsh pensioner turns freedom fighter”. Why do I say “breathtakingly”? Because the freedom-fighting of the woman profiled by the Guardian, Anne Gwynne, consists of the fact that she went to ‘Occupied Palestine’ the better to be chummy with the families of two suicide bombers who killed twenty-three Israeli civilians. Or who “went on the mission to Tel Aviv” as she winningly puts it, before adding, “They are such lovely families and very proud of their sons.”
The woman herself is of a recurring though despicable type: the White Liberal Murder-Groupie. OK, you’ve seen her like before, swooning over the Khmer Rouge or the Black Panthers. We are up to about Mk VIII by now, with Improved Extra Gush Factor. Let us wash our minds of her and move on.
But the Guardian’s commentary hits a new low, and the Guardian once had some honour to lose. Did you know that it was once the Manchester Guardian, provincial in the best sense, standing for a tradition of Nonconformist self-improvement? Think on that and then re-read that headline describing a woman who pants to to further help the killers in their bloody work: Welsh pensioner turns freedom fighter.
Then look at the first sentence: Anne Gwynne is conducting her own war on terrorism. Mrs Gwynne did not write that, the reporter, Chris McGreal wrote it. Probably didn’t think about it much.
Did I say “the Guardian’s commentary” just then? Silly of me, it isn’t a commentary. The nearest it comes to an effort at any of that “dig deeper, ask the tough questions” stuff reporters and analysts are meant to do is this:
Twenty-three people died in those bombings in Tel Aviv in January, including many poor foreign workers. Was it wrong?
The answer given, pretty quickly, is “Nah, ‘course not.” Note how McGreal had to drag in that fact that many of the victims weren’t Israelis in order to make even a debating-point case for sympathy. Beyond that one limp line there is no justification offered for the term “freedom fighter” or for calling Anne Gwynne’s activities “her own war against terrorism.” In contrast great detail is offered of the sufferings of the Palestinians (which is as it should be) – but not the slightest scepticism as to whether Anne Gwynne is telling the whole truth. Could McGreal not have made some interjection, asked a few challenging supplementary questions, for instance, when confronted with lines like this: “I used to think it was all excuses, but they [Israeli soldiers] actually believe this shit. We have nothing to kill them with, just a few AK-47s.”? Perhaps he was never going to give the answer I would have given, namely, “Your pals with the bomb-belts seem to slaughter well enough, dearie,” but one would think that the traditions of the Guardian would demand some note of distance, of qualification, of un-acceptance?
An apologia, even when desperately, heartbreakingly wrong, is a sort of bridge between evil and good, an acknowledgement that there is something here that needs explaining. But Chris McGreal saw no necessity for any elaboration. Tip-tap-tip went the swiftly typing fingers and out came the words “freedom fighter”, “her own war on terrorism”, praise as easy and insouciant as a local reporter putting in a good word for the latest charitable efforts of the Womens’ Institute or Rotary Club. As Stephen Pollard concludes, “Ms Gwynne’s evil views are not merely presented without criticism or proper questioning; they are endorsed. And that is, in its own way, also evil.”
[This post originally appeared on my own blog. I have also posted it here because of Blogger problems and to make it as widely known as possible what sort of attitudes the Guardian considers acceptable in its reporters.]
They set forth boldly into the world with love in the hearts and the zeal of righeousness in their eyes, blazing with their vision for a better world and a finer day when we would all join hands in common humanity. They were bright, shining, fearless emissaries of truth and justice, striding into the lion’s den as an example to the rest of mankind that there is a better way.
No bullet could graze them, no missile could dent them and no oil-grabbing cowboys were going to deflect them from saving the innocent Iraqis from their merciless predations of an unjust war!!
Only, now they’re coming home because…um..well, they got a bit frightened:
“Almost all of the first British “human shields” to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous.
Two red double-decker buses, which symbolised the hopes of anti-war activists when they arrived to a fanfare of publicity a fortnight ago, slipped quietly out of Baghdad on the long journey back to Britain.”
So that’s that. They’ve had some sun on their faces, seen the sights, tried all the local dishes and now it’s back to tedious old Britain where they can bore everyone with their holiday snaps (“Look, this is Tarquin and me draping ourselves over a Scud missile launcher”).
Next year: North Korea!
“It heightened fears among some peace activists that they could be stationed at non-civilian sites. Mr Meynell and fellow protesters who moved into the power station in south Baghdad last weekend were dismayed to find it stood immediately next to an army base and the strategically crucial main road south to Basra. Iraqi officials said there was little point in guarding what they considered to be low-risk targets.”
What, no baby-milk factories??!! They wuz tricked! They have been denied their rightful glory. ‘Peace tourist’ just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
On Sunday (2nd March) a demonstration will be held in Paris outside the U.S. embassy. The assembly point will be the place de la Concorde. The rally has an English name: “Friends and Freedom”, which in itself is unique.
It aims to promote: “Friendship and confidence between the French and American peoples” and “Friendship and solidarity between France and the United States of America”. The slogans are French. More details can be found here.
Among French libertarians there is the same division as in the US, with minarchists tending to support a war of liberation and both the anarcho-capitalists and the conservatives against. The Catholic liberals (almost the exact opposite of the socialist ‘liberal Catholics’) are opposed to war both for the damage it could cause (some French people remember the ‘collateral damage’ of Caen in 1944), and the fear that a successor government might be less religiously tolerant than Saddam. An example of this view can be found here.
I regard the different cases being forward (in public by Messrs Bush and Blair) for war with Iraq as poor because they are either wrong (the Iraqi dictator probably has fewer ‘weapons of mass destruction’ than either Kim Jong Il or General Musharraf) or contradictory (is Saddam an ally of Bin Laden Yes or No?). Tyranncide is good enough and UNESCO can go and get stuffed.
I also consider the British forces almost entirely incapable of offering any worthwhile help to the Americans for reasons I’ve mentioned here before. Lend-Lease the air tankers and the SAS to the US and that’s all. ‘The Borrowers’ are probably going to get in the way of a US air strike or hold up the advance when the British made tanks break down in “the wrong kind of sand”.
Despite these misgivings, I would certainly go to the place de la Concorde this Sunday if I could afford the fare. The nasty game being played by French and German political leaders is as much a threat to world peace and the prosperity of this corner of the planet as any gang of terrorists.
If any of our readers are Iraqi permanent residents we’d love to hear from you.
The voice of Iraqi’s is being grossly misrepresented by British media and we’d love to do our small part to adjust the balance.
Death to Saddam!
Isn’t this evidence enough?
“Two weeks ago the Philippines expelled Iraqi diplomat Husham Husain after discovering he had received a phone call from an Abu Sayyaf member the day after the group staged an October 3 bombing that killed a U.S. Green Beret on the southern island of Mindanao. After the diplomat’s deportation, Abu Sayyaf leader Hamsiraji Sali stated on Philippine TV that Iraq was paying bounties to his gunmen to murder U.S. troops.”
I have just received this briefing, courtesy of Stratfor. Since a hefty subscription fee is required in order to link to the article, here is an excerpt:
“Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, reputed to be a personal friend of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, made a lightning visit to Baghdad on Feb. 23. The purpose and results of the meeting are shrouded in secrecy, apart from a statement by Moscow that Hussein was asked — and agreed — to cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Reliable Stratfor sources within the Russian government say Hussein indeed has promised to cooperate with the inspectors’ demands — including that Baghdad scrap its al Samoud 2 missile program by March 1, an announcement that sources expect to be forthcoming within days.”
It seems that this ’11th hour offer’ also includes an invitation for Western oil companies to recommence business in Iraq and a blanket promise from Hussein to ‘play nicely’. The offer is being heavily sponsored by the French, the Germans and the Russians and is expected to be received warmly by HMG.
But the real test is whether or not it is accepted in Washington. It could be acceptable if it could then be presented as having only be achieved by the credible threat of force. However, the policy goal in Washington is regime change in Iraq and not status-quo.
Rejection of the offer by Washington could see Mr.Primakov flying back to Baghdad to broker yet another offer, although what more Hussein could possibly put on the table is hard to imagine.
A casual reader might think we at Samizdata are one-sided in Israel’s favour. Not at all. We’re for Israeli’s and Palestinians to sort out their differences one way or the other. We are for the continued existence of a democracy (Israel) and the creation of a new liberal democracy (Palestine).
There are even times when I side unreservedly with Palestinians. The quote taken from this item:
“People in one of the homes targeted for demolition threw hand grenades and fired shots at approaching Israeli soldiers — marking the first time a demolition was met by serious resistance. The seven adults in the house surrendered after a four-hour standoff and troops blew up the building.”
rather strikes a chord with me. I imagine the same will be true of almost any libertarian. It is simply a given the people in the house were in the right in their use violent force in defense of their home.
There was another incident within the last few weeks where Palestinians blew up an Israeli tank. Whichever side you are on, you clearly cannot call blowing up a tank a terrorist act. I can’t even imagine a circumstance in which blowing up a tank could be so construed. When I hear some one say such a thing, in my mind’s eye I see a big flashing red sign over their head, blinking “PROPAGANDA ALERT! PROPAGANDA ALERT!”. I would say the same even if it were an American M1. While I would much prefer our guys got their guys first, I am not going to resort to name callling when the other side happens to get their licks in first.
On the other hand… there is no excuse, ever, for whatever reason, of walking into a nightclub, bus, train station or student union filled with nothing non-combatants going about their normal day to day lives… and blowing yourself up. THAT is a crime against humanity. The fellows who fail to kill themselves should be hung, drawn and quartered, in whatever order experts declare to be the optimally painful one.
But back to the Defenders Of Property. They have my whole-hearted support in any such action. Death to the Bulldozers!
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz pointed out we will no longer need troops in Saudi Arabia after Saddam is gone. I’ll just quote him because he says it all:
“First of all, let’s talk about Saudi Arabia. We won’t need troops in Saudi Arabia when there’s no longer an Iraqi threat. The Saudi problem will be transformed. IN Iraq, first of all the Iraqi population is completely different from the Saudi population. The Iraqis are among the most educated people in the Arab world. They are by and large quite secular. They are overwhelmingly Shia which is different from the Wahabis of the peninsula, and they don’t bring the sensitivity of having the holy cities of Islam being on their territory. They are totally different situations. But the most fundamental difference is that, let me put it this way. We’re seeing today how much the people of Poland and Central and Eastern Europe appreciate what the United States did to help liberate them from the tyranny of the Soviet Union. I think you’re going to see even more of that sentiment in Iraq.”
The general tenor of what is coming out of Washington lately is much less “diplomatic” than in the past. Spades are being called spades; phony allies are being given the respect they deserve…. and I imagine the rate of coronaries inside the beltway has fallen considerably.
Soon is a good time to get out of Saudi Arabia in any case. They are seeing serious poverty in the cities now; they are seeing young men hanging out on the streets and ignoring the the Vice and Virtue cops and there is considerable terrorism occuring inside the country. The ruling family has done everything in its’ power to cover this last fact up. They imprison and torture a few Brits or others every time something gets blown up. They claim the bombs are “gang” murders for the alcohol trade between foreigners.
There is also some liberalization going on inside the country and it would be best for the liberalizers if we were not there as a target for the conservatives.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
