Diplomatic Wrangling
Today is (almost) a comment free zone from me — don’t get me wrong I have plenty to say, just not enough time to say it! Tony Blair is at the top today as I’ve been watching his steadfast refusal to accept that Iraq was a mistake for a long long time, as has the rest of the UK.
Denial of this magnitude would be impressive if it wasn’t ultimately so sad and questionable. Just a speck of humanity from him at this point would not solve the situation but would go some way towards me thinking the man still had a heart beating in there….somewhere.
Mel
Blair accepts ‘disaster’ in Iraq
BBC
Saturday, 18 November 2006
Tony Blair has publicly agreed with the opinion that the violence in Iraq since the 2003 invasion has been a disaster. The UK prime minister was responding to a question by Sir David Frost in an interview on the new al-Jazeera English-language Arabic TV channel.
The Liberal Democrats said Mr Blair had finally accepted the enormity of his decision to go to war in Iraq. But Downing Street insisted his views had been misrepresented and that he had not made “some kind of admission”.
‘Not accident in planning’
A spokesman said the prime minister often agreed with interviewers when he responded to their questions. Mr Blair was challenged by Sir David over the violence in Iraq, saying it had “so far been pretty much of a disaster”.
The prime minister replied: “It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq ?
“It’s not difficult because of some accident in planning.
“It’s difficult because there’s a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war.”
The interview comes as Chancellor Gordon Brown met UK troops on his first visit to Iraq, and promised an extra £100m ($188m) over three years to help rebuild the country’s economy. Commenting on the al-Jazeera broadcast, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: “At long last the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the prime minister.
“It could hardly be otherwise, as the failure of strategy becomes so clear.”
‘Completely disingenuous’
Downing Street insisted it was not Mr Blair’s view that the violence in Iraq had been a disaster. A spokeswoman said: “He was simply acknowledging the question in a polite way before going on to explain his view.
“To portray it as some kind of admission is completely disingenuous.”
But BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Blair’s agreement indicated he knew there was “simply no point any more arguing with interviewers”.
“Tony Blair knows that’s an argument that has already been lost,” he added.
“He wishes instead to focus on the argument about who’s to blame for the disaster - insurgents he insists - and what should be done now - staying there until ‘the job is done’, he will continue to argue.”
In the interview, Mr Blair stressed the importance of progress in the Middle East peace process in winning the “war on terror”. He said it would cut support for Muslim extremism and added the issue was the “most important” thing for him before he leaves office.
Syria and Iran could play a “constructive” role in the Middle East, Mr Blair added, and it was absurd to suggest that talking to the countries amounted to “appeasement”. When asked about UK troops in Iraq, he said: “We have said that we will stay as long as the Iraqi government needs us to do so.” ++
US presses for full North Korea sanctions
BBC
Saturday, 18 November 2006
US President George W Bush is trying to persuade Asia-Pacific leaders at a Vietnam summit to give full support to UN sanctions against North Korea . Mr Bush met South Korean and Japanese leaders, and on Sunday will meet those of China and Russia, both of whom are reluctant to back a tough line.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged North Korea to follow Vietnam’s example by putting the war behind it. At the summit itself, leaders committed to restarting global trade talks. In a joint statement, heads of state and government of the 24 Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) member states said they were ready to move beyond their current positions to break the deadlock.
They said they had committed themselves to cuts in agricultural subsidies, the main issue which stalled the so-called Doha round of World Trade Organization (WTO) talks in July.
‘Peace and opportunity’
The BBC’s Bill Hayton in Hanoi says the move is a genuine effort to get the ball rolling towards resumption of the talks, and Washington’s commitment could encourage the European Union, another major player, to do the same.
Ms Rice used her speech to the forum to appeal for the removal of trade barriers in the region, praising Vietnam for seeking closer ties with the US. She urged North Korea and Burma to follow Hanoi.
“If the leaders of Burma and North Korea were to follow the example of Vietnam, if they make the strategic choice and take the necessary steps to join the international community it will open a new path of peace and opportunity,” she said.
Washington wants to reach a consensus over how to deal with North Korea so that it can present a united front at the next round of six-nation talks on its nuclear weapons programme, expected to take place next month.
Over a bilateral breakfast meeting, Mr Bush urged South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun to implement the sanctions and also support the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a voluntary programme designed to prevent the trafficking of material for weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Roh said he supported the principles of the PSI but left the level of Seoul ’s compliance unclear, saying he would not take part in the “full scope” of the initiative. He said his country was still unwilling to carry out intrusive inspections of North Korean ships. In a lunchtime meeting between Mr Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the two leaders agreed to pursue a ballistic missile defence programme against the threat from North Korea. Mr Bush will see Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday. ++
UN urges end to Mid-East violence
BBC
Saturday, 18 November 2006
The United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly passed a resolution urging an immediate end to all acts of violence by Israelis and Palestinians. Included in this are Israeli incursions into the Gaza Strip and Palestinian rocket fire into Israel.
The measure also calls on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to investigate the recent Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun.
The US , which voted against the text, had vetoed a similar resolution put to the UN Security Council last week. General Assembly resolutions, unlike those of the Security Council, are not binding and so are largely symbolic. Some 156 countries, including all the members of the European Union, voted in favour of the measure after a series of amendments were made. The US, Israel and Australia were among seven nations to oppose it, with six abstentions.
‘Significant message’
The vote was held after an emergency special session was called by Qatar , which also proposed the failed Security Council resolution. Israel’s UN ambassador Dan Gillerman criticised the session as a “circus” and questioned why the text made no mention of Hamas.
The resolution equated “terrorism” with “the action taken by Israel in self-defence in fighting terrorism”, Israel’s deputy UN representative added. The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said the measure was unhelpful.
“Unfortunately this type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel’s inalienable and recognised right to exist,” he said.
“In doing so, it deepens the suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organisation is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region.”
However, Palestinian UN observer Riyad Mansour welcomed the General Assembly’s support and said the resolution sent a “significant message” to Israel.
Tank shells
Israel’s shelling of Beit Hanoun last month, which resulted in the deaths of 19 Palestinians, was widely condemned across Europe and the Middle East . The Israeli military launched its operation in and around the town in an effort to root out militants firing rockets.
The deaths were caused when what witnesses described as a volley of tank shells hit a built-up civilian area. Many of the dead were from one extended family, and included several women and children. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert apologised for the attack, describing it as a “technical failure”.
Fourteen months ago Israel withdrew its settlers and military bases from the Gaza Strip, which it occupied in 1967 ++
Imprisoned video blogger denied request for hearing
Friday November 17, 2006
Freelance journalist, videographer and blogger Josh Wolf was denied a request for a rehearing yesterday by a federal court of appeal, and refused to accept any more filings in the case. This means that Wolf, 24, could be kept in prison until the expiration of the grand jury in July. Wolf, who was jailed for refusing to turn over raw footage shot at a protest in San Francisco in July 2005 and testify about its contents, has already served 88 days in jail. Wolf was subpoenaed by federal prosecutors investigating charges of vandalism at the event.
Wolf was sentenced and imprisoned in August, was released on bail in September, and then was sent back to jail when his bail was revoked by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court. A hearing by the full court was requested by his lawyer, which is the request denied yesterday. The motion to reinstate bail was “denied as moot.” Thank goodness the courts are protecting society from this very, very dangerous 24 year old kid.
Wolf’s lawyer has offered the court the full tape in exchange for release from testimony, but the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California has said no dice. And it’s prison for you, Josh Wolf, until you reconsider your silly little shield law. Civil litigation attorney and former public defender Stephen Kaus has been following the case on HuffPo, and noted “[w]hatever powers the government should have in the face of a legitimate terror threat, that is not what is happening here.” Kaus also notes that Wolf ’s case has come before a Federal court rather than a state court, before which he would be protected by California’s shield law. As we learned in the case of Judith Miller (a Josh Wolf advocate), there is no federal shield law for journalists. Kaus explains why Wolf’s case is particularly outrageous:
In Wolf’s case, the court required him to make the difficult showing that the investigation was undertaken in bad faith and then held that he had not done so. This is a far cry from balancing the importance of the evidence against the harm being done to the role of the press.
The fact is that the effectiveness of the press is substantially diminished if every reporter is turned into a “surveillance camera” as Wolf has claimed. Perhaps with exceptions for genuinely “terrible” situations, the press cannot function if each crime related story could turn into days of court testimony. The law in California that all involved on the government side have chosen to flout is designed to protect this press function.
The reverse onus of requiring Wolf to prove that the request for information is in bad faith is a ridiculous inversion of the requirements that by law are put in place to protect a person’s liberty. This case is particularly egregious considering that investigators are looking into the vandalism of a police car that Wolf claims isn’t even on the tape. In light of that fact, it seems particularly churlish for the DA’s office to refuse to accept Wolf’s offer of tape and no testimony, since there seems to be the possibility that a simple viewing might make the whole request moot. Either way, the fact that jailtime is being used here as a punitive tactic of coercion rather than a legitimate punishment for actual lawbreaking is atrocious, particularly in light of the court’s decision to shut the door on Wolf for the rest of the grand jury term while he languishes in jail. ++
Connected Link
Josh Wolf: video blogger at the center of controversy over journalists’ rights
Dutch Muslims condemn burqa ban
BBC
Saturday, 18 November 2006
Dutch Muslims have criticised a government proposal to ban women from wearing the burqa or veils which cover the face in public places. Dutch Muslim groups say a ban would make the country’s one million Muslims feel victimised and alienated.
The Dutch cabinet said burqas - a full body covering that also obscures the face - disturb public order and safety. The decision comes days ahead of elections which the ruling centre-right coalition is expected to win. The proposed ban would apply to wearing the burqa in the street, and in trains, schools, buses and law courts in the Netherlands.
Other forms of face coverings, such as veils, and crash helmets with visors that obscure the face, would also be covered by a ban.
Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, who is known for her tough policies, said it was important that all people in the Netherlands were able to see and identify each other clearly to promote integration and tolerance. Last year a majority of MPs in the Dutch parliament said they were in favour of a ban.
An estimated 6% of 16 million people living in the Netherlands are Muslims. But there are thought to be fewer than 100 women who choose to wear the burqa, a traditional Islamic form of dress.
Civil rights debate
The latest move came after an expert committee judged that it would not contravene Dutch law. Ms Verdonk insisted the burqa was not an acceptable part of public life in the Netherlands.
“The Cabinet finds it undesirable that face-covering clothing - including the burqa - is worn in public places for reasons of public order, security and protection of citizens,” she said.
The minister told the BBC that social interaction would be easier if faces were not covered.
“It is very important that we can see each other and can communicate with each other. Because we are so tolerant we want to respect each other.”
Critics of the proposed ban say it would violate civil rights. The main Muslim organisation in the Netherlands , CMO, said the plan was an “over-reaction to a very marginal problem”, the Associated Press reported.
Naima Azough, an MP with the opposition Green party who is also Muslim, said the ban was not in keeping with the country’s history of tolerance and said the Dutch government was playing on people’s fears of Islamic extremism to win votes.
“It has to do with radicalisation, it has to do with fears and the absolute reality of radicalisation amongst Muslim youngsters.
“The problem is only that you can’t say that every person wearing a niqab or hijab or burqa - whatever you call it - is a radical,” she said.
The Mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, said he opposed the wearing of burqas in public and said women wearing one who failed to get a job should not expect welfare benefits.
“From the perspective of integration and communication, it is obviously very bad because you can’t see each other so the fewer the better.
“But actually hardly anybody wears one… The fuss is much bigger than the number of people concerned,” he said.
Tension
The issue of the type of clothing worn by Muslim women has become a hotly-debated subject in a range of European countries. France has passed a law banning religious symbols, including Muslim headscarves, from schools. Some German states ban teachers in public schools from wearing headscarves, but there is no blanket rule against burqas. Italy has banned face-coverings, resurrecting old laws passed to combat domestic terrorism, while citing new security fears.
The issue of Muslim women’s dress also surfaced in the UK , when former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sparked controversy when he said he felt uncomfortable talking to someone whose face he could not see.
The Dutch relationship with its Muslim community has been under scrutiny since the murder of film-maker Theo van Gogh by Islamic extremists in November 2004. Earlier this year Ms Verdonk clashed with a minority party in the governing coalition over her handling of the citizenship case of Somali-born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The MP scripted a controversial film about the treatment of women in Islamic society, directed by van Gogh before he was killed. But she admitted lying on her 1992 application for Dutch citizenship, and Ms Verdonk initially called for the MP to be deported. ++
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Add comment November 18th, 2006