The Inevitable Game Changer of Iran

Sanctions and diplomacy have failed. Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad now stand months away from a nuclear bomb and the capability to end millions of lives in seconds. The appeasement of Iran to reach this late stage of nuclear development leaves the West with few options, none of which can avoid perilous consequences for the West and others.

Unfortunately the revolutionary wave of the Arab Spring has come too late for the West, as well as the people of Iran. Unless swift revolution strikes Iran over the next two to three months, the hope that either the state would become ungovernable, or that a new regime would reverse its nuclear ambitions, will become a past thought of ‘if only’. Nor the United States, Israel or any other external force can force or speed up a revolution inside Iran. That task belongs exclusively to the people of Iran.

Israeli jets over Auschwitz in 2003.

One can now confidently say that the West’s policy of appeasement has pitifully failed, as was always destined. Iran 2011 is not Iraq 1983. Despite not yet having a WMD, the comparatively later stage of Iran’s nuclear program to that of Saddam in 1983 is a game changer. The option of an Osirik style military strike, whereby Israeli jets successfully destroyed Iraq’s nuclear programme in 1983, upon Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely lead to significant radiation fallout across the region. Even though this outcome can not be known for sure, the possibility of this will remain a major deterrent to any military option. Furthermore, any strike would be totally transparent in its desperate last-ditch attempt to stop Iran from constructing a nuclear bomb.

It is a dangerous and divisive strategy to do, as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has done, by simply stating that Iran is the modern Nazi Germany. The context and nature of the two states have fundamental differences. Yet the parallels between Iran’s Amajinad and Germany’s Adolf Hitler, in their genocidal desire to end all Jewish existence on Earth, seem to be directly parallel. Above is a photo of Israeli Air Force jets flying over Auschwitz during a ceremony in 2003. Though it is important to view the Iranian crisis with rationality over raw reactionary emotion, one cannot help but wonder: if only Israeli jets had been over Europe sixty years earlier. However, it must be remembered that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to all nations, as shown by recent Wikileaks documents that revealed Saudi Arabian pressure on the US to attack Iran.

While the window of opportunity for a successful attack on Iran’s nuclear programme may have closed, other military based options are and should be used against Iran. The mysterious computer worms and the assassination of key Iranian nuclear scientists over the past year are the likely products of the realisation that open-war is undesirable, at the very least. Last month’s International Atomic Agency report on Iran has acted as a catalyst for this, and the campaign now takes the form of full covert and shadow warfare. Last month’s ‘mysterious’ explosion at a major Iranian missile development facility, is an encouraging indication that the West is now willing to take brash steps against Iran and I predict future months will only see more mysterious and increasingly sizeable covert military actions taking place.

Whatever options the West takes to correct it’s regrettable and naive policy of appeasement, the consequences of their actions ultimately must be viewed in comparison to the consequences of no action at all. We’ll certainly not be running out of things to talk about at Your Politics, My Politics.

Herman Cain Slain?

Recent allegations regarding Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and dark horse in the Republican nomination process have potentially destabilised his bid for the nomination. Politico reports that two women reported sexual harassment against Mr Cain in the early 90s when he was still in the restaurant business. These allegations may or may not be truthful, but there is one truth: the political ramifications of these allegations may put Cain down and out of the Republican race.

Herman Cain’s spokesmen cited, “These are thin allegations, this is non-sourced,” Mr. Gordon said. “This is a typical attack on a conservative who is doing well in the polls.”

Whether or not these allegations will destabilise his campaign is still unclear but this will certainly slow the momentum Cain has built up, being level in the Des Moines (Iowa) Register’s Poll with Mitt Romney and more significantly being tied with Rick Perry (the Governor of Texas) in a Texas poll. First labelled as a perennial candidate when he first threw his hat in the ring, Cain has surprised many with his revolutionary 9-9-9 tax programme, whereby income tax is 9%, federal sales tax is 9% and 9% on business transactions tax.

Many see him as a credible threat to Obama, with the backing of the Tea Party.
Commentators have suggested he is first ever Black presidential candidate of the Republican Party with a chance of winning, something which would upheave the political landscape in America.

One hopes these allegations against Cain are unfounded, as he has made the nomination for the Republican presidential candidate an interesting three-way race, and his political naivety has ensured he has brought fresh ideas to the table.

The Democratic Suitability of Libya

A great and humbling challenge awaits Libya; to transform perhaps the most undemocratic regime in the world into a model of democracy. The shopkeepers, fishermen and businessmen of Libya have displayed a determination and willingness to sacrifice in order to overthrow the 42-year rule of Colonel Gaddafi and have earned the respect of the world and the vital military support of the West. Now the National Transitional Council, which has shown itself to be a body worthy of government, must use the tools at its disposal for building representative and accountable government.

Some analysts have doubted whether a Libyan democracy could flourish with its hugely ethnically diverse population. Yet it should be noted that the great strength of democracy is in its ability to consolidate differences of opinion into workable government policy. Differences are a strength! But as Shimon Peres once stated “democracy is not simply a matter of elections” and Libya is not exception to this rule. With over 140 tribes and clans, Libya must adopt the liberal notion of individual and group rights. This democratic tradition cannot be imposed or forced, but should emerge out of the principles laid down in the country’s new constitution. The greatest challenge in the drawing up of the new constitution is to strike the appropriate balance between a centralist approach to power and that of federalism. This is the challenge of ensuring that different groups can live and govern their lives how they wish, while ensuring that Libya as a whole can remain unified and governed by fundamental principles. One should however be sensitive to the fact that decentralised power was not in the political vocabulary of Gaddafi and thus not well known to Libyans.

The new Libya must not be threatened or cowed by the shameless African Union that has backed Gaddafi’s campaign of terror since the start and now refuses recognition of the National Transitional Council (NTC). Their support for Gaddafi represents fading alliances and friendships of the liberation struggles of Mandela and Mugabe. The NTC must develop the support of its western friends to ensure that it manifests into much needed investment. While the economic situation, particularly the youth unemployment rate, must be improved, the Libyan state’s financial accounts are in fact in good condition. Libya is a regional anomaly, in the sense that it has virtually no debt. Though one should recognise that this was not due to how fiscally responsible Gaddafi was, but rather by the fact that in parts of Libya there is no evidence of the state, in terms of social services, and thus government spending was low.

As the $150bn of Libyan assets is gradually unfrozen to the NTC, this must primarily be used to secure law and order. This will prove to be an arduous task, as it requires the use of armed civilians to defeat the remaining pockets of Gaddafi resistance, but also the eventual demilitarisation of the general AK47 wielding population. Obviously democratic states must have a monopoly over both the legitimate use of force and the ability to wield force. Building the institutions of democracy, the forming of the state and writing its new constitution will be the next challenge.

If Libya succeeds in the tasks outlined above (by no means an exhaustive list), then it will act as a democratic model for the failing states of the Middle East and Africa that have exposed that autocracy does not breed stability.

Morocco and its stability…

When I announced to family and friends that I was going to Morocco this summer, many were concerned as this announcement was amidst the seeds of protests in the Middle East, which eventually blossomed into Arab Spring.

Yet my experiences in Morocco have illustrated why this North African country has not been subject to such protests and revolutions unlike its Arab counterparts in Cairo and Tunis. When I look around, I do not see discontent amongst its citizens under the current system.

Why is this? Is the reign of King Mohammed VI not autocratic like Hosni Mubarak’s rule, or Bashad al-Assad’s in Syria. Ultimately, whilst the systems seem similar, the rule of Mohammed VI is not laced with despotism unlike the two regimes aforementioned, and the system here seems to follow the ideals of a benevolent dictatorship.

Firstly, the notion of monarchy lends more legitimacy to this reign. Hosni Mubarak and Bashar al-Assad are not royalty just ambitious and shrewd politicians who have clung to power, yet Mohammed VI has monarchic legitimacy, something which each and every citizen of Morocco comprehends and respects.

Secondly, Mohammed VI has been seen to be much more liberal than previous monarchs. During his reign he has introduced constitutionl reform and legislation which has greatly extended the rights of women in Morocco and he has helped to facilitate the tourist haven that Morocco is known for today.

My experiences here have shown me the stability of the state of Morocco and it will continue to thrive under the kingship of Mohammed VI and not fall to revolution, due to the happiness of his citizens. Indeed its seems that Morocco is the most blissful Arab state at the current moment, with repression and death trending in other parts of the Arab world, especially Syria.

Arab Spring: Syrian massacre brings phase one to a close

Despite Syrian President al-Assad’s merciless attempts (worthy of any repressive dictatorship) to crush his country’s uprising, stalemate now exists after the six month long civil conflict, partly due to the unprecedented courage of Syrians to face their government’s wrath. Though the likelihood of al-Assad’s regime being overthrown during this initial phase of the Arab Spring is low, his actions will play an important part in the unravelling of his regime over the next decade.

The successful revolutions and the failed uprisings of the Arab Spring lead to many questions over why some regimes were overthrown in days while other attempts lasting months have come to a halt. Mostly the answers lie in the differences in the power structures of states. The Egyptian Revolution for instance, that took only 17 days of protests to bring down Mubarak succeeded due to the failure of the regime to stop organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood from operating underground and organising demonstrations, combined with the fact that his control over the military fell apart. Tunisia’s ousted President Ben Ali was too severely undermined by the allowance of trade unions to operate and subsequently organise demonstrations. Though Colonel Gaddafi succeeded in prohibiting any opposition groups in Libya, one must remember that his loyalist forces were but hours away from overrunning the rebel stronghold of Misrata before NATO airstrikes saved the uprising.

Syria’s al-Assad has achieved a similar level of control as Gaddafi in preventing potential opposition groups from operating within the state. What will eventually define however, Syria’s uprising from Libya’s civil war is the lack of foreign military intervention. With stalemate existing in Libya combined with western military intervention costs reaching hundreds of millions of pounds, the potential for military intervention is virtually non-existent, especially with the western debt and stock market crisis of this month. Furthermore, the kind of intervention needed is beyond what is taking place in Libya. As al-Assad has much greater control of the military, ground forces would be needed to counter the regime’s tanks and artillery.

Al-Assad has clearly learned how to ruthlessly massacre unarmed civilians peacefully demanding their rights from his father, Hafez al-Assad. The infamous Hama massacre of 1982 has been described as “the single deadliest act by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East” and is beginning to drawn comparisons to the ‘Ramadan Massacre’ of this month. Though the Hama uprising was ended by Hafez’s barbarism, his regime was severely weakened by it. The same will come to pass of his son’s oppression.

As the first phase of the Arab Spring draws to a close, al-Assad’s massacre will live long in the memories of demonstrators. However, this massacre will have far more severe consequences for the next round of uprisings (sure to have greater organisation), due to the fact that the army have killed thousands nationside, rather than simply one rebellious region. Until then, we can only hope for dissent within the army to slow al-Assad’s actions.

Colonial Justice

In what has been branded a historic decision, the British High Court ruled yesterday that victims of British oppression after the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya are eligible to sue the government. This landmark decision has been denounced by critics as allowing the metaphorical floodgates to be opened for all past colonial subjects. Yet this decision means Britain can finally close the book on their colonial past with a shred of moral fibre left in tact.

This article does not question the legitimacy of having an empire. Nor does it question the eligibility of having an empire. What it deals with is the crux of this case: once a country has amassed an empire, how should it treat its colonial subjects?

The definitive answer from my perspective is with complete equality. The British are often smug and call America backwards with regards to race relations, having banned slavery much later, but the British human rights record in Africa and Asia during imperial times is no better. This case has illustrated the true violence of the British Empire: testimonies citing castration of men, rape of women and the detention of 70,000 other Kenyans.

Desmond Tutu hailed this decision citing, Responding with generosity to the plea of the Kenyan victims is not a matter of legal niceties. No, it is about morality, about magnanimity and humaneness, and compassion”

It is about time that the British government takes a stand and accepts responsibility for the Empire and apologises for the horrific by-products of it, in a manner similar to when Kevin Rudd, then PM of Australia, apologised to the Aboriginal people. What will be interesting to see in the following weeks will be the repercussions around the world- will more Kenyans sue and to what extent has a precedent been set? Can descendants of Boers sue for being detained in the first ever concentration camps, can descendants of Indians massacred at Amritsar be compensate and more importantly, can the government please issue a full and proper apology for it’s dark and disturbed past.

Freedom of the Press vs Freedom of Privacy

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”

It later goes on to cite:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

These quotes from the UDHR illustrate the problems that are encountered when there is a clash between freedom of the press and the individual’s right to privacy. Looking at the latter quote, it seems that this is ignored on a regular basis in the UK press, with newspapers often being invasive to get a good story, and violating individual privacy. The deplorable actions of the News of the World did violate privacy, and there has been outrage amongst the public. Yet this is only because recent revelations have been that they hacked into grieving families of fallen soldiers etc. When accusations first came to light in 2006, it largely fell on deaf ears.

I find it slightly grating that MPs are citing a violation of the right to privacy in this scandal.

Yet did they do this with the Fake Sheikh exposing many high profile targets? No
Did they do this when a gaggle of reporters swarms a celebrity’s house? No

And whilst the people exposed from this so-called investigative journalism may have done wrong, the reporters were clearly impinging upon their right to privacy, and yet MPs are quick to retreat and not comment on this, as they only seem to comment when it’s a regular Joe who has had his privacy violated, because the spineless modern MP has only one ability: to pander to the masses.

Indeed, freedom of the press is an entrenched right that is a clear beacon for democracy, but the journalistic techniques employed recently posing under the moniker of investigative journalism are a downright violation of the individual’s right to privacy. Yes, morally, the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone does seem worse than hacking the phone of an A-list celebrity, but we have to remember, it is called the UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights for a reason.