Recently, Iran seized 15 British Navy personnel. Teheran says they were trespassing in Iranian. Britain denies this. Some think the sailors were ordered there intentionally to provoke the incident to serve as the pretext for the long-planned Bush administration aggression against Iran.
Normally, I'm not prone to such conspiracy theories, but after the fake Saddam-WMD pretext used to justify the Iraq Aggression and the general lack of honesty on the part of Bush administration officials, it's hard not to wonder.
And actions speak louder than words. While Britain is is in discreet talks with Iran, the US has launched military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf. American authorities claim that these were long planned and the menacing message to Iran is just a happy coincidence. If so, it was very 'convenient' planning.
It begs the question: why is the allegedly aggrieved party trying diplomacy while a bystander is thumping its chest? Maybe one party wants to resolve conflicts while another either doesn't know how or isn't interested in doing so.
The respnose is fairly typical of this administration. Their policy is 'belligerence first, backtracking later.'
By contrast, take a look at some events which have happened in just in the last few days...
-The Christian Science Monitor published a book review which marked the 35th anniversary of Richard Nixon's trip to China. That a man who'd launched his political career as a red-baiter and a McCarthyist wannabe could engage in diplomatic talks with one of the two most prominent communist countries in the world was one of the most significant events of the Cold War.
-Laurent Gbagbo, head of state of the divided Côte d'Ivoire, will reportedly name rebel leader and bitter archrival Guillaume Soro as his new prime minister in a power-sharing government.
-Northern Ireland's two most vile sectarian leaders, 'Reverend' Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams, came to an agreement on power sharing in the province's democratically-elected legislative assembly.
-Israeli prime minister Ehud Ohlmert and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas have agreed to meet every two weeks for regular discussions.
The latter three are amongst the most bitter, intractable disputes in the world. Disputes dominated by irrational, sometimes even genocidal, rhetoric and by irrational, sometimes even genocidal, violence. Yet their leaders realized that years of insanity hasn't solved anything so they might as well try talking... and maybe even listening!
Civilized leaders realize that dialogue and negotiation is the best way to truly solve problems and that any use of force should only be an absolute last resort, never a first one. As the above demonstrates, even uncivilized ones often come to that realization.
Will the president and his cabal ever realize this?
10 comments:
Gerry Adams - vile? I suggest you do some reading about the Irish struggle for independence and human rights. If you knew anything about the Stormont Government you wouldn't be throwing around right wing clap-trap like that. Would you call Malcolm X vile? How about George Washington? Exactly which struggle for human rights and dignity is worthy of your praise?
I don't consider beatings and bombings of civilian targets to be expressions of human rights.
"Exactly which struggle for human rights and dignity is worthy of your praise?"
There are many. One is the SDLP.
I've always greatly admired this movement as well as its founder and Nobel Peace laureate John Hume.
Though I am amused by the notion that someone who employs 'right wing clap-trap' would praise a movement called the Social Democratic and Labour Party.
Its the "Guns of August", man. When a nation state starts fearing encirclement (whether its legitimate or not), they start thinking of crazy ways to break that encirclement.
I don't condone violence either.
When you call someone "vile" and claim they are responsible for "beatings and bombings of civilian targets" - you should provide proof. Gerry Adams has been the Irish people's strongest voice for self-defense against state-sponsored terror.
You are aware I assume that the SDLP wouldn't exsist it it weren't for the more radical stances (and actions) taken by the Gerry Adams and his POLITICAL PARTY Sinn Fein?
James Connelly, the founder of the first labour party in Europe, who resisted British terror with a gun from inside the GPO during the Easter Uprising - and was executed while wounded and sitting in a chair for it - is perhaps the one person who holds the most responsibility for the socialist-labour ideology that dominates the SDLP "movement."
Was he vile?
a) It is 2007, not 1916.
b) Adams is head of a movement that has been associated with beatings and bombings of civilian targets. Hopefully they've turned a new leaf. If this proves to be the case, I will be the first to tip my cap to him. Not before.
c) You claim that "the SDLP wouldn't exsist it it weren't for the more radical stances (and actions) taken by the Gerry Adams and his POLITICAL PARTY Sinn Fein?"
I'd ask you 1) to provide evidence of this and 2) specify the actions Gerry Adams have taken that you are referring to. Now it's only actions that interest me at this point and only by Adams, since he's the target of our dispute.
It doesn't matter what year it is, 1916 or 2007. I don't believe in some social evolution that has taken us from a point "before we were civilized" until now - each moment is, in a since, it's own, excepting that each new moment in history is built on something (or someone) else. In 1916 the north wasn't free of British domination and it's not now in 2007 – that’s the significant continuum here.
You wrote that "Adams is head of a movement that has been associated with beatings and bombings of civilian targets." That is not true. Gerry Adams is head of a political party. The movement is Irish independence from England. The IRA and Sinn Fein are a PART of that movement. Gerry Adams is perhaps the most obvious of that movement because of the historic role that Sinn Fein has played in providing a small measure of political power in Parliament. Historically, Sinn Fein was blamed by the British for the Easter Rising, even though they had no role in organizing the required revolt - British papers called it the Sinn Fein Rebellion. It's not unlike the use of Fenian to tar the Irish independence movement before Sinn Fein came to the fore. Your calling Gerry Adams a terrorist ("beatings and bombings of civilian targets") amounts to the same thing. Since you made the claim, you should provide evidence he (or the leadership of Sinn Fein) was involved in organizing or carrying out these acts. Without presenting the evidence you are just parroting the British right’s traditional scapegoating of independence leaders.
If you want proof of the Sinn Fein - SDLP connection, look to the historical record. The role Sinn Fein played in moving from abstention from British politics to seeking non-violent constitutional change in electoral politics is why we have Gerry Adams and the SDLP. The current Sinn Fein was the leftist political side in the old movement. The greater demand from Sinn Fein for truly universal health care is one example of how that plays out in policy today. The fundamental difference, I think, between the SDLP and Sinn Fein was the SDLP's belief that Irish rule should come with the consent of the British. With 500 years of British exploitation behind them, it’s no wonder that Sinn Fein has been the more popular of the two parties.
I support the SDLP. You want to oppose violence – so do I. But Gerry Adams and the political party he leads are not "vile" - that was the point of my first comment. In framing your description of the troubles by calling Gerry Adams vile you've made yourself appear to be supporting a middle position, but you’re not, instead you’re playing a traditional British-centric role.
So the bottom line is that you are the one who threw out the unsupportable accusations about Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein ("Hopefully they've turned a new leaf") that reflect a traditional British bias against prominent Irish independence leaders. That's right wing clap-trap.
For now, I acknowledge that the way I phrased my commentary implied that I thought more or less equally of Adams and Ian Paisley. There hardly anybody alive more vile than Ian Paisley. The potential turning of his leaf is the most significant factor in this story *IF* it proves to be sincere over time.
It does matter if it's 1916 or 2007. Gerry Adams, who you've made the subject of the initial comment, was not alive in 1916.
You've incorrectly taken my personal criticism of Gerry Adams as an an attack on the entire Irish republican movement. While I support that movement's goals, I do not support the actions of every single individual who is a part of that movement.
I can barely tolerate the use of violence provided it makes strict distinctions between military and civilian (I'm speaking systematically, not the sporadic variances that inevitably occur in any conflict). I did not criticize George Washington, James Connelly, Malcolm X or the Easter Rising, as you will note.
You keep saying you hate violence but you also keep ignoring the point of this essay (which was not a thesis on the history of Irish republicanism).
The point of this essay is that at the end of the day, profound conflicts are not ultimately solved by violence. They are ultimately resolved by dialogue. It doesn't have to be touchy feel or devoid of harsh words. But it has to happen.
If republicans were to re-integrate Ulster into the Republic through force of arms and treated the Protestant minority in the same oppressive fashion Catholics had been treated there for centuries, would you consider this progress?
I cite these examples for you. The United States won its independence from Britain militarily. Canada and New Zealand negotiated it. Canadian (federal) and NZ politics are more based on consensus. US politics is based on the winner take all concept. Powersharing there is viewed as cohabitation (normal), here it's called gridlock (a scourge).
Where we fundamentally disagree is that you see consensus as weak and pandering, as necessarily producing watered down results. I am not a slave to consensus. But I believe it's the best way to ensure that any change is enduring. I wasn't simply content with opposing the Iraq Aggression. I wanted to make others oppose the insanity. I wanted to change the consensus from pro- to anti-Aggression, as this would precipitate its ending.
This divisionism may be the case in American politics. But rather than accepting this paradigm, why not work to change it. It's not inevitable. And given this country's social model, it clearly hasn't worked. Except for the minority corporate class.
The dreaded "middle of the road" consensus-based politics in New Zealand and Canada has produced national health care for all citizens and infinitely more sane social models. And in Canada's case, a higher standard of living (UN Human Development Report).
One of the most notable exceptions to American political divisionism is Vermont and also operates on a consensus-based political system. While certainly not perfect, it is the country's most progressive state. Who was at the vanguard of expanding health care to all its children? Who was the first state to permit gay unions? Where did you start seeing towns passing Impeach Bush and Leave Iraq resolutions? Why were none of these things overturned when they elected a Republican governor? Because Republicans were included from the beginning.
If you govern with 51% percent by completely ignoring the other 49%, you will be screwed once you inevitably become the 49%. And all that which you worked so hard for will be lost.
I didn't take your "personal criticism of Gerry Adams as an attack on the entire Irish republican movement." I was forced by your attack on Gerry Adams to defend he and his party's role in the independence movement and then to point out the traditional role Irish leaders have played as scapegoats for the British right. I'll also note that I clarified their more accurate role as one of consensus that you've outlined, correctly, as the right road to be on. Because there is no longer a direct threat to the lives of Irish people in the north, I no longer support violence against the oppressive British state as a means of defense. I agree with your Canada and NZ examples.
I hope you'll see in this case, how your calling Gerry Adams "vile" is somewhat analogous to calling Malcolm X or George Washington terrorists. It's what their right-wing enemies would say, not what they are.
I was not attacking the Irish republican movement as whole nor its aspirations for the integration of Ulster into the Republic. But rather a particular faction of republicanism, a faction which has traditionally linked to both divisionism and violence against civilians. Linked not simply by the British right either.
My primary objection to the IRA, Sinn Fein's military wing, and other of the most hard-core republican factions was not the 'violence against the oppressive British state.' But rather, the conscious targetting of civilians in bombings and their use of violence, extortion and other intimidation tactics not only of civilians in other communities but their own as well. (Yes, loyalist factions engage in the same vile activities but republicanism is the context of your comments). Such tactics are well documented not only in the British press, but also in the Irish (republic) press, amongst human rights organizations.
I could be wrong, but I do not believe George Washington or Malcolm X engaged in such tactics.
You state that you "no longer support violence against the oppressive British state as a means of defense." I'm glad your position has evolved. If hard-core republican (and loyalist) factions prove have abandonned these actions permanently, I will be even more pleased.
However I think the point has been belabored sufficiently. Since the point of the post was to praise those who chose diplomacy over force, I will tip my cap to Adams (and to be fair, I'll hold my nose and do so to Paisley as well) for coming to this agreement. I sincerely hope they not only stick to the agreement but encourage further reconcliation between their constituencies and the other communities in Ulster.
Post a Comment