Is the Cold War over? Can we even answer that question? I think the answer to both is: of course not.
What was being fought over before? Well if books and films are to be believed, the fight was about pure ideology: capitalism versus communism, represented by the US and the USSR respectively. With the milestone of 20 years since the collapse of the Soviety Union, we must face the question of what has changed, if anything.
If we think about the question carefully, it should be obvious that the fight can NEVER have been purely ideological. No matter the country, the beliefs of the common man or the determination of the politicians, it is impossible to sustain a campaign of violence on ideology alone.
A campaign of violence? Certainly: the US targeted its own people when they were accused of being communists - as in the "Witch Hunts" of the 1950s. And the USSR used its massive military capacity to subjugate most of Eastern Europe and keep them behind the Iron Curtain for most of the 20th century.
Yet it is clear that each is, in its own way, still trying to fight the same war, only now it is possible to see it for what it is: not a Cold War ideologically concerned with the Arms Race, nor simply the Crude War I have previously alluded to. It is the Resource Race. If either superpower is to sustain its position, it must be done with resources.
This post is to be the first concerning itself with countries and territories of the world, in alphabetical order, to be accompanied by individual pages documenting actions taken, that can be replicated by those reading if they wish.
Abkhazia is a tiny territory in the north-western corner of the Caucusus country of Georgia, formerly a republic of the Soviet Union. Georgia lies to the north of the countries Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan and in between the Black and Caspian Seas.
The area has been disputed as being part of Georgia or an independent state for 20 years. The support for Georgia? The US. The support for Abkhazia? Russia.
Georgia itself has been invaded and subjugated by every "superpower" for over 2,000 years.
But what is its interest to the two modern superpowers if the war for ideology is over?
It is all part of the same war, the same race: the Resource Race.
The fight is for the oil routes that will supply the planet until the Arabian peninsula runs dry.
In between the two Seas lies Georgia. To the south lies Turkey and to the south of Turkey, the Arabian peninsula. If Russia is to gain access to Arab oil overland, it must come through the Caucusus, and that means wresting control of Georgia away from the US. And with its economy on the brink, the only way it can do this is to rip off Zimbabwe of its diamonds.
If America is to maintain control of oil exports from the Arab peninsula - and avoid tearing its own continent to pieces (experts claim there is enough oil beneath North America to fuel the planet for the next 15,000 years but it is set in layers, not wells), - they must maintain control of Georgia.
And that begs the question: whose idea was it to replace Russian with English as Georgia's second language, and why?
An interesting thought to close - Abkhazia: a country that doesn't exist, in a country most of you have never heard of...is it simultaneously the most insignificant and the most important piece in the puzzle of a War that isn't over?
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Zimbabwe: A Country Looking Forward
"That's your problem, Bruce. That's everybody's problem: you keep looking up."
If you're as much of a film nut as I am, you will recognise this quote as coming from God, played by Morgan Freeman in 'Bruce Almighty'.
Thanks to the help of my friend, Brian, who provided much of the information from my last post on Zimbabwe, I am now in direct contact with Dave Coltart - the Zimbabwean minister for sport and education. Dave is going to be my mentor, of a sort, at least on the subject of Zimbabwe, starting with recommending reading material.
But what I know of Zimbabwe is this: the people who prospered in the early days of Mugabe's government have now grown old waiting for his regime to wither and die. And now that they face the prospect of Mugabe's eventual death as he pushes 90 years old, they must wonder with a mixture of hope and fear, what the future of the country will be like when he is gone.
But be that as it may, Zimbabwe is filled with people of a courage I can only dream of; people who refuse to look down, and who know better than to simply look up.
If I have learned anything since my arrival on the human rights scene, it is that the UN is not the forum that will bring peace and stability to Zimbabwe. If anything, the archaic veto powers of the Big 5 are precisely what will prevent the UN from doing ANYTHING about Zimbabwe's political and economic situation. China and Russia stand to lose far too much to allow it.
So where does hope come from? Where do these ordinary people get the strength to laugh at Mugabe and his militias?
As odd a paradox as it may seem, their courage comes from fear. Whatever fear they have felt, they have been forced to face by the violence exacted upon them under Mugabe. And in facing their fears, they have overcome them. In a strangely self-defeating way, Mugabe's tyranny has armed his "enemies" with a courage that only grows with each act of terror he commits. The stronger he tries to be, the stronger they themselves become.
As disempowering as it feels to me, at least until I know the situation better, there is a strange comfort to knowing that in one of the most miserable national situations on earth, there is still something inside so strong, and it grows stronger even as its enemy tries to bludgeon it into submission.
If you're as much of a film nut as I am, you will recognise this quote as coming from God, played by Morgan Freeman in 'Bruce Almighty'.
Thanks to the help of my friend, Brian, who provided much of the information from my last post on Zimbabwe, I am now in direct contact with Dave Coltart - the Zimbabwean minister for sport and education. Dave is going to be my mentor, of a sort, at least on the subject of Zimbabwe, starting with recommending reading material.
But what I know of Zimbabwe is this: the people who prospered in the early days of Mugabe's government have now grown old waiting for his regime to wither and die. And now that they face the prospect of Mugabe's eventual death as he pushes 90 years old, they must wonder with a mixture of hope and fear, what the future of the country will be like when he is gone.
But be that as it may, Zimbabwe is filled with people of a courage I can only dream of; people who refuse to look down, and who know better than to simply look up.
If I have learned anything since my arrival on the human rights scene, it is that the UN is not the forum that will bring peace and stability to Zimbabwe. If anything, the archaic veto powers of the Big 5 are precisely what will prevent the UN from doing ANYTHING about Zimbabwe's political and economic situation. China and Russia stand to lose far too much to allow it.
So where does hope come from? Where do these ordinary people get the strength to laugh at Mugabe and his militias?
As odd a paradox as it may seem, their courage comes from fear. Whatever fear they have felt, they have been forced to face by the violence exacted upon them under Mugabe. And in facing their fears, they have overcome them. In a strangely self-defeating way, Mugabe's tyranny has armed his "enemies" with a courage that only grows with each act of terror he commits. The stronger he tries to be, the stronger they themselves become.
As disempowering as it feels to me, at least until I know the situation better, there is a strange comfort to knowing that in one of the most miserable national situations on earth, there is still something inside so strong, and it grows stronger even as its enemy tries to bludgeon it into submission.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
A New Approach
This is a very brief information update.
For here on out, there will be less posts on the home page and more, snippet like information will be added to individual pages. These pages will be named according to the country they represent, so depending on politics, changing situations and so forth, there will ultimately be...
200 pages. One for every country on Earth.
For here on out, there will be less posts on the home page and more, snippet like information will be added to individual pages. These pages will be named according to the country they represent, so depending on politics, changing situations and so forth, there will ultimately be...
200 pages. One for every country on Earth.
Religious Freedom in Zimbabwe / Veto the Veto
Some of you may already know from Facebook and general news sources of the impeachment on religious freedom in Zimbabwe today. Soldiers insisted that without permission, the "gathering" of an annual Anglican prayer retreat, could not go ahead or all those involved would be arrested.
And it suddenly occurred to me that the only forum where this could be brought up is the forum of the UN. But if anyone were to suggest any kind of direct action against Zimbabwe in order to liberate the country from ZANU-PF's stranglehold, it would immediately be vetoed by Russia (which makes a fortune from the country in blood diamonds) and China (which makes a fortune by arming Mugabe's militias).
And thus stands my only call to action on my Facebook page...at least for now.
Pray.
And it suddenly occurred to me that the only forum where this could be brought up is the forum of the UN. But if anyone were to suggest any kind of direct action against Zimbabwe in order to liberate the country from ZANU-PF's stranglehold, it would immediately be vetoed by Russia (which makes a fortune from the country in blood diamonds) and China (which makes a fortune by arming Mugabe's militias).
And thus stands my only call to action on my Facebook page...at least for now.
Pray.
A Call to Action
Hello all
For anyone for whom this is relevant - and that basically means UK residents only I'm afraid - you may or may not know that our foreign secretary, William Hague, is visiting Burma this month. I've only just learned about this, but I feel this is a brilliant opportunity to put people power into practice!
The contact email address for him is: haguew@parliament.uk
Just a short email to let him know that we are citizens concerned about the political situation in Burma and the military regime's human rights abuse record, and that this is a golden opportunity for him to tell them this.
And whether you're from the UK or not, tell your friends and tell them to tell their friends! Seriously, this can make a difference.
For anyone for whom this is relevant - and that basically means UK residents only I'm afraid - you may or may not know that our foreign secretary, William Hague, is visiting Burma this month. I've only just learned about this, but I feel this is a brilliant opportunity to put people power into practice!
The contact email address for him is: haguew@parliament.uk
Just a short email to let him know that we are citizens concerned about the political situation in Burma and the military regime's human rights abuse record, and that this is a golden opportunity for him to tell them this.
And whether you're from the UK or not, tell your friends and tell them to tell their friends! Seriously, this can make a difference.
Rwanda
Violence in the Rwandan capital, Kigali, was mounting at least as early as August 1993. UN force commander Lt. Col. Romeo Dallaire wrote to the DPKO in January of 1994 stating that he had a reliable source informing him of the preparations already in place for the commencement of the genocide (as well as an attack on the Belgian-supplied troops to provoke their withdrawal), but even in the face of this information, the DPKO, the Secretary General, the Security Council...everyone chose to do nothing.
There is no question that the international apathy was in part due to Rwanda's status: it is a land-locked country with no natural resources to make it worthwhile to invest in: there is no short-term benefit, never mind long-term.
But on the other hand, it points to a far more insidious problem at the UN: bureaucracy.
Traub seems to be among those who might be inclined to blame the UN mission leader and forces commander for the fiasco in Yugoslavia/Croatia; on the other hand they could be defended for sticking doggedly to the letter and law of their mission mandate.
Dallaire's account is filled with impassioned frustration at the administrative bumbling of the DPKO, the DPKO blames the bureaucracy around presentation to the Security Council, Boutros-Ghali blamed the member nations and the member nations blamed the Council. To me, the problem seems to be one of losing sight of the truth in human terms in order to try to rationalise a future response structure to a problem that will never be repeated. In Kuwait, Hussein tried to make himself ruler of the whole Arabian peninsular and to control the oil supplies; in Srebrenica and Kosov, Milosevic tried to rid himself off the ethnic minorities that "threatened" his power; and in Rwanda, the Interahamwe tried to destroy the Tutsis utterly for their representation of past Belgian oppression/colonisation. Each situation looks similar to the others but is unique because of the time and culture it took place in, so legislating for it and preparing for a repeat scenario is moot.
However, I am fast realising that I am in as much danger of becoming embroiled in these politics as any other writer because in writing we are only ever capable of dealing with theories and statistics, hearsay and second-hand information.
Whatever else may be true, the fact remains that the price of doing nothing is far higher than the price of acting but the world rarely sees it that way.
Traub explains the problem of the UN as a preference for peace over justice, and the cost of this preference is that the criminals escape justice for far too long (Milosevic was not prosecuted at the Hague until 1999, by which time he was responsible for the most appalling account of mass murder in Europe since the Holocaust including 7,500 males in Srebrenica alone and 800,000 Albanians in Kosovo), and peace is shattered in the process.
I am going to lay aside Traub's book unfinished. Not because it is not interesting, but because it represents a past that cannot be undone, and which learning about will only sadden and demoralise me. If I look to the future from under the cloud of the past, how can I make that future brighter?
From here on out I will return to human rights activism, instead of sticking to human rights history.
There is no question that the international apathy was in part due to Rwanda's status: it is a land-locked country with no natural resources to make it worthwhile to invest in: there is no short-term benefit, never mind long-term.
But on the other hand, it points to a far more insidious problem at the UN: bureaucracy.
Traub seems to be among those who might be inclined to blame the UN mission leader and forces commander for the fiasco in Yugoslavia/Croatia; on the other hand they could be defended for sticking doggedly to the letter and law of their mission mandate.
Dallaire's account is filled with impassioned frustration at the administrative bumbling of the DPKO, the DPKO blames the bureaucracy around presentation to the Security Council, Boutros-Ghali blamed the member nations and the member nations blamed the Council. To me, the problem seems to be one of losing sight of the truth in human terms in order to try to rationalise a future response structure to a problem that will never be repeated. In Kuwait, Hussein tried to make himself ruler of the whole Arabian peninsular and to control the oil supplies; in Srebrenica and Kosov, Milosevic tried to rid himself off the ethnic minorities that "threatened" his power; and in Rwanda, the Interahamwe tried to destroy the Tutsis utterly for their representation of past Belgian oppression/colonisation. Each situation looks similar to the others but is unique because of the time and culture it took place in, so legislating for it and preparing for a repeat scenario is moot.
However, I am fast realising that I am in as much danger of becoming embroiled in these politics as any other writer because in writing we are only ever capable of dealing with theories and statistics, hearsay and second-hand information.
Whatever else may be true, the fact remains that the price of doing nothing is far higher than the price of acting but the world rarely sees it that way.
Traub explains the problem of the UN as a preference for peace over justice, and the cost of this preference is that the criminals escape justice for far too long (Milosevic was not prosecuted at the Hague until 1999, by which time he was responsible for the most appalling account of mass murder in Europe since the Holocaust including 7,500 males in Srebrenica alone and 800,000 Albanians in Kosovo), and peace is shattered in the process.
I am going to lay aside Traub's book unfinished. Not because it is not interesting, but because it represents a past that cannot be undone, and which learning about will only sadden and demoralise me. If I look to the future from under the cloud of the past, how can I make that future brighter?
From here on out I will return to human rights activism, instead of sticking to human rights history.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Politics: Power to the People (The Other Twin)
Somewhere, something has been lost.
If you've read the first twin, you may, like me, have noted a possible root cause of the horrifying saga of violence that followed, in 4 to 6 different countries, depending on geopolitical lines.
Simply put: the UN had no business or call to be in Somalia in 1993. The food crisis presented no threat to international peace or security, only to the country itself. Now I realise that may sound incredibly harsh, given that the local warring factions were slowly starving their fellow countrymen and women to death. But in a purely logical fashion the statement is correct. The fact that the chaos in Somalia continues to this day, including an internationally unrecognised government and Somali pirates patrolling international waters, is a testament to it.
So why was the UN there? Why did the US end up there?
The UN was there because of the Security Council, having no choice in the matter. The US was there because of the American people.
As I have noted before, in my post of "Half the Sky", politicians rarely - if ever - follow morals; they follow votes. Understandably, people saw the news flash images of myriads of starving Somali people and the pressure mounted.
Here then is the true power and the true peril of politics: one way or another, both are in the hands or at the mercy of the people.
When American sentiment pressured its government, the administration sent 37,000 troops to Somalia. When British indifference did not pressure its government, it was the UN that picked up the slack for trying to contain the untenable situation during the Serbo-Croat conflict in the early 90s.
And when horror at these errors began to be evident, global indifference stood back from Rwanda and did nothing.
What I am writing about in these posts is HUMAN rights. Not politics, not law, not theories: human beings. And in order for those who lack these rights through the tyranny of others, it is encumbent on the rest of us to be educated about the world we inhabit, and wield what power we still hold as a demographic collective for what is right, and what needs to be done.
Had the US openly confronted the warlords of Somalia, things might have been very different, but again, they left the UN to pick up the slack, and blamed the UN for failing.
If ever there has been a period of political indifference: it is here and now and it has been abounding for the last 20 years. It is still my view that which party holds power is utterly irrelevant: in Britain parties go in cycles, in America the only difference is how long it takes the administration to attack the latest non-compliant, oil-rich nation on the list once "diplomacy" has failed.
Read, my friends. Read and write for rights: the rights of those who have never had them, and the rights of the next generation, who will have their rights stolen by your government, if you do not speak up.
If you've read the first twin, you may, like me, have noted a possible root cause of the horrifying saga of violence that followed, in 4 to 6 different countries, depending on geopolitical lines.
Simply put: the UN had no business or call to be in Somalia in 1993. The food crisis presented no threat to international peace or security, only to the country itself. Now I realise that may sound incredibly harsh, given that the local warring factions were slowly starving their fellow countrymen and women to death. But in a purely logical fashion the statement is correct. The fact that the chaos in Somalia continues to this day, including an internationally unrecognised government and Somali pirates patrolling international waters, is a testament to it.
So why was the UN there? Why did the US end up there?
The UN was there because of the Security Council, having no choice in the matter. The US was there because of the American people.
As I have noted before, in my post of "Half the Sky", politicians rarely - if ever - follow morals; they follow votes. Understandably, people saw the news flash images of myriads of starving Somali people and the pressure mounted.
Here then is the true power and the true peril of politics: one way or another, both are in the hands or at the mercy of the people.
When American sentiment pressured its government, the administration sent 37,000 troops to Somalia. When British indifference did not pressure its government, it was the UN that picked up the slack for trying to contain the untenable situation during the Serbo-Croat conflict in the early 90s.
And when horror at these errors began to be evident, global indifference stood back from Rwanda and did nothing.
What I am writing about in these posts is HUMAN rights. Not politics, not law, not theories: human beings. And in order for those who lack these rights through the tyranny of others, it is encumbent on the rest of us to be educated about the world we inhabit, and wield what power we still hold as a demographic collective for what is right, and what needs to be done.
Had the US openly confronted the warlords of Somalia, things might have been very different, but again, they left the UN to pick up the slack, and blamed the UN for failing.
If ever there has been a period of political indifference: it is here and now and it has been abounding for the last 20 years. It is still my view that which party holds power is utterly irrelevant: in Britain parties go in cycles, in America the only difference is how long it takes the administration to attack the latest non-compliant, oil-rich nation on the list once "diplomacy" has failed.
Read, my friends. Read and write for rights: the rights of those who have never had them, and the rights of the next generation, who will have their rights stolen by your government, if you do not speak up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)