April 9, 2008
Nato, Georgia and missile defence
I am just back from Tbilisi in Georgia, where I received this unorthodox welcome from a Tbilisi-based academic. “You have heard of the end of the earth. Well this is it. We are the last outpost of western civilisation.” This is not the normal Georgian line. The usual spin is that Georgia is a central part of the west - and always has been - apart from unfortunate periods on invasion by Mongol hordes (Tamburlaine passed through on numerous occasions) - or incorporation into various incarnations of the Russian empire.
There is certainly no denying Georgia’s ancient Christian culture and its historic links to Europe. The question for the Georgians is whether all this history will help them achieve their dearest political and strategic wish - membership of Nato. Right now they are feeling a bit let down because they failed to get a “Membership Action Plan” at the recent Nato summit in Bucharest, although they did get a promise that they will be Nato members - some day. The Georgians think things are a bit more urgent than that, since the Russians are (according to them) rapidly consolidating their grip in the break-away Georgian territory of Abkhazia.
I was in Tbilisi as a guest of the Brookings Institution, which had organised a conference on the “Frontiers of Europe”. My column for the paper next Tuesday will probably be about whether the west should accept the idea of a Russian “sphere of influence” that includes Georgia.
But Georgia’s Nato aspirations were not the only fall-out from the Bucharest summit to crop up in Tbilisi. As we were assembling, Presidents Bush and Putin were meeting not too far away in Sochi in Russia. Their squabble about American plans for a missile defence system in Central Europe continues. President Bush is determined to press ahead. But not all of his compatriots are convinced. One conference participant memorably described the scheme as “a system that won’t work, against a threat that doesn’t exist, paid for with money that we don’t have.” Sounds like quite a good epitaph for the entire Bush administration to me.
If Georgia, why not Armenia, also Christian (hmm, unlike Turkey…our main ally, which is mainly Muslim) In fact..even Russia considered itself the third Rome after the fall of Constantinopla.
So what´s behind this struggle over Georgia? Is it just a question of oil tubes from the Caspian Sea? or is it just a question of independence from the former master?
Posted by: Enrique | April 9th, 2008 at 6:05 pm | Report this commentEthiopia has an ancient Christian culture, so should it too become a member of NATO? (or maybe SATO - South Atlantic Treaty Organisation.) Anyway, is it suddenly admissible to admit Europe is a Christian club?
The truth is Georgia has stronger historic links to Russia — just ask Comrade Stalin.
I don’t know if missile defence will work, but the potential threat certainly exists: in order to effectively establish an unchallenged sphere of influence in the Middle East, Iran would need to counter the West’s ability to project force overseas. Long range ballistic missiles are the obvious way to do so.
Posted by: RCS | April 9th, 2008 at 7:21 pm | Report this commentGlad to see you will focus on the important issue of Russia’s perceived “sphere of influence” in its “near abroad” in your next column.
It would be interesting also to hear your take sometime on the exclusion of Macedonia/FYROM from this latest round of NATO expansion, forced by Greece’s rigid stance on its seemingly stupid “name” dispute with that country.
One would think that genuine security concerns would trump purely symbolic matters when the world’s most powerful military alliance makes big decisions. One would think.
Here is how the impeccably moderate Macedonian/FYROMian journalist, Ana Petruseva, reacted to her country’s exclusion:
http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/blogs/9125/
Is Athens playing fast and loose with security in the Balkans?
Posted by: EJ | April 9th, 2008 at 7:35 pm | Report this commentTo readers of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “The Grand Chessbord” it should be all pretty clear as to why the US pursue NATO-integration of Georgia, Ukraine and other former parts of the Soviet empire, which to European members of NATO are strategically of hardly any importance.
I usually have not much praise for German or French leaders, but in this case, they have done us as well as the people of Georgia/Ukraine a great favor.
Posted by: weissgarnix.de | April 10th, 2008 at 12:07 am | Report this commentHmm, yeah sure, lets risk a new cold war in Europe so that we can keep Bush happy! The minute Georgia or Ukraine join Nato you are going to have areas declaring independence (a la Kosovo style) with the support of the Russian army. What is Nato going to do then, try to bomb Russia?
Everyone knew that it was a bad idea, designed only to increase tensions in Europe and create problems between Europe and Russia so that the Americans can continue to dominate the region. Moreover, since Bush is simply a zombie president these days and he will not be around for much longer, so he doesn’t have any credibility left or the power to implement any changes these days, so noone takes him seriously. They would rather wait and deal with the next president instead.
EJ,
Posted by: Achilleas | April 10th, 2008 at 12:44 am | Report this commentby the way, NATO is an organisation designed to protect its members from outside aggression. And as long as FYROM continue to make ridiculous territorial claims against a country which a member of NATO since its creation, then perhaps it should stay out because it is part of the problem. When your country decides to accept Europen values and practices and denounce old communist (Tito’s) fairy tails about a united Macedonia reaching the Aegean, only then it should be permitted into European organisations. The name isn’t really the issue, its the territorial claims and also accussations about suppressing of minorities. As long as these haven’t been worked out then there will not be any progress. Also, i think you overestimate the potential benefits from NATO membership. Is anyone about to invade your country? The most likely danger is a civil war and in that case NATO will not be able to do anything anyway.
In a nation as divided as Ukraine integration in NATO against the will of the overwhelming majority of the population will mean the secession of the Western (Donetsk) and Southern (Crimean Peninsula) oblasts, where the Russian-speaking population mainly resides. That´s evident.
Achilleas is right. Tension with Russia is a mean to guarantee the presence of U.S. occupation troops in the European Protectorate…
Posted by: Enrique | April 10th, 2008 at 1:10 am | Report this commentwell, just a small correction - Donetsk is the Eastern part.
Posted by: michal | April 10th, 2008 at 2:49 am | Report this commentas for georgia, I would say that, aside from the geopolitics, Germans also have a point in saying that Georgia today is simply not democratic enough to join NATO. it is actually an interesting case - and first of its kind in post-Soviet space - of a country eagerly pro-American but undemocratic. and, in my view, it is good the former is not enough
Only 56% of Ukraine’s population is against NATO membership, so it’s clearly not an “overwhelming majority”, but rather a 50-50 situation, with the slight pro-NATO minority having been able to form a coalition to dominate in the parliament.
Posted by: czalex | April 10th, 2008 at 7:33 am | Report this comment.
Several levels can be perceived by observers on the recent Bucharest NATO meeting an in particular the proposal to offers membership to Ukraine and Georgia .
It can be seems as an attempt
( following one’s frame of mind )
- To create a safe corridor linking central Asian oil,the middle east and the “West”, Shade of the Spanish Road .
Posted by: jeannick | April 10th, 2008 at 8:15 am | Report this comment-An continuing attempt to isolate Russia at the North East corner of the map , pushing them into global irrelevance
- To re-instate the cold war as a mean to keep Europe submissive , the U.S. military dominant and the U.S.military-industrial complex humming along nicely
- To supply a villain to the essentially Manichean Americans also pandering to the rabid anti-Russian racism of the Balts ,poles and others ,
Russian joke … a pole would rather chop his wrist that give the time of day to a Russian!
-to divert attention from the real issue , the erection of an anti-missile fence around Russia ,
based on Globus II in Vardo norway ,RAF Fylingdales , Thule greenland , Adak island Alaska
This would make the possibility of an “unilateral first strike ” with statistical tolerable outcome
in brief M.A.D. would be superseded
( It must be noted for the more paranoia readers that while the the current administration attitude to negotiating anti-missil
regarding EJ’s comments on the name dispute, the only thing “stupid” about Greece’s objection to Skopje’s membership to NATO is those who misrepresent and don’t understand Athens’ position. Skopje is the aggressor with textbooks, maps and ubiquitous symbols that make claims on Greek territory and which disqualify Skopje for NATO membership according to NATO’s own rules.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 10th, 2008 at 8:36 am | Report this commentThe issue of “sphere of influence” should be disclosed further with focus not only towards Russia. It should be “spheres of influence” with American one and the European one.
As I see the point today, Georgian population is not very enthusiastic about Russia. Obviously because of Russia’s position on frozen national conflicts within Georgia. In this conditions it is not serious to talk about some Russian lobby.
On the other hand there is strong American lobby fueled by military access to Central Asia and natural gas interests. And it has a wide presence within Georgian president office and parliament.
The only lacking figure here as I see is clear European interest. Should it be exactly the same as American (as usual), same as Russian (unbelievable) or should it be an independent interest. I think it really should be independent. Moreover, I think if Georgia now entered a bloc governed by Brussels (rather than Washington), Russia wouldn’t even care.
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | April 10th, 2008 at 8:39 am | Report this commentIt should be pointed out that, in a final text, all NATO members, including The United States, supported Greece’s position that Skopje cannot join NATO until the “stupid” dispute with Greece is settled. Of course, there’s always the chance that they’re all stupid.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 10th, 2008 at 9:08 am | Report this commentHi Gideon,
What did you think of the Georgian women? They are considered amongst the most beautiful in the world and praised by generations of visitors.
Pacifist (knows what is important in life!)
Posted by: Pacifist | April 10th, 2008 at 10:32 am | Report this commentThe US strtaegy since the end of the CW is clear; no power will be allowed to emerge in the Eurasian space. Having central Asia and the Caucasus inside western/NATO “space”, Russia is effectively de-coupled from these regions. Oil pipelines made a useful de facto demarcation of the separatiuon of these territories, (best exemplified by BP’s Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline).
Posted by: tim | April 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am | Report this commentHowever the RF has fought back with Blue Stream, South Stream, CPC, and thus the uneconomic status of the EU’s Nabucco evacuation route to S.Europe from the “Stans”. Bulgaria/Romania and chums in Austria have helped and abbetted Russia in this. As a former CIA guy said to me in Baku years ago, “we arrive, plant a flag, declare democracy and then move on”. Aside from the rehetoric the Azeris, Armenians and Georgians all know this; Russia isn’t going to ever move away. Ditto China in the “Stans”. If only the NATO planners understood the depth to which relats btn Russia and Med’ (incl ME) xtries were already in place in this region (and in the Med’ region). The expansion of RF influence in places like Cyprus, Gibralatar, Malta and Algeria, and the recently muted idea of reclaiming the Crimea from Ukriane is a very, very big hint, and is linked to a very claer strtaegy. As usual NATO is looking the wrong way. The RF is countering NATO at every turn in the Caucasus/Med’ region - but not with military means. And tanks don’t feed people or keep them warm in Winter.
“Should Russia have a sphere of influence?” is a really absurd question. If Russia wants other countries to be its allies it has to earn their trust, just as every other nation has to. If some country is able to offer greater benefits of alliance to a given nation than Russia is able to offer, too bad for Russia. A sphere of influence is not a right - something that may be tough for Russia (whose present accomplishments sadly end at having a lot of nukes and a lot of oil) to hear.
In this context, the Russian joke about the time-telling Polish is instructive. Only it reveals not some crazy irrationality of the Polish, but the degree of mistrust of Russia by Poland due to historic events. History ought not to be obsessed over, of course, but neither ought it be denied.
On a side note, the Greek position on Macedonia’s name is “stupid”. It is precisely an example of the historic obsession mentioned above. And the fact that the rules of some previously concluded international agreements require other countries to tolerate Greece’s stupidity on this question does lessen the actual stupidity. Just imagine Portland, Maine go to war with Portland, Oregon…
Posted by: Andrei Timoshenko | April 10th, 2008 at 11:17 am | Report this commentTim,
In addition to all that you rightly point out, there is also the Shanghai Pact that has the seeds of a regrouping of Russia with Central Asia but with the added enormous muscle of China thrown in. Iran formally applied to join in last month.
The current members are: Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
If Iran joins, the group will include the top two owners of gas resources (Russia and Iran), plenty of oil (Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan), enormous land mass, huge population and nuclear weapons. Certainly a strong pact if the members do co-operate tightly.
The attitudes to America have changed in Uzbekistan and to a certain extent Kazakhstan. Turkmenistan’s new rulers are currying favour with the West but they have nothing in common with the Americans and will probably gravitate towards the Shanghai Pact, bringing even more gas into the fold.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 10th, 2008 at 11:27 am | Report this commentThere is absolutely no historic reference, none, to the unanimous NATO text rejecting Skopje’s membership (which incidentally, Greece supports fulsomely). This is not just a Greek problem but a NATO-Skopje problem. Greece, more than anyone, wants to see the former Yugoslav republic exist as a stable and prosperous neighbour within NATO and the European Union. Greece is the second largest (barely second to Germany) foreign investor in the former republic.
It is difficult to argue with someone whose entire position consists only of a slanderous and childish adjective appropriate to a lower school play yard. If there are any RELEVANT facts replying to NATO’s rejection of Skopje, please present them for discussion and persuasion.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 10th, 2008 at 11:38 am | Report this commentAndrei (Timoshenko),
I really agree that “sphere of influence” is not a right. It shouldn’t be a one.
The key reason for emerging this type of “spheres” is instability of political systems in the CIS. Once Russia, Ukraine and Georgia have stable political systems without necessity to choose between “beurocrats and communists/nationalists” or “guys from the Western part and guys from the Eastern part” it would be very tough for someone to influence a country other than set a mutually benefical partnership. Because parties will be focused on national interests rather than foreign support.
In the present situation of “spheres of influence” democratic elections are only a bareer for a state that has dominant influence. Because elections may actually overthrough the lobby. And this is equally applicable to Russia, US and the case of speeding up NATO membership.
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | April 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am | Report this commentAndrei,
nice one, mate.
Of course, after millions of years of opressing ukrainians and georgians Russia outhg to have a hard time earning their trust.
And what else does it better than selling its gas at 1/4th of the price, right?
Quite telling how most people vigorougly (and sincerely) express their support fledging democracies like ukraine and georgia (the latter set a really good example of how a democracy treats opposition protests) fight against the evil russians but get absolutely infuriated when those russians ask the future nato members to pay up.
Posted by: Dmitry | April 10th, 2008 at 12:12 pm | Report this commentP,
The Shanghai Pact is nothing but a propaganda ploy. Anyway, Iran is a pariah state — it cannot join anything apart from the North Korea-Venezuela-Cuba axis.
Posted by: RCS | April 10th, 2008 at 12:16 pm | Report this commentRCS,
Apparently there was a recent survey showing that Iran was the second most hated nation…second only to Israel.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm | Report this commentP,
The results were skewed by 60 million brain-washed Iranians chanting that Israel is the Little Satan.
Posted by: RCS | April 10th, 2008 at 12:48 pm | Report this commentThere are many good reasons, historical, military, economic and political, why Georgia and Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO and they all pale next to the many more and more justified reasons why Russia should be allowed to be a member of NATO and the EU as well.
As an aside, the difficulty with understanding maps can’t be genetic but it is certainly cultural. Most maps show Portland, Maine and Portland, Oregon lying within the same country, but then, there are also maps which show Skopje, “Macedonia” and Thessaloniki, Greece within the same country as well.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 10th, 2008 at 12:50 pm | Report this commentRCS,
The survey was conducted in Europe!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 10th, 2008 at 12:52 pm | Report this commentDear P /RCS.
Yes there is a Shanghai Pact link to all this but I am trying to confine myself to NATO/Russia.
However here’s a scenario that NATO/readers may want to consider: Pakistan is becoming too dangerous a xtry to act as a supply/logistics base for NATO ops in Afghanisatn. Alternatives are being sought. The RF has offered a routing through Russia on to Uzbek and Kazkahstan and into Afghanistan. This is a very smart move and fulfils 3 objs for Moscow. It causes a huge rift within NATO - and btn US and EU components especially. Secondly it by definition allows RF back into central Asia (under a NATO unbrella!) This undermines twenty yrs of USG efforts to decouple RF from the Stans (see previous note above). Thirdly the RF (with NATO/US dollars!) will replicate every inch of the route from Russia to Afghan with a gas pipeline - and will quote this as the quid pro quo for helping NATO in Afghanistan. Western banks will pile in as they know the mkt is China/India
Not true? Congress stopped the Chinese buying UNOCAL last year. Unocal were in negotiations pre 9/11 with Taliban etc, to build a pipeline from Stans to India/Chia - via Afghan. (Chevron bought Unocal a few months later). RF has same idea now and we are stymied because of overiding NATO need to supply ops in Afghanistan.
Posted by: tim | April 10th, 2008 at 1:09 pm | Report this commentShanghai Pact or not - NATO needs to waken up. If I were Shell/Exxon I wld be talking to Gazprom today and offering a JV to buld this pipeline with USG approval.
Georgia had little or nothing to do with Europe until it became a part of the Russian empire 200 years ago. If Georgia has claims to a European identity, the whole of the Americas and large parts of Africa have even a greater one.
Posted by: Ted | April 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm | Report this commentIf some Georgians have suddenly discovered they have a European identity in order to bring NATO on their side against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, they should be advised to hold talks with these communities and negotiate peace. The fact is that all ethnic communities in Georgia complain of racial and ethnic discrimination. If NATO wants to help it should tell Georgian leaders to restrain their nationalism
Dear Ted,
I think the boundaries of Europe are a moot point, for example, it amuses me that Azerbaijan plays its football as a European nation whereas it is a break off from Iran which has two provinces by the same name and very much part of Asia.
Also, most of Russian Federation’s land mass is east of the Aral mountains which, technically, makes it a mostly Asian nation.
Basically, there is one Eurasian land mass and the two continents are a bit arbitrary.
Georgia changed hands many times between the Byzantines (a European power) and the Persians and in the 18th century, the Georgians decided to ally themselves with the Russians to get protection from the Persians and the Turks although they ended up being swallowed up by they supposed protectors.
Their tragedy is that of a small nation neighbouring much bigger ones and their alliances should be seen in that context. Now they (or their semi-American president) want to hide under Nato’s skirt but they will end up being used and abused by the Nato.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 10th, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Report this commentPacifist,
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | April 10th, 2008 at 2:56 pm | Report this commentOnly 20 million of Russians (out of 145) live to the east of Ural mountains. Including me. So by identity we are European nation with its own and very indirect route.
Dear P,
1. Azerbaijan a break-off from Iran?! Maybe the ethnically Azeri parts of Iran would like to join Azerbaijan? Thought of that, or does your Farsi arrogance blind you to such a possibility?
2. In what way were the Byzantines European? Their centre was in Asia Minor and in different points in history they held sway over the Levant, Egypt and other parts of North Africa. When their civilisation reached its apogee Europe, as we know it today, was barely born. You are committing the over-simplifying fallacy of equating Christianity with Europe — which misconception is what the Georgians are trying to exploit in order to join NATO.
Posted by: RCS | April 10th, 2008 at 3:15 pm | Report this commentDear Andrei,
Russia is no more European than Georgia. As P rightly explains, this is not a geographical question (there really being one Eurasian landmass with two subcontinents - Europe and India) but a social-cultural-political one. Russia’s culture is Byzantine and Byzantine-derived (which shows in Putin’s machinations). Europe is Latinate.
Posted by: RCS | April 10th, 2008 at 3:24 pm | Report this comment1-) Azerbaijan is a break off from Iran. She was lost to Russian Tsar in the 19th cetury, together with most of Armenia. From the dawn of time until then, Azerbaijan had been a cradle of Iranian civilisation. See this from Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-44298/Azerbaijan#481443.hook
The historic Iran was, on average, twice as large as the political entity we call Iran today. The cultural Iran spanned from Western China to Anatolia and certainly encompassed Azerbaijan.
“Iranian” is not equal to Persian. It takes in a lot of ethnicities of which Persians are the largest and Azeris, the second largest. “Iranian” is an inclusive concept unlike some other people who think they are “chosen” and everyone else is sub-human.
2-) Byzantines were the Eastern Roman Empire and a continuation of the Romans and heirs to the Greco-Roman civilisation (although they were more Greek than Roman) and the Greeks and Romans are the founding civilisations of the European civilisations as we know it. North and North Western Europe was sparsely populated and, as major civilisations, arrived on the scene much later. Hence, I would say that the Byzantines were certainly Europeans (unless you think Greeks and Romans were not).
Posted by: Pacifist | April 10th, 2008 at 4:02 pm | Report this commentczalex, if 56% of Ukrainians are against NATO that doesn´t mean that the other 44% support NATO as there is a percentage of undecided.
Of course I was talking about Eastern Ukraine (Donetsk) and Southern Ukraine (Crimean Peninsula) where the mostly Russian-speaking population resides. And it is evident the forced integration of Ukraine in NATO against the will of the people and against the interest of the important Russian-speaking minority will lead to the Secession of Eastern and Southern Ukrainian oblasts and their integration in the Russian Federation as an autonomous Okrug or Republic…something Russia will celebrate with its diminishing population (actually just 142 million people)
So the Russian Federation will reach almost 160 million people, something important taking into account the imporance of China and the European Union.
Georgia also has its own Yugoslavia-like secessionist problems in Southern Osetia and Abkhazia, which also are eager to integreate into the Russian Federation like Northern Osetia….and of course, the same people who has supported Kosovo´s Independence will support Southern Oseatia´s and Abkhazia´s Independence from Georgia, as we all know.
Posted by: Enrique | April 10th, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Report this commentUkraine’s parliament just approved an agreement under which the country will enter the WTO. This is good. In general, it seems to me that the West is encouaging certain countries to walk before they can crawl…their are phases and steps to the growing process that countries and thier government and people cant skip over anymore than a child can on the way to adulthood…This urgency and rush by the West has to do more with the limited way the West is viewing Russia. When instead it would be more helpful to emerging democracies to not force them into seeming to take “sides” (West-East) now but just focusing on economic and democratic institution building and strengthening…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 10th, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Report this commentWith the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, American bases and military alliances will have (along with the stationing of atomic weapons on Russia’s border) tightened the peaceful and defensive military encirclement of Russia whom NATO keeps assuring is not the main target of NATO strategy. With the inclusion of Russia into NATO, there would be no need to not have Russia as the main target of NATO strategy and NATO can continue with the reason for its creation which was……
As an instructor in “Byzantine” history, I can help you with the placement of the “Byzantine” Empire which never existed. The name was coined by an 18th century German historian named Wolf in order to separate the eastern Roman Empire with its capital in Constantinople from the western half centred in Rome. The Greek speakers of the “Byzantine” Empire called themselves Romans, as they were and as they were known to the peoples around them and they called their empire “Vasileia Ton Romeon”, The Roman Empire. The eastern Romans, naturally, had powerful influences with the nations in their sphere including Russia, Turkey and Slavic Europe. No space to explain further, but rephrase your question as “In what ways were the Romans European” and the answer should become more obvious. The Greeks called themselves Romans, as they were, throughout the long Ottoman occupation and the name still echoes, though very faintly, in Greece today.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 10th, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Report this commentPacifist is right. Nationalism is a very recent XIX Century romantic creation in Europe while most people of the World and Humanity as a whole has lived always in pluri-ethnic states like India, Spain, Britain, South Africa, France…and Iran.
It is true Americans from Woodrow Wilson have promoted ethnic segregation and Nationalism guided by the old principle of “divide and rule”.
Posted by: Enrique | April 10th, 2008 at 4:20 pm | Report this comment1a. Wow! The territorial claims you lay for “Iran” (which I understand you define as all Farsi-related lingual groups) puts the most dreamed-up dreamy-eyed right-wing Zionist to indescribable shame.
1b. “think…everyone else is sub-human”? You might want to retract that comment. Anyway, contradicts your previous posts in which you claimed Judaism was too inclusive a concept (remember your fulminations against Russian immigration?).
2. Of course the Greeks and Romans were not European in the modern sense of the word. Muslim civilisation is no less an heir to the Greeks than is Europe — in fact the Greek writings made it to Europe through their preservation in Arab culture. And what is Islamic architecture if not a direct borrowing from the Byzantine?
Posted by: RCS | April 10th, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Report this commentYes, Paskalis, Ottomans when reaching Constantinopla (which has the name of a Roman Emperor and from which derives the Con-Stanbul)called them “Romans” not byzantines.
Posted by: Enrique | April 10th, 2008 at 4:25 pm | Report this commentDear Paskilis,
The term “Byzantium” is more significant than you admit. It is true it was coined retrospectively, and that the “Byzantines” never knew they were “Byzantine”, but it was coined in order to signify a historic cultural change, in which the Eastern Romans slowly metamorphosed into something qualitatively different, even as they continued to view themselves as “Romans”. BTW, something similar is happening today, as “Jews” in Palestine are becoming Israelis, even though they do not consider this to be happening.
Posted by: RCS | April 10th, 2008 at 4:35 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
Dear RCS,
You goad me into writing long, off-topic posts so I write this one and won’t pursue it further.
I was not laying any territorial claims. Frankly, we (Iranians) are not managing the territory we have left very well so why would I want to manage others’ territories for them?
I am simply saying 3 things:
- That Iran historically encompassed a lot of places both territorially and culturally;
- That the Azeris are Iranians by history, culture and tradition and have always occupied prominent positions in the Iranian society.
The Safavids who converted Iranians to the Shia religion and fought the Ottomans so bitterly were based in Ardabil in Azerbaijan. Iran’s supreme leader (Khamenei) and your other friend, Ahmadinejad, are both from Azeri extraction!
- That the Soviet Azerbaijan only came into being as a state (basically a province of the Soviet union with knobs on) in 1918 and prior to that no such state existed. Before the 18th century, when it was broken off by the Tsars, it was always part of Iran to the extent that when Tabriz (the capital) was occupied by the Ottoman Turks, most of the population vacated the city and moved away from the Turks (showing loyalty to Iran, despite their language being a Turkic one).
As for Greeks and Romans not being European, I think what you say is bizarre. I am lost for words
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pm | Report this commentA good point. If I may, “Istanbul” comes from the Greek “Is-stin-Poli” literally “In the City”. “Konstantinopolis” (The city of Constantine) was shortened to “The City” and still called that by the Greeks today. In the vernacular, the letter “P” in Greek is slurred to “B” when speaking, hence “Bolli.” In 1922, Ataturk changed the name of the city to its Turkish pronunciation but in fact, it remained the same. Present Turkish echoes in “Anodulu” (Anatolia)and “Izmir” (Smyrna) and many others.
To my knowledge, the name “Skopje”, the capital of the former Yugoslav republic, comes from the Greek word for “Guard tower.” The eastern Romans (so called “Byzantines”) gave the European Slavs their version of Catholicism (Orthodoxy) and their alphabet, the Cyrillic among many other cultural contributions. Interesting to see how many nations today (Russia, Albania and Montenegro to name some) use the double-headed eagle of the imperial Paleologi family of Byzantium as their national symbol. It was also the symbol of the Hapsburgs who, as great emperors traced their lineage to the Roman empire through the Greeks.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pm | Report this commentoops…it sould read:
Before the 19th century, when it was broken off by the Tsars… (not 18th as typed before)
Posted by: Pacifist | April 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm | Report this commentYes, RCS, metamorphosis is a characteristic of all living languages and cultures and, under different nomenclatures, all living and non-living things (have I left anyone out?).
The Greeks have had many metamorphoses (sic?) in their very long history, from Hellenes to Romans and back to Hellenes not being the least of it. So yes, the eastern Romans (Greeks, Romans etc) did metamorphosise into something (qualitatively?) different, but so did the the western Romans who became Italians, Spaniards French and Germans among others. If the eastern Romans (the Greeks) seem to have had a greater (or greater number of) metamorphosis it is because theirs was an empire of a thousand years, yet only part of a linguistic and cultural continuity that first appeared in Europe in the 17century B.C. and was severed from Europe for four centuries. For better or worse, the Greek experience has been a singularity among European nations.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm | Report this commentDear Paskalis,
The modern Greeks have nothing to do with the ancient people who go by that same name. The former can trace their culture to the Greek-speaking Byzantines, no more. The Greeks did not become Romans and then become Greeks again — that is a 19th century romantic nationalist mythology. It is not true culturally and neither is it true genetically, as over the centuries their has been a great mixing of population groups.
The Greek experience has not been singular, their are no singualrities in history. The (modern) “Greek” experience is just another case of an invented nationality, as are more recently “Macedonia” or Kosovo.
Roman civilisation was one thing, Byzantine civilisation was different (even as they called themselves “Romans”). It is true change is universal and continuous, but it is not even. Periods of slow change are punctured by relatively abrupt bursts (e.g. punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary theory, inflation in cosmology; also true of human history).
Posted by: RCS | April 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this commentThis latest post by GR deals with a part of the world about which I know even less than the other areas about which I have been hardy (or foolhardy) enough to hazard some comments in other postings. However, I am intrigued by two points that have been raised. First, Lisa-Helene Lawson refers to the need to focus on “economic and democratic institution building and strengthening”. Does this include Uzbekistan, where government opponents are reportedly boiled alive?
Second, I found Paskalis’ comments about the word “metamorphosis” very interesting. They reminded me of Kafka’s great novel “Metamorphasis”, which, along with Kafka’s other works, would be a good description of US policy in the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as toward Russia, if not the rest of the world, under the Bush/Cheney regime.
Posted by: algasema | April 10th, 2008 at 5:47 pm | Report this commentThanks for your reply RCS. I’ll limit myself to one of your statements.
Names, of individuals, peoples or nations, are social constructs and not natural phenomena. They change, and romance often plays a part in the selection. Of course the modern and ancient Greeks are not the same people, the later seem to be thoroughly dead, and no one with a passing grade in reading would say that they are the same. I believe your concern is that the moderns might lay claim to some ancient glories, but we can leave all that to the historically intoxicated.
Beyond dispute, however, is the fact that there is an unbroken linguistic, cultural and geographical continuity (with great changes, of course) between the first Greeks and those of today. Their language has profound and undeniable links with the past. Their Christian religion incorporates Socratic and pre-Socratic philosophies. They inhabit the same real estate. This implies nothing. It is simply a provable fact. Very broadly, the Greeks of the ancient city states gave way to Alexander and the Hellenistic empire, to the Byzantines, to the Ottoman occupation, to the modern state. Except for the dark period between the 12th and 8th century B.C., they have never been lost to recorded history. Their continuity is no less, and no more, than the continuity of the Italians, or the German or the Turks. The major difference is that the Greeks have been hanging around the same neighbourhood a little longer than anyone else. Their accomplishments, or lack of them, is not the subject here, but a fact is a fact. Dispute it if you will.
all the best,
Paskalis
Posted by: Paskalis | April 10th, 2008 at 6:25 pm | Report this comment..and, yes, the people of the former Vardar region of Serbia can change their name and call themselves “Macedonians” if they want to, even without any historical justification. They can even begin to feel like Macedonians. What they can’t do is illegally and brazenly lay claim to their neighbour’s property and not expect a fight.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 10th, 2008 at 6:40 pm | Report this commentDear Paskalis,
I would like to dispute your assertions, but I cannot find a connexion to Georgia and NATO which would justify my posting it here. Let me just remark that you admit to one thing and then go on to supposedly prove the opposite. And your later post shows why this game of nationalism is indeed very dangerous (and not befitting of a NATO setting).
Posted by: RCS | April 10th, 2008 at 6:53 pm | Report this commentAlas, you have lost me, and I cannot prove the opposite.
cheers,
Paskalis
Posted by: Paskalis | April 10th, 2008 at 7:17 pm | Report this commentI can’t understand why NATO did this… Why France and Germany had to show how “independent” NATO and Europe can be from US or the (New guys in the alliance) on two young democracy’s Ukraine and Georgia. Both of which are under serious daily pressure from Russia.
I think what happened in Bucharest was a shameful part of NATO’s great history. And I think this should not happen again.
Also I think that France and Germany are doing FAR TOO LITTLE (if anything at all) to assist NATO, for example Georgians have more troops in Iraq(hot-spots) than both of those old European countries…
Shamefully reminds me of what happened to Poland after second world war.
Posted by: Alexander | April 10th, 2008 at 8:34 pm | Report this commentAlgasema: “First, Lisa-Helene Lawson refers to the need to focus on “economic and democratic institution building and strengthening”. Does this include Uzbekistan, where government opponents are reportedly boiled alive?
Well I am not sure I understand what you mean by your question, which caused me to re-read Mr. Rachman’s post because I thought I had missed something…but, in response to your question: YES!… I do think it is best to focus on democratic institution building in a country that boils people alive and withhold membership in NATO even if that country feels a bit “let down” by failing “to get a “Membership Action Plan” from NATO.
I also think Georgia was handled correctly here, and it was not, nor should it have been a surprise to them.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 10th, 2008 at 8:51 pm | Report this commentMost NATO allies are not kicking in and helping out in Afghanistan, which I think is wrong, as unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is not just America’s war. Moreover, with Afghanistan we now have NATO used as part of a global mission and not just as perhaps it was conceived, as there for territorial defense. NATO has more or less transformed itself via Afghanistan, and I think that rather than just enlarging NATO, it should be re-structured…transformed. I suppose the West should be happy that even with the Bush Administration so unpopular, and the knowledge that if they joined NATO that they would need to send troops to Afghanistan at some point there is still such keen interest from Georgia to join NATO …however, in saying that, I have an intense aversion to anything that builds yet more divisions West V. East., which we seem intent in doing too much!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 10th, 2008 at 9:45 pm | Report this comment.
No one seems to have noticed that the rather extraordinary lifting of shields against G.W. Bush proposal was led by Germany , followed by most of western Europe ,including Britain .
Does it mean that the Gaullist scepter has fallen from the weakenned hand of the current French incumbrant to be held by the new Europeen leader ?
Germany also its most powerful member
Russian friendliness is vital to Berlin
Gas supplies is a detail , we are talking , raw materials, huge and long lasting market ,a symbiotic relationship with Bismark as godfather .
This is not to be compromised by some over-excited small states politicians who believe that Europeen policy is U.S. policy .
Let’s be serious , the only thing keeping the balts safe at night is not NATO , it’s the Russian government distaste for adventure .
A firm united nation condemnation and a few months of frosty relations with the west would probably be the only consequences
Ukraine and Georgia would be even worst off , NATO guaranty is simply worth little and would in fact be apretty good reason for Russia to make a stand , come what may
.
Posted by: jeannick | April 11th, 2008 at 3:23 am | Report this commentI hardly believe it is possible to “win” a war in Afghanistan with the foreign troops and most NATO members understand that. Sometimes it makes sense to remind “hawks” and military generals that they are not in Las Vegas and that they are playing not with their own money and lives.
With respect to young democracies, I think it’s really the choice of people what bloc or union to enter, and once a stable majority (2/3 for example) of the population wants that it would be unfair to resist. This is why I’m cautions about Georgia, where up to 80% of the people want to join. That is the point. The only serious argument against as I see is marketing NATO membership as a way to “set up” things with breakaway republics as Saakashvili does. NATO is supposed to be a defensive bloc.
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | April 11th, 2008 at 4:04 am | Report this commentMost certainly NATO is a “defensive bloc.” That’s why it’s only military acts to date have been to bomb Belgrade, a defenceless European capital, and to kill unarmed European civilians, and, of course, to kill Afghanis, a people threatening to overrun Europe, control the Atlantic and enslave the civilized and democratic (unless you live in Florida or Ohio) nations of the West.
Who wouldn’t want to join? Seeing a good thing, Russia certainly does.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 11th, 2008 at 1:27 pm | Report this commentDear Paskalis,
Thanks for the interesting posts on this thread. (Also thank you RCS for purposely playing the fool so that Paskalis can expound his views - well done).
On the “defensive bloc” issue, of course, everyone cloaks their aggression under the guise of defence. Even the most egregiously warlike nations like the US and the UK have ministries and departments of “defence”, although their primary actual function is offence.
NATO, post cold war, is just a way of co-opting some nations for the conduct of American aggression against other nations.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pm | Report this commentTell me, P, with so many sensible, rational, intelligent and logical people like you, me, and RCS in the world, why has it all gone so wrong?
Posted by: Paskalis | April 11th, 2008 at 2:54 pm | Report this commentDear Paskalis,
I think the people in power (with some notable exceptions like GWB), tend to be highly rational, intelligent and logical BUT, many (most?) also tend to be venal megalomaniacs (or in hoc to narrow interest groups).
Hence they don’t run the affairs of the state for the benefit of most of the people but to satisfy their own (and their backers’) base instincts and intersts.
Paskalis for president!
P (would like to be minister of sport!)
Posted by: Pacifist | April 11th, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Report this commentLisa-Helene Lawson, I meant just the slightest hint of irony in my comments about Uzbekistan. Certainly, movement toward democracy would be welcome there. This is unlikely, however, as long as the Bush administration continues to support that country’s unspeakable regime, which, unless I am mistaken, has been providing bases to the US for operations in Afghanistan.
I also need to correct my comment about Kafka’s “Metamorphasis”, which is a short story, not a novel, as I had incorrectly stated.
Posted by: algasema | April 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Report this commentAlgasema….the US is not alone in supporting the Uzbek regime. Little bro, the UK, actually fired its ambassador because he objected to the boiling of Mr. Karimov’s opponents!
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
I think we should all go and try to grab the 2012 Olympics’ torch to protest against the brutalities supported by London
Best,
p
Posted by: Pacifist | April 11th, 2008 at 3:43 pm | Report this commentYes, Kafka’s “metamorphosis” was originally a short story, but PEN International, after exhaustive analysis, determined that, some time in the 1990s, it had morphed into a major novel awaiting film rights. You were right after all.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 11th, 2008 at 3:49 pm | Report this commentAfghanistan and the very reason US and Nato forces needed to go in there …is transforming NATO to meet global demands…NATO is there because of a global terrorism threat…NATO will be more and more used as peace keepers (Balkans) and in combatting terroism… However, its current structure and budgeting process impedes its effectiveness and leads to infighting, pecking orders, and divisions and bad blood…that is no way to operate a military force …NATO… like so many other things should get its act togther…this is the 21st century not the 20th …but that relates to some of the issues raised in Mr. Rachman’s Globalisation post…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 11th, 2008 at 3:57 pm | Report this commentL-H L: “NATO to meet global demands…NATO is there because of a global terrorism threat…NATO”
You sound like Bush-Cheney!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 11th, 2008 at 4:13 pm | Report this commentP,…you are not really going to say there is no such thing as terrorism are you? That the world does not have to find some way of working together to combat it ????…and yes, Russia, Iran, China have a role in joining the effort and helping too…it is actually the one cause that commonground could be found on…it simply is NOT okay for civilians on trains, subways, planes, and in malls, and discos around the world to have to worry about being blown up to pay for “crimes of the West” or of any government.
The problem with Bush- Cheney is that to them and neo-cons …ALL political violence to them is seen has terrorism and it is not…and that they fail to understand even political movements that use terrorism can be transformed to political entities by negotiating and dealing with their grievances.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm | Report this commentDear L-H L,
Your second paragraph effectively answers your first paragraph and I cannot improve upon it.
“Terrorism” is a method, a tactic, not an ideology. It is a symptom, not a cause. To declare a war on terrorism is a bit like declaring a war on war.
If you want to avoid wars, you have to look at each individual case and decide what to do to resolve the conflict between the opposing parties. Terrorism (being a form of war) can only be resolved in the same way and certainly not by sending huge armies accross the globe to commit huge atrocities of their own.
After all, what is “Shock and Awe” if not an act of terror perpetrated on a defenceless country?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 11th, 2008 at 5:13 pm | Report this commentHas anybody read Charles Krauthammer today?
Posted by: David Seaton | April 11th, 2008 at 5:41 pm | Report this commenthttp://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Dear P,
I see nothing foolish in what I have written.
As as a corrective for your apparently naive view of history, I suggest:
EJ Hobsbawm, “Nations and Nationalism since 1780 — Programme, Myth, Reality”.
I trust the English original is as good as the Hebrew translation I am now reading (spurred by the debate on this blog, so that in future I may be able to post on the subject less foolishly).
Posted by: RCS | April 11th, 2008 at 5:56 pm | Report this commentIn rationalizing the missile defense system, President Bush had referred to past tragedies like 9/11 and future threats from countries like Iran.
It seems that NATO and Russia are participating in a programme designed to counter the US threat perceptions. The US has always bee good at universalizing national threats.
Any issue which excludes the US is continental and the one that includes the US is global. Hence this is global missile defense system - a deterrence effort by the US involving several European nations.
http://madhavi-bhasin.blogspot.com/2008/04/nato-realizing-us-foreign-policy.html
Posted by: Madhavi Bhasin | April 11th, 2008 at 6:54 pm | Report this commentP…”If you want to avoid wars, you have to look at each individual case and decide what to do to resolve the conflict between the opposing parties.” I AGREE…
P …”Terrorism (being a form of war)” ….
I DONT AGREE …IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO EVER TARGET CIVILIANS TO MAKE A POLITICAL POINT OR CERTAINLY NOT TO ACHIEVE AN IDEOLOGICAL/POLITICAL GOAL
P…”terrorism can only be resolved in the same way and certainly not by sending huge armies accross the globe to commit huge atrocities of their own.”
We needed special forces to get Bin Laden …the neo-cons had other plans and implemented them much to my dismay and horror…now Bin Laden has franchises…the neo-cons have a lot to answer for… but all that does mean that Bin Laden and his ideology did not need to be dealt with …nor does it negate the fact that NATO needs to update and re-orientate its focus and mandate, upgrade its forces and in some new format have a positive role to play in making the world more stable …
P, if I could wave a magic wand and put NATO forces in the certain parts of Africa to prevent the gang raping of women and children, end the starvation, the brutal tortures and attacks…I would do it in a heartbeat…
P, crimes against humanity demand a global response and that response may need to be force after diplomatic resources have been exhausted, …we are all in this together whether we like or not…the world is very small and fragile…catch you later! I am going horseback riding!…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 11th, 2008 at 7:01 pm | Report this commentGR”Their squabble about American plans for a missile defence system in Central Europe continues. President Bush is determined to press ahead. But not all of his compatriots are convinced. One conference participant memorably described the scheme as “a system that won’t work, against a threat that doesn’t exist, paid for with money that we don’t have.” ”
Before, I run off …Very well said…I don’t understand EU’s actions here at all allowing Bush to press ahead with Poland …well, US has a great deal of economic leverage over it… but the Czech agreement to this is odd to me…perhaps they see it as a job maker…but if the Czech people had a vote I wonder if plans for the missile defense system would pass? I would love to hear some posts from some Czechs about this…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 11th, 2008 at 7:13 pm | Report this commentPacifist, if you come across any advance information about the 2012 torch route, please let me know and I will be there to join you. Meanwhile, I will practice my grabbing skills. Paskalis, thank you for letting me know about the “Metamorphasis” upgrade. I had no idea that I was backed up by such weighty authority.
Posted by: algasema | April 11th, 2008 at 10:41 pm | Report this commentGeopolitics has absolutely nothing to do with ethics or morality or right or wrong or history or culture or anything else except what the world clearly says, geography and power.
Speaking of war criminals, I can well imagine Henry Kissinger (AKA “The Devil’s Dwarf”) holding his three stomachs and having a hearty basso profundo chortle after someone says to him, “But Mr. Secretary, that wouldn’t be right!”
Posted by: Paskalis | April 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pm | Report this commentThere is a very interesting article in Ya Libnan today by Aijaz Zaka Syed. He wrote about a Gallup poll taken in the Muslim world. I just woke up so checked to see if MSM had picked it up yet …not seeing it with a google…it is important reading…hope the link works, if not go to YaLibnan …you can also support YaLibnan and buy a mug there that says “I love Lebanon” in Arabic and English with a little heart on it! what can you say …it’s a heartbreaker…
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/04/moderation_in_a.php
“What about the legendary Muslim sympathy for terrorism? While 6% of the Americans think attacks involving civilians are ‘completely justified,’ in Saudi Arabia, this figure is 4%. In Lebanon it’s 2%.
And mark this, it’s important. The majority of Muslims absolutely rejects violence and terrorism. In fact, many of the respondents quoted Quranic verses to point out that extremism goes against Islamic teachings.
Going by these findings, would any reasonable person in his right mind blame Islam of championing extremism and violence? And remember, this survey was not sponsored by Al Jazeera, Bin Laden’s favourite channel, but by Gallup, the biggest name in the business.
So what is it then that drives the West and Muslim world apart? The answer lies in Western indifference, nay casual contempt, for a billion believers and all that they believe in. I am not saying this; Gallup poll does.
Again this shouldn’t come as a surprise. While admiring Western values such as democracy and freedom, Muslims feel these values are conveniently cast aside when it comes to applying them to Muslim world.
More than 65% of Egyptians, Jordanians and Iranians believe the US will never allow people in the Middle East to run their own affairs and chart their own course.
When the Gallup pollsters asked Muslims around the world what the West could do to improve relations with the Muslim world, the most frequent responses were for the West to demonstrate more respect for Islam and to regard Muslims as equals, not as inferior.” Ya Libnan
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 12th, 2008 at 4:43 pm | Report this commentDear L-H L.
You say: It is not ever acceptable to target civilians to make a political point or certainly to achieve an ideological goal.
You use the above argument to deny that terrorism is a kind of war.
Well, what have the carpet bombings of various third world nations and operations like shock and awe been in aid of? Are they legitimate “wars” because they use expensive aircrafts qnd missiles or are they large-scale acts of terrorism? If the former, then you are implying that the choice of weapons is the chief way to distinguish war and terrorism. A view that does not stand up to much scrutiny.
Happy horse-riding!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 12th, 2008 at 11:26 pm | Report this commentP,
Just came in from riding and checked in here and with the news!…No it is not the weapon …this what I call TERRORISM and I suppose you are calling this WAR …again, it is unacceptable to target civilivians praying, dancing working in offices, etc…not clear what you are exactly saying, but I prefer to think you do not condone or rationalize away these hideous acts…… in any event this news report at Washington Post is about a terrorist attack in Iran today…
“TEHRAN, April 12 — An explosion Saturday during a meeting of an Iranian Shiite religious group killed at least nine people and wounded 66 in the central city of Shiraz, according to Iranian state media reports. Initial investigations into the cause of the blast showed it was not a bomb, Ebrahim Azizi, governor general of Shiraz, told Iran’s state news agency, IRNA. But the city’s police commander had told the semiofficial Fars news agency earlier that the explosion was caused by a bomb. The blast occurred about 9 p.m. in the Shohada religious center during a weekly address given by a popular cleric. The meetings are usually attended by thousands of people. Eyewitnesses reported the explosion took place in the men’s part of the mosque….
Bomb explosions are uncommon in Iran, but sensitive border areas have been targeted during recent attacks that have claimed the lives of civilians and soldiers. Iran has blamed Britain and the United States…..In February 2007, a car loaded with explosives blew up near a bus carrying members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, killing 11 of the troops and wounding more than 30 in southeastern Iran. A Sunni militant group that has been blamed for past attacks on Iranian troops claimed responsibility……Some believe that the group, known as Jundallah, is linked to al-Qaeda. Jundallah, or God’s Brigade, has been waging a low-level insurgency in southeastern Iran. According to the Iranian government, Jundallah receives military assistance from the United States and is inspired by Wahhabism.”
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 13th, 2008 at 2:17 am | Report this commentYour opinions and observations are thoughtful, insightful and intelligent and have as much weight and relevance as a ripe banana on this planet of the apes.
You have turned geopolitics into a parlour game for the enfeebled while the men are in another room smoking their cigars.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 13th, 2008 at 12:41 pm | Report this commentwell ,just Puff Puff Puff away on those cigars guys…however, please keep the door closed…as others dont want to be left coughing or blinded by all the smoke you cause…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pm | Report this commentMs Lawson,
Posted by: Reza | April 14th, 2008 at 2:50 am | Report this commentWhat would you call the nuking of Japan? legitimate warfare? i would argue that this was the most extreme case of terrorism in the history of mankind. what other purpose other than to TERRORISE the japanese nation into surrender. On a more personal note, i lost an aunt and my 5 year old cousin in 1988 when Iran air flight 655 was shot down by the american navy over the persian gulf. 300 innocent civilians were murdered that day, however no mention of the word terrorism was ever made and dont you dare say it was an accident on this blog
Reza,
I lived in the Middle East during the 1980’s. I remember the incident like I remember many others at that time to the present…with sadness, horror and anger…and no, I do not believe it was an accident.
I also don’t believe there is any sense in continuing this conversation as to: what is the definition of terrorism? …Further, even if we can’t agree to a definition among us …we can all agree it is unacceptable by any definition.
It my night…so Good Night!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | April 14th, 2008 at 4:10 am | Report this comment[…] am delighted by this comment from “Paskalis” (a relative newcomer to the blog). So much so that I am lifting it out of the comments section on […]
Posted by: FT.com | Gideon Rachman’s Blog | My epitaph | April 14th, 2008 at 12:02 pm | Report this commentReza,
Damet Garm! You made the point that I was trying to make, namely that when it comes to “terrorism”, Uncle Sam can hardly point the finger at anybody else.
Lisa,
The Shiraz incident was probably not a bomb but another example of poor standards of health and safety in a Third World country. Apparently, they were storing ammunition next door. Nevertheless, in the time-honoured way, they may try to pin the blame on someone or other (The Bahas look a plausible scapegoat for this one).
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | April 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm | Report this commentMy comment, as subjectively and variably interpreted as Holy Writ (Like all of you, I am, after all, a son of the Creator), is meant to point out that the essence of human relationship does nor differ at all from the politics of our simian fathers. That is to say, there is no politics at all except for the spin - poetic, artistic, academic or journalistic - that follows the consequence of brute force. Show me that it is not brute force that governs our world and determines our policies and that the minstrels and clowns are not sent in to tickle the perpetrators, condemn the victims and distract the rabble.
Posted by: Paskalis | April 14th, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Report this comment‘there is no politics at all except for the spin - poetic, artistic, academic or journalistic - that follows the consequence of brute force. Show me that it is not brute force that governs our world and determines our policies and that the minstrels and clowns are not sent in to tickle the perpetrators, condemn the victims and distract the rabble.’
So true Paskalis, so true. I couldn’t have said it better.
FT, this needs to be printed. Inevitably, we would have more minstrels and clowns tackling the quote.
Posted by: Chika Chukwujekwu | April 14th, 2008 at 3:06 pm | Report this commentP,
in addition to terrorism, by my count the US should not be pointing the finger at anybody over a whole list of stuff including democracy, human rights, due process, racism, not interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries, use/production/proliferation of WMD.
I find it surprising that after all the devastation and suffering the US and Israel have caused in their short histories, people still point to Iran as being the most dangerous country. The stupidity of the world boggles the mind
Posted by: Reza | April 15th, 2008 at 3:00 am | Report this commentReza,
It is useless, I realize, and very tiresome indeed, to constantly broach the subject again and again: let me just say that as an Israeli, I am truly baffled by this kind of obsessive singling out of Israel as the root of all evil in the modern world.
I will say no more.
Posted by: RCS | April 15th, 2008 at 4:17 am | Report this commentIt is clear that Ukraine and Georgia are yang democracies and that both of them are under threat. Yes, they are yang and they have flaws, but no yang thing is perfect and the fact that they are not perfect does not mean they do not deserve to survive. I think that what France and Germany did was backward thinking unworthy of political leadership to which they claim. Let me remind you that when Germany joined NATO it was in much more dire condition than that in which Georgia is now.
Posted by: Vadim Ivanchenko | April 15th, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Report this commentA lot of people think that most Ukrainians are not in favor of joining NATO. I am a Ukrainian myself and I know that there has been no official poll carried out in this country on this subject and Russians refer to unofficial public opinion researches and most of them are put through by private companies which get their fees from guess who. On the other hand majority of Ukrainians gave their votes to Yschenko and Temoshenko and they all knew very well that these political leaders believe that Ukraine should join NATO.
I consider and respect RCS as a friend because we have exchanged interesting, challenging and supportive emails. His reasoning and communication skills are formidable, and I am relieved we are often on the same side.
I wouldn’t think there would be any dispute about the consistent, provable fact that the State of Israel enjoys complete and fulsome support for its security and well-being by all the major western powers, including their governmental and social structures, to the extant that Israel itself cannot be considered a secondary power but a major player in the world in many respects. Normally, no people should feel more secure, but we know that Israel’s is not a normal situation.
Since I believe the above to be true, I don’t understand what emotion supports my friend’s concern about an “ ..obsessive singling out of Israel as the root of all evil in the world.”
An ascent to power by one group always leaves behind the defeated. Only the self-intoxicated would expect the defeated to dole out the party favours, book the band and sing along.
It appears a fact of nature that organisms dominate and then collapse. Many have achieved the dominance, not one, as yet, has avoided the collapse. Is it too much of a cliché to repeat that it is most often within that the real danger lies, and not, as Cavafy said, the Barbarians at the gate?
Posted by: Paskalis | April 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pm | Report this comment