Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
European hesitation over committing troops to the peacekeeping force is to some extent rooted in bitter memories of the Continent’s experiences in Bosnia, where foreign troops were not only unable to prevent large-scale ethnic killing but were themselves held hostage at times by the warring parties. Some of the peacekeepers’ ineffectiveness was attributed to unclear rules of engagement and to conflicting chains of command between national defense ministries and the United Nations.
Marlise Simons and John Kifner, Europeans Delay Decision on Role Inside Lebanon, The New York Times, August 21, 2006
They’re thinking of Srebrenica. In 1995 Dutch peacekeepers under a UN mandate, encircled and out of fuel, munitions and a clear set of orders either abandoned or were forced to abandon a UN safe haven. The massacre that followed is well documented, and the picture of the Dutch commander Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Karremans drinking a toast with the war criminal Ratko Mladic remains painful not only in Amsterdam, but in Berlin, Paris and Brussels. And, according to the article quoted above, Madrid and Helsinki, too.
Europe promised troops as part of last week’s cease fire in Lebanon, but as the Dutch experience in Srebrenica tells us, the devil lies in the details. Would peacekeepers patrol with a clear set of orders? Would they have to shoot and get shot at? What if German troops were forced to fire on Israelis? What if French bodies started returning from the Middle East? Is Europe stepping in to Lebanon as part of a lasting peace or as a halftime?
And is Europe taking the right lessons from Bosnia? Peacekeepers without mandates get into sticky situations, but what happens when there are no peacekeepers at all? If Europe learned from Bosnia to avoid undefinded entanglement, did it also learn to step in forcefully before things get really bad?
Jacques Paul Klein
-
Former Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General
Former coordinator of United Nations operations in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Liberia
Lecturer in public and international affairs, Princeton University
Charles Glass
Guglielmo Verdirame
-
Professor of international law, Cambridge University
English barrister
Richard Murphy
-
Former U.S. Ambassador, Syria and Saudi Arabia, among others
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian Affairs
- Extra Credit Reading
-
Suzanne Nossel, Lebanon and the Future of the UN, The Huffington Post, August 20, 2006: “Just as the deployment of a UN-sponsored force will be critical to the future of Lebanon, the same mission could be a cross-roads for the UN.”
Mark Dowling, Chirac gets it right on Lebanon, From Cork to Toronto, August 19, 2006: “Resolution 1701 does not provide necessary powers to do what the Lebanese Government have now openly said they will not do – disarm Hezbollah fighters if they don’t feel like being disarmed. Instead, the fear is that UNIFIL will be, as usual, caught in the crossfire without a clear mandate.”
Spengler, The peacekeepers of Penzance, Asia Times Blog, August 22, 2006: “Like W S Gilbert’s cowardly policemen in The Pirates of Penzance, Europe’s prospective peacekeepers have decided that ‘a policeman’s lot is not a happy one’. Europe’s serious exercise in peacekeeping led to the massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica, when Dutch soldiers turned over Muslims in their charge to Serb death squads.”
Charles Glass, Learning from Its Mistakes, London Review of Books, August 17, 2006: “When Hizbullah kidnapped me in full view of a Syrian army checkpoint in 1987, Syria insisted that I be released to show that Syrian control of Lebanon could not be flouted. Hizbullah, unfortunately, ignored the request.”
Catherine Field, Now comes the hard part for France, The New Zealand Herald, August 22, 2006: “Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie…promised [France] would lead the UN force until February at least, provided the force was given a clear mandate – the UN must spell out what Unifil is expected to do, give it the means to intervene if need be as well as the right to defend itself.”
Thom Shanker, Trying to Avoid the Perils of Peacekeeping, The New York Times, August 20, 2006: “‘They’re not going to disarm Hezbollah. But are they going to stop Israel from re-attacking Hezbollah? If the Israeli government decides there is an imminent threat, and attacks with F-16′s, what is the mandate for the U.N.? What does the U.N. do?’
I wonder if it is not only Bosnia but also Somalia that is in the minds of the French. Without a clear mandate, (and SCR 1559 certainly doesn’t provide a clear direction,) how are the peacekeepers to react, especially if Israel continues, as it has vowed to do, to violate the cease fire. What happened the other night in Lebanon seems a clear indicaation of how the IDF is approaching this cease fire… Will the peace keepers be allowed to fire on Israeli incursions? Will they be allowed to fire on Hezbollah? Are they expected to implement 1559 (itself a terribly flawed, albeight brief, document? It seeems that if not even the IDF could disarm hezbollah through vicious war, then a few thousand french (or as it seems at this hour) Italians, will be able to disarm them if they don’t want to be disarmed…
[This comment has been deleted. Jdyer - you're welcome here, but you can't continue to dominate the thread by calling anyone who disagrees with you an antisemite. Please refer to the commenting guidelines for a full list of rules. - Brendan, OS Blogger in Chief]
[This comment has been deleted. Jdyer, you're welcome here, but you can't continue to dominate the thread by calling anyone who disagrees with you an antisemite. Please refer to the commenting guidelines for a full list of rules. - Brendan, OS Blogger in Chief]
Jdyer, My mother told me a long time ago, “just ignore the bullies and they will go away.” While I am not threatened by you, nor do I feel especially “bullied” by you, I do find your rants and ignorant comments annoying and tiresome. You do bully your way through arguments quite handily, pushing at least one intelligent and lucid poster away on another tthread. (By way of example, it took exactly two posts, and you only one, to mention anti semitism…) I will take my mothers advice in the interests of this thread and not respond to you or your taunts. In reference to you, I will maintain silence. I am excited for this show, for the commentary and thought it will help create, and my only regret is that you will be trolling around somewhere, taunting and goading.
It is interesting that in resolution 1701, there doesn’t seem to be a clear role for the peacekeeping force.
From the document, this is the role for the UN force;
(a) Monitor the cessation of hostilities;
(b) Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;
(c) Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11 (b) with the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel;
d) Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;
(e) Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;
(f) Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement paragraph 14;
This is paragraph 14;
Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11 to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request;
So it doesn’t seem that there are very clear rules of engagement for the force. Are the listed elsewhere?
In the document, it also states that only after “a full cessation of hostilities” should the UN deploy with the Lebanese Army. After Israels raid into Lebanon the other night into Baalbek, it seems clear that hostilities have not ended. In fact, the Seceratary General said that he is “deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution.” This is not innuendo about he said, she said—Hezbollah did that, did this— the IDF conducted a raid against a soveriegn nation after accepting the terms of 1701, a clear violation. The Germans have suggested they would not be part of the force as they do not want to have to fire on Israelis. Clearly, all europeans are very nervous about this, because Israel, once again, is the agressor in this conflict.
To see the complete text of 1701, in PDF, go here;
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions06.htm
[This comment has been deleted. Jdyer, you're welcome here, but you can't continue to dominate the thread by calling anyone who disagrees with you an antisemite. Please refer to the commenting guidelines for a full list of rules. - Brendan, OS Blogger in Chief]
From the UN resolution relating to arms entering Lebanon:
“Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the
Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the
provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant
provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there
will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no
authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon;”
“security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the
establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any
armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of
Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;”
“no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as
authorized by its Government;”
“Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other
entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related
materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11 to assist the
Government of Lebanon at its request;”
Finally pertaining to the UN’s own violation of the agreement:
“Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within one week
on the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular basis;”
The resolution was adopted on August 11 and there is yet to be a UN force in place much less a report on the implementation of its resolution.
Here is the latest from AP on the UN:
“Livni, Peretz and Peres meet with UN envoy”
Associated Press, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 21, 2006
“United Nations envoy Terje Roed-Larsen met Israeli officials Monday for talks aimed at making the UN-imposed cease-fire between Hizbullah and Israel stick while the world body seeks to assemble an international force to back up the overstretched Lebanese army.
Roed-Larsen, who arrived in Israel Sunday after two days of meetings with officials in Beirut, told reporters after meeting Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni that the two had discussed the need to halt the supply of arms and ammunition to Hizbullah, while lifting Israel’s air and sea embargo on Lebanon. He refused to give further details….”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525918270&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Ironically, it is the NY Times that got it right by puting the blame on HIzb’allah in a lead editorial today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/opinion/21mon1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
“Waiting for Jacques”
“It would be tempting to laugh about France’s paltry commitment of 200 additional peacekeepers for Lebanon, if it weren’t so dangerous. After insisting for years that they be treated like a superpower, the French are behaving as if they have no responsibility for helping dig out of the Lebanon mess.
When the Security Council agreed earlier this month on a cease-fire resolution, scripted by the French and the Americans, it was with the clear understanding that Paris would head the 15,000-member international force and contribute a large number of troops. Now President Jacques Chirac’s generals have cold feet. Such a condition is highly contagious. And there are serious concerns about whether the United Nations can field enough well-trained troops without the French to ensure that Israeli troops withdraw completely and Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel do not start again….”
Jacques it seems is more elusive than Godot.
It seems possible that the cease fire may fall apart, accordding to Terje Roed-Larsen. He said, “Things very easily can slide out of control. This is why it is so important that all parties concerned exercise utmost restraint in order to give the Lebanese Army the possibility of deploying along all borders of Lebanon, and also to allow the international community to provide troops.”
If Israel is unwilling to give the chance for the Lebanese army to take control of the south after—what?—thirty years, it is a sure chance that the cease fire will collapse. Maybe this is what Israel wants? Maybe this is why the PM of Lebanon said anyone caught firing rockets at Israel is “colluding with the enemy.”
Full story here…http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1220650.ece
“If Israel is unwilling to give the chance for the Lebanese army to take control of the south after—what?—thirty years, it is a sure chance that the cease fire will collapse.”
This is hardly the issue.
Israel has welcomed the Lebanese army redeployment as even the pro Hizb’allh “independent” knows.
However, Israel is unwilling to allow the genocidal terrorist organization whose aim is to kill Jewish civilians and destroy the environment to rearm itself.
This is called self protection.
No sane person would put much trust in the Shiite dominated Lebanese army to disarm or even disallow their brethren in Hizb’allah from rearming.
jdyer, nabobnico -
One of the difficulties of putting together a show that has anything to do with Israel is the inevitable, immediate descent into accusations of pro- or anti-Israel bias, with its attendant whiff of the possibility of racism. I don’t have to tell you guys — or anyone reading this thread — that this stuff is both counterproductive and, ultimately, kind of boring.
Take another look at the post I wrote. We’re talking about Europe, about the legacy of Bosnia, about the limits of peacekeeping and the limits of Europe’s defensive armies. If you didn’t come armed to talk about this, or some interesting conversational eddy that flows from it, take a break and sit this one out tonight.
I can’t begin to tell you how tired I am of reading the word “antisemite” in this thread, and the emails I’m getting all — read: every single one — agree with me.
Thank you Brendan. I too am tired with the “anti-semite” label that has been thrown around so much over the last several weeks. It may be why there are so few other posters on this site—they are all sick and tired of it, and therefor—silent. My original post, which opened this thread, does not deal with Israel so much as what is expected of the peace keepers. I think Somalia must be large in the minds of many, as is the marine barracks bombing of 1982[tk?] by Hezbollah, as is the french paratroppers slaughter later that year {again tk?]. The europeans with good reason want to stay out of this. It is too unresolved to send a bunch of trops in; either it will be Sebrenica or Somalia. And to stay out? What will be resolved then?
Without being alarmist, could this be the beginning of a world war? If the conflict is indeed a proxy battle between the US and Iraq, fought by Israel and Hezbollah, is it just an extension of Iraq and the looming Iranian war? Where is Saudi Arabia in this? They must be supporting Israel as it damages a shiia client? Is this an extension of the war in Southern Iraq and the low grade (can we call it low grade) war between Shiia and Sunni? Is this, instead of a civil war in I raq, a theological war that will engulfe the entire muslim war between sects?
And so…how can the Europeans find a way into such a conflict, and do they want anything to do with it? The Un has been so emasculated over the years, first by Sebrenica itself, and then by the Iraq fiasco, it may not be possible to intercede anymore. I don’t hear a lot of talk from Hezbollah in the cease fire. It was a document between Lebanon and Israel. If indeed Hezbollah is a “state within a state,” then shouldn’t that state (the one with all the rockets) be brought to the table? And the Bush adminastration should shelve its ego and talk to Syria and Iran, because they too are a way out of this. Without them on board, to say nothing of Hezbollah, it will be exceedingly difficult to negotiate any lasting peace between Israel and Lebanon.
Brendan,
YOU deleted my post which was merely in answer to nabonico’s original post about the Israel Lebanese conflict.
After your little sermon above stating that this conversation is mainly about Europe you should also to be fair have deleted Nabobnico’s original post.
“I can’t begin to tell you how tired I am of reading the word “antisemiteâ€? in this thread, and the emails I’m getting all — read: every single one — agree with me.”
Antisemitism is not the same as racism and like all Jews I am more tired of antisemites than you are of the word, believe me.
The number of email you get not withstanding, as long as there is anitisemitism in the world and as long so long will you be hearing that word.
“Thank you Brendan. I too am tired with the “anti-semiteâ€? label that has been thrown around so much over the last several weeks.”
My comments above are especially applicable to Nabobnico whose one sided anti-Israel posts are part of the problem.
Overcoming a feeling of humiliation amonst Arabs is a BIG thing, but I wonder if this feeling of victory will last living amongst the ruins. Even with the money that is being given to the victims for rebuilding I wonder what lessons they will come away with. Hezbollah is working to make sure that it wins hearts and minds.
Also, if the money is coming from Iran to rebuild, how does the Iranian population feel about all this aid going “abroad”?
It feels like—dangerously—that it may be the end of the UN as a peace keeping force. If everyone—rightfully—is afraid of Lebanon, then we have taken the teeth out the UN and therefor the life…
1914, again
jdyer: ‘ “Thank you Brendan. I too am tired with the “anti-semite� label that has been thrown around so much over the last several weeks.�
My comments above are especially applicable to Nabobnico whose one sided anti-Israel posts are part of the problem.’
The myopia enabling this comment is simply staggering.
I would love to read ANYTHING from ANYONE who can speak to the issues raised in Brendan’s show tease. If allowing this to happen means voting jdyer (or me, ftm) off the island, then let’s.
Either that, or go ahead and just close the thread down now. It might be better to offer no thread than a nauseatingly tedious rehash of 80% of the threads over the past five weeks.
You’re not the only one sick of some of your blogger’s contributions, Brendan. (And I don’t exclude myself from that critique.)
Can we hear from a few new voices, please?
I’ll stay out of this one from here on.
About what Jaques just said, Do Israel or Lebanon have a right to ban, or question, the nationalities of the peacekeepers, if they are under the flag of the blue capos, or have they sacrificed that right through their mutual hostility…?
How depressing this show has been, and this thread. I feel we are indeed at 1914 with much more at stake, and only rancorous noise will follow us to the grave… I remove myself unilaterally for one week.
Peacekeeping at this point is hopeless which is probably why nobody wants the job. Israeli’s most likely have NO confidence that the UN can or will make it secure from attacks from Lebanon which is why they are continuing conduct operations in Lebanon. This is just a break for Hezbollah too. Hezbollah needs time to regroup and to get the hearts and minds that may be wavering in the ruins. Israeli’s are probably divided but as always need to feel secure and don’t have the leadership for the bold moves that need to happen that would pull the rug out from under ( Iran, Syria, Hamas,Hezbollah) which means work actively to end the occupation and secure internationally, especially regionally recognized and agreed upon borders.
On other threads related to this topic I defended Israel’s intense military response by asking what else was Israel supposed to do, with a heavily armed force on its border dedicated to its destruction?
Many people answered with “diplomacy” or “the UN”.
I suggested that those answers may look good on paper but in practice they have not proven to be very effective. I think we are seeing an illustration of that here.
The peacekeepers of Penzance
By Spengler
Like W S Gilbert’s cowardly policemen in The Pirates of Penzance, Europe’s prospective peacekeepers have decided that “a policeman’s lot is not a happy one”. Europe’s serious exercise in peacekeeping led to the massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica, when Dutch soldiers turned over Muslims in their charge to Serb death squads.
It seems unlikely that French diplomats deceived the world by promising French leadership and boots on the ground to enforce the latest UN ceasefire resolution. It simply is difficult to find volunteers to bell the cat.
From this we should conclude that the so-called “international community” is an empty construct. The Europeans, Russia included, are the walking dead. Europe wants a quiet transition to the cemetery, while Russia plays spoiler indifferent to future consequences; whatever those consequences might be, very few Russians will be alive to see them. The United States is the only superpower not because no other Western country will have sufficient people to act like a superpower a century hence; the United States will have more people a century hence precisely because Americans think and feel like citizens of a superpower.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH22Ak02.html
“About what Jaques just said, Do Israel or Lebanon have a right to ban, or question, the nationalities of the peacekeepers, if they are under the flag of the blue capos, or have they sacrificed that right through their mutual hostility…?”
Common sense suggests that a basic requirement of enforcing border security would be a recognition of the EXISTENCE of that border. So yes, I think Israel is perfectly reasonable to require that the UN peacekeepers come from nations that at least recognize Israel’s right to exist.
When people put on the UN helment they don’t cease to be citizens of their country or members of their society. Here’s a hint – think back to the Korean War. Do we think of the soldiers of the 25th Infantry Division or the 1st Marine Division as US forces or UN forces? Technically they were UN forces, of course, but culturally and historically few Americans make that distinction because it’s not a very meaningful or useful one.
The real problem, of course, is that the UN is bankrupt of leadership, and resources. They’re scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find troops for this mission and beggers can’t be choosers.
The UN as a peace keeping or worse peace making organization is bankrupt.
Places like Rwanda, Sudan and now Lebanon have revealed the uselessness of that organization.
We are back not to 1914, but to the 1930′s.
The country’s which make up a monitoring truce force need to be agreeable to all sides of the conflict.
Imagine allowing Iran or Syria, which supplied weapons to Hizb’allah and which in Iran’s case said that it wants to destroy the Jewish State, participate in a “peace keeping” force on Israel’s border.
Similarly countries that do now recognize Israel like Indonesia, or Malaysia have no business participating in the UN peace keeping operation.
Olmert is right about keeping them out.
Old Nicholas he who lives in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
“I wonder if it is not only Bosnia but also Somalia that is in the minds of the French.”
Perhaps, but as I mentioned in another thread, the French have a penchant for empty gestures. In May I was in Paris for a writing workshop and I noticed that for an hour in the morning there were French paratroopers stationed outside the Brentano’s (a big American bookstore on Avenue de l’Opera) . They would stay for an hour and then speed off in their military vehicles.
At lunch one day I asked the staff there and they said that it was a show of security to protect the store. The soldiers were only there for an hour a day, and at the time I was talking to the staff I was wearing a backpack filled with books and a laptop PC, big enough that if it was Semtex would have taken out the whole building.
That’s France for you.
France wants us to see them as a major international player but the role they play is often counter-productive. It is France’s coziness with the Sudanese government that has allowed the Darfur crisis to continue without abatement. And while we’re at it, let’s not forget that France was largely responsible for the CREATION of Lebanon – a country that probably has no intrinsic reason to exist in cultural or historical terms. Like so many other trouble-spots, Lebanon is the result of Great Powers drawing lines on a map without the slightest regard for the people living within those lines, in the case of Lebanon the most culpable Great Power was France itself! So if any country has an obligation to intervene it is France.
“Similarly countries that do now recognize Israel like Indonesia, or Malaysia have no business participating in the UN peace keeping operation.
Olmert is right about keeping them out.”
Of course, and it’s astounding to me that anyone would even question that right.
You know I used to be a big supporter of the UN, and when I was a kid I used to take part iin the UNICEF drives and all that. I used to regard the people in the US who opposed the UN as a bunch of right-wing wacko’s.
But it’s increasingly clear that the UN really IS next to useless, or downright hypocritical. The mere fact that nations like Zimbabwe or Libya have chaired the UN Human Rights Commission speaks volumes. (and the new Human Rights Council is scarcely better). The UN lacks the resources, and more importantly the political will, to do anything decisive about any serious problem.
Israel has a right to secure its borders. The only alternative to Israeli military force is for the international community to disarm Hebzbollah (because Lebanon can’t do it alone). But everyone assumes “international community” means UN. Why? In the case of Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo it meant NATO. We don’t need NATO in Lenabon, but an EU force comprised of France and Italy could get around the whole “mandate” question that troubles France, because it wouldn’t be operating under a UN flag. They could decide for themselves what their mandate was.
Here is an article about another cease fire violation:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525915046&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
“Israel, US foil Iran arms transfer
Metehan Demir, Jerusalem Post correspondent, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 21, 2006
Israeli and American intelligence agencies alerted Turkish authorities last Friday that several Lebanon-bound Iranian planes, loaded with military hardware meant for the Hizbullah, were making their way through Turkish airspace, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
According to information obtained by the Post, the intelligence agencies were tracking several suspicious Iranian aircraft as they were taking off from an Iranian airfield…..”
THE IRANIAN THREAT
JPost.com special: news, opinion, blogs and more
Turkey was then warned about the planes and their cargo which were to fly over Turkish airspace. Shortly after Turkey was tipped off, Iranian officials ordered the planes to return to their point of departure, where, according to unconfirmed Turkish reports, the arms were removed from the Iranian planes.
After offloading the arms, the planes took off again and were forced to land in Turkey for inspection by the airport authorities. Turkish aviation officials told the Post that no weapons were found on the planes.
Since the war with Hizbullah erupted last month, and especially since the ceasefire, Turkey has intercepted several Iranian and Syrian Lebanon-bound ships in the Eastern Mediterranean sea, as well as two transit trucks from Syria, the Post has learned.
This is the country that wants to send “peace keepers” to Lebanon:
http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/malaysian_fallout_2.asp
“Speaking at the Organization of the Islamic Conference on October 16, 2003, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia told the assembly of leaders of 57 nations that Jews “rule the world by proxyâ€? and “get others to fight and die for them.â€? He called for a “final victoryâ€? by the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, who, he said “cannot be defeated by a few million Jews.”
“Reaction of World Leaders
Rejecting Mahathir’s Anti-Semitism
Note: Asterisk denotes comments made in official correspondence to the Anti-Defamation League.
Other Reactions
• Muslim/Arab World
• U.S. Extremists
“The Prime Minister [Tony Blair] considers that Dr. Mahathir’s anti-Jewish remarks were totally unacceptable. The Foreign Secretary Jack Straw asked Mike O’Brien, the Foreign and Commenwealth Office (FCO) Minister … to summon the High Commissioner of Malaysia … Mr. O’Brien made it clear to the High Commissioner that Dr. Mahathir’s remarks were unacceptable, and not at all what we expect from someone of his stature and experience. He sought an explanation as to why Dr. Mahathir had made them.â€?
Officer at the South East Asia Department of the
British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Samuel Paice *
“During the most recent session of the European Council in Brussels, the Prime Minister of Greece, Mr. Costas Simits, strongly condemned the comments made by Mr. Mahathir. In fact he called for a declaration condemning the statements from the President of the Council. … The substance of the Greek position [is one] of clear condemnation of Mr. Mahathir’s comments.â€?
Greek Ambassador to the United Nations, George Savvaides*
“… Vice-Prime Minister & Minister of Foreign Affairs Louis Michel has condemned most strongly the recent anti-Semitic statements of Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia … [Michel] declared that Prime Minister Mahathir had made absolutely unacceptable anti-Semitic statements. As you know the Belgian Government does not accept anti-Semitism in any form.â€?
Belgian Ambassador to the United States, Frans van Daele*
“Like all heads of state and government attending the European Council in Brussels, I joined in condemning the unacceptable anti-Semitic remarks made by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir. … I myself wrote a letter to Mr. Mahathir … to convey my disapproval in the clearest possible terms.â€?
French President Jacques Chirac*
“… Any form of discrimination is not tolerated by our [Costa Rican] Government and by our people. Rest assured that Costa Rica will continue to honor its position on this matter. Meanwhile, please allow me to congratulate you for your committed leadership and mission.â€?
Costa Rican Ambassador to the United States, Jaime Daremblum*
“The European Union deeply deplores the comments made by [Malaysian Prime Minster] Dr. Mahathir …. Such words hinder all our [the EU’s] effort to further inter-ethnic and religious harmony, and have absolutely no place in a tolerant world. This statement fully reflects the view of the Luxembourg Government.â€?
Luxembourg’s Ambassador to the United States, Arlette Conzemius*
“The Government of the Republic of Hungary has repeatedly and unambiguously expressed its firm condemnation of any anti-Semitic statements, actions, or ideas expressed in any form, either in the Republic of Hungary or abroad. […] On this occasion, based on the notion of shared values and the necessity for joint actions against attempts endangering our world, the Government of the Republic of Hungary immediately and fully adhered to the relevant statement of October 16, 2003 of the Presidency of the European Union. …
Hungarian Consul General in New York, Dr. Gábor Horváth*
“The European Union deeply deplores the comments made by [Malaysian Prime Minster] Dr. Mahathir … . Such words hinder all our [the EU’s] effort to further inter-ethnic and religious harmony, and have absolutely no place in a tolerant world. Ireland is fully associated with these views.â€?
Irish Ambassador to the United States, Noel Fahey *
“The Prime Minister of Slovakia, Mr. Mikulas Dzurinda made an unequivocal condemnation of Prime Minister Mahathir’s comments at his press conference before his official visit to Israel on November 9, 2003… [which said]:
‘ ….You may remember the recent statements by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir who called for a global war of Muslims against Jews. Such appeals merit a clear, strong and principal condemnation and the Slovak Government will act in such a way. We will never come to terms with such statements and I can clearly state that Slovak Government institutions will act firmly and timely against any, even small, expressions of anti-Semitism. ‘”
Rastislav Kacer, Ambassador of the Slovak Republic to the United States *
“I’m here to inform you that you’re going to see that I thought your comments were reprehensible,” said President Bush, recalling his face to face encounter with Mahathir. “I said they’re divisive and unnecessary.”
President George W. Bush
“The prime minister used expressions that were gravely offensive, very strongly anti-Semitic and … strongly counter to principles of tolerance, dialogue and understanding between the Western world and the Islamic world.”
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini
The “anti-Jewish remarks” were “totally unacceptable”
German Foreign Ministry
Mahathir’s comments were “offensive” and “repugnant. … Any invocation of rivalry between Jews and Muslims is very unhelpful. The religions of both groups exhort each other to live together in peace, are opposed to terrorism. … Any suggestion from anybody anywhere in the world of dividing the world into Jewish and non-Jewish groupings is historically indefensible and wrong and something that most Australians would regard as quite repugnant.”
Australian Prime Minister John Howard
“Anti-Semitic” and “profoundly disturbing.… We regard anti-Semitism as unacceptable and the Australian government hopes that there won’t be further comments of his kind.”
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer
“The EU deeply deplores the comments. … Such words hinder all our efforts to further interethnic and religious harmony, and have absolutely no place in a tolerant world”
European Union statement.
“At the Foreign Secretary’s request, the Malaysian High Commissioner was summoned this morning so that Mike O’Brien (Minister of State) could raise our concerns directly. […] It is unfortunate that Mahathir chose to make these remarks, which we regard as unacceptable [and] racist […].”
British Foreign Office
“It’s extremely serious what he [Mahathir] said, totally unacceptable,” […] “All reasonable people are, in my view, dismayed by Mahathir’s, what I would call, conspiracy theory.”
Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham
“The EU statement fully reflects the view of the Government of The Netherlands. In response to questions raised by Dutch Members of Parliament last month, the Government reiterated its strong concerns with respect to Dr. Mahathir’s remarks.”
Dutch Ambassador to the United States, Boudewijn J. van Eenennaam*
Read the other comments!
This is the same Malaysia which recently embraced Iran as a savior of Islamic Ummah.
Anyone who has watched Frontlines “Ghosts of Rwanda” already knows the answer as to the effectiveness of the UN. Along those lines I wouldnt expect much from Europe either. The UK being the only exception.
I agree with pLnelson the UN used to stand for making the world a safer place. They are now a morally bankrupt organization with perhaps one of the worst leaders in history.
It will take a miracle for peace to hold over there.
Note: I posted this on another thread but it belongs here too:
As far as the war in Lebanon goes, I think the Spanish civil war of 1936 is the best analogy.
In both cases you had a weak democratic government attacked by a radical fascist force which led to a proxy war between the supporters of democratic rule and those who supported Fascist or theocratic rule.
Here are the notes of a debate on the subject in England:
” Eric Lee recently debated Sean Matgamna on this and has put an account on his website. It’s probably too long to copy here in its entirety, but I’ve made a summary. Others may well have selected different passages.
The link is
http://www.ericlee.info/2006/07/in_support_of_israel_notes_for.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.ericlee.info/2006/07/in_support_of_israel_notes_for.html
In support of Israel: Notes for a debate
Last night I debated Sean Matgamna of the Alliance for Workers Liberty at a central London pub in front of an audience of about 30 people. My notes for the debate follow.
The main point:
Israel is facing an existential threat and it is the responsibility of socialists to defend the Jewish state.
Where we agree […]
Where we disagree
Here’s what you have been saying: […]
The question facing socialists
The question is – do we socialists support or oppose Israel in its war of self defense following the Hamas and Hizbollah attacks? […]
An historic parallel […]
“[The Spanish civil war] has been suggested as a model for the current fighting in the Middle East by Ephraim Sneh, a leader of the Israeli Labour Party and the son of the legendary Israeli Communist Moshe Sneh.
Clearly the use of proxy forces (in this case, Hizbollah and Hamas, back then, the mutinous officers of the Spanish army) directed by fascist states (Italy and Germany then, Iran and Syria now) is one parallel.
And there is another: today, most of you are appalled at the idea that we would be on the same side of a conflict as George Bush. But in 1936-39, if you backed the Spanish Republicans because you believed in democracy and freedom, you found yourself in the same camp as Stalin – at the peak of the Stalinist terror. I think that socialists were right to support the Spanish Republic in its struggle for survival. And today we should support the Israeli Republic for the same reasons.
The analogy works for other reasons as well. In the Spanish Civil War, as in every war, both sides did terrible things. Many civilians were killed. Innocent blood was shed – and not only by the fascists.
Socialists did not take the view then – a plague on both your houses, victory for the third camp, etc. Socialists supported the Spanish Republic as if there was no Stalin – and opposed Stalin as if there was no civil war in Spain. […]
[W]hen a democratic republic is battling for survival against the black forces of fascist reaction, socialists are tested …
(Has the AWL lost its way?) If you oppose Israel in this war, as the AWL does, you have two choices and only two choices:
You can support its enemy, Hizbollah and Hamas, which is the view of the SWP, the Stop the War coalition, and others
Or – you can propose an alternative strategy for the Jewish state and its working class
If the latter, what is your strategy for Israel to survive as an independent state? What would you tell our comrade Amir Peretz to do? […]
“[Y]ou do not have an alternative strategy, and [are] talking out of both sides of your mouth, trying not to burn bridges with the various organizations like the SWP with which you have tried repeatedly to form coalitions in the past (remember the ill-fated Socialist Alliance?)
You have your principles – you support the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their own land – but you are afraid to become even more unpopular by defending that principle in the real world.
What is on the table here is an existential threat to the Jewish state, one which is recognized by the overwhelming majority of Israelis (including the peace movement) and by Jews everywhere, including here in Britain.
That existential threat comes from Iran and Syria, two states run by brutal regimes which have killed tens of thousands of their own citizens and which are both committed to the destruction of Israel. You know this. You have talked about this and written about it.
[You know that Iran and Syria have WMD but] you choose to ignore what you know, and you refuse to act upon your principles. The Jewish state faces the threat of annihilation by Islamo-fascist organizations that have sworn to do exactly that. But you act as if this is not happening – and you call upon Israel, and only Israel, to halt its attacks.
Conclusion
When Serbia launched its genocidal campaign against the Kosovars, the Left was tested. Here in Britain, the AWL played a magnificent role telling the truth – and nearly alone at that. Going so far as to say that surgical strikes by Nato against Serb forces might be justified.
The Left was tested after the fall of the Saddam regime when reactionary, Baathist and Islamist forces attempted to break the back of the emerging Iraqi trade unions. The AWL stood up in defense of the elementary principle of working class solidarity – and found itself alone among the revolutionary Left organizations in doing so.
But when Hizbollah and Hamas launched unprovoked aggression against Israeli, backed by the fascists in Tehran and Damascus, you chose to participate in pro-Hizbollah demonstrations, and to produce a cowardly leaflet denouncing Israel in the headline, not even calling on Hizbollah and Hamas to stop their aggression.
__It was not your finest moment, comrades__.
Sometimes we take unpopular stands because we have to.
This is a critical moment for the left. We are being tested by events. We must have the courage to say what we truly believe, no matter how unpopular.
We don’t pick up new members this way, we don’t sell more newspapers this way, we don’t make friends to our “leftâ€? and we don’t build new versions of the Socialist Alliance, but this is something we must do.
Because telling the truth – even when it is unpopular — __is what makes us socialists__. ”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Biographical note on Eric Lee
http://www.labourstart.org/ericlee/
jdyer: August 21st, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Thanks for the link to the ADL site.
Brendan Says:
August 21st, 2006 at 5:41 pm
“jdyer, nabobnico -
I can’t begin to tell you how tired I am of reading the word “antisemiteâ€? in this thread, and the emails I’m getting all — read: every single one — agree with me.”
Brendan I can’t tell you how shocked I was by your comments. If you don’t like the word antisemite why don’t you take it up with the ADL.
Here is their site:
http://www.adl.org/default.htm
I am sending them a report of your coments!
radioopensource should do a program on the contemporary antisemitism stemming from the Islamic assault of Jews and Israel.
You can start by exploring the ADL web site.
“Overcoming a feeling of humiliation amonst Arabs is a BIG thing, but I wonder if this feeling of victory will last living amongst the ruins. Even with the money that is being given to the victims for rebuilding I wonder what lessons they will come away with. Hezbollah is working to make sure that it wins hearts and minds.”
it just shows how sick their society is. that they can consider a war their terrorist group incited some how defensive. that they ignore that israel has to always fight as morally as possible using force only when necessary and carefully chosing targets as best they can, fighting with one hand behind their backs while hezbollah cowardly hiding behind civilians fights with everything they have, blatently targeting civilians? thats a victory? one side has to fight “civilized” while the other one sinks to doing anything, its a joke this arab street with their “humiliation”. their minds are not working. you can’t claim victory when the other guy is forced to pull his punches that would knock you out because you hide behind innocents.
Can anyone imagine how the antisemtic anti-Israel crowd would have reacted to the following had it been Israel?
Iran ‘fires on Romanian oil rig’
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Posted: 6:41 a.m. EDT (10:41 GMT)
(An Iranian soldier fires a missile during war games. )
” BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) — A Romanian oil rig off the coast of Iran came under fire from an Iranian warship and was later occupied by Iranian troops, a company spokesman said.
The Iranians first fired into the air and then fired at the Orizont rig, said GSP spokesman Radu Petrescu. Half an hour later, troops from the ship boarded and occupied the rig and the company lost contact with the 26 crew members shortly afterward….”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/22/iran.romania.ap/index.html
“Can anyone imagine how the antisemtic anti-Israel crowd would have reacted to the following had it been Israel?
Iran ‘fires on Romanian oil rig’” . . .
To some extent that double-standard is not unreasonable. I’m a big supporter of Israel, as anyone who reads my postings here knows. But as I analogized in another thread . . .
Say I got a call from the police that they had my kid down at the station for shoplifting a videogame. And say I confronted him and he tried to excuse it by telling me about Billy, down the street who stole a whole car.
Would I buy it? Of course not. Because he’s MY KID. I expect higher standards from him. I don’t car if Billy murdered a family of five.
Israel is not only a US client state, but they are a modern, western democracy and heir to (and according to Thomas Cahill, partial source of) western civilization. Iran and Syria and Iraq, et al, are primitive, barbaric, and extremist. Attacking a peaceful oil rig for no reason is exactly what I would expect from them. Likewise, sponsoring terrorists, deliberately targeting civilians in attacks, oppressing freedom and liberty. Frankly I sometimes wonder why these things even make the news.
Every morning on NPR there’s another report of a car or market or roadside bombing in Iraq. Why? I think it would be news if the Iraqis or Iranians or Syrians did something decent and civilized.
The universal and the particular:
If this post is deleted by Brendan, I understand completely. It is against my better interests that I write these words, but hypocrisy in an escalating situation cannot be permitted.
PLNELSON said: “Iran and Syria and Iraq, et al, are primitive, barbaric, and extremist. [...] I think it would be news if the Iraqis or Iranians or Syrians did something decent and civilized.�
I do not understand how, as JDYER says, “Anti-Semitism is not the same as racism�. To me, making blanket claims about the inherent capacity of a race, religion, culture or civilization all fall under the rubric ‘racism’.
That said, calling entire nations primitive and barbaric, based on almost any commonly accepted definition of the word, is racism.
I don’t really mind if you live a quite life of ignorance. But once these deeply held beliefs about the nature of Persian and Arab civilizations allows someone to discount participants in a conflict wholesale, once someone has preemptively decided that any action on the part of these actors will lack validity, it will be impossible to find a peaceful solution.
Has the ‘anti-Semite watch brigade’ become so blind in the defense Israeli dignity that you will let glaring examples of racism passed unchallenged?
“That said, calling entire nations primitive and barbaric, based on almost any commonly accepted definition of the word, is racism.”
It’s not racism; it’s empiricism. I’m not applying any different standards to them than I apply whites, blacks, or Asians, or the Catholics, Buddhists or Lutherans. All three countries have long records of killing and torturing dissidents; denying their citizens even the most basic of human and political rights, and ruling by iron-fisted autocracy. Iran and Syria have had a long record of training and supplying terrorist organizations who deliberately use devices like car bombs and suicide bombers to target civilians. In Iraq, when presented with the possibility of creating a democratic and prosperous multi-ethnic and free socierty, they instead descend into a nightmare of sectarian violence.
If my characterization is hyperbolic or not supported by the historical facts then please point out where, instead of resorting to name-calling.
It is precisely the unwillingness of outside observers to pass moral judgement on these societies and cultures, and instead retreat into concerns for political correctness that has allowed groups like Hezbollah to grow and flourish without restraint.
” But once these deeply held beliefs about the nature of Persian and Arab civilizations . . . ”
Arab and Persian civilizations were highly advanced compared to the medieval and feudal societies in Europe many centuries ago. So yes, by medieval standards they had a lot to crow about.
But, following the Enlightenment a great deal has changed . . . in Europe, at least. However, not ONE of the 22 members of the Arab League is anything that we would recognize as a modern democracy, and Iran is a terrorist-sponsoring state mired in theocracy and mysogyny.
I would agree that if we were talking about just one or two countries then perhaps we could account for this by the unique historical circumstanes of those countries. But when we are considering so MANY countries that share these problems we need to consider the underlying cultural and belief systems they share in common.
I, for one, find the Open Source program to be adventurous, important, and praiseworthy.
However, many of these comments seem intended to derail the broad goals of the host and producers, subdue contrary views, and drive away posters that contribute to lively discussion.
I don’t back down from trolls, bullies, or lunkheads, but I do tend to lurk when the timbre becomes monopolistic, childish squabbling. I know others feel similarly. Who wants to step into a dogfight?
I suggest that all posters be limited to a certain number of posts in a certain period of time in order to promote greater thoughtfulness, more diverse participation, and deeper logical honesty.
Thank you for your efforts. Keep up the good work.
“I suggest that all posters be limited to a certain number of posts in a certain period of time in order to promote greater thoughtfulness, more diverse participation, and deeper logical honesty.”
Yes, one post per day that will promote more diverse (meaning) different posters posting their single entires full of thought though not necessarily logical posts.
What does the orgiastic sounding “deeper logical honesty” supposed to mean?
Is it like when Huck Finn decides to move away from civilisation?
“However, many of these comments seem intended to derail the broad goals of the host and producers, subdue contrary views, and drive away posters that contribute to lively discussion.”
As Chris reminds us in the description of Open Source, this is a conversation.
Conversations don’t always stay exactly on the original topic, but orbit about it like planets around a star. In talking about UN peacekeeping forces, discussion of the makeup of those forces, including whatever cultural and political attitudes they might bring to the situation, seems highly relevant, and not off-topic at all.
Earlier I made several comments and suggestions more centrally on-topic about European nations’ role in this, their obligations, their willingness or lack thereof, to participate, alternatives to the UN, and whether the UN was fundamentally capable, either in resources or spirit, to fulfill their stated intention here, and it generated very little response.
I think the whole question of peace”keeping”, or peace-making in this world is a critical one, and who should do it, and when, and with what restrictions or limits on their actions, IS something that should be discussed.
As to only a few people dominating the discussion, don’t blame those few people; blame all the other who sit on the sidelines.
The only restriction I would like to see is one of LENGTH of posting. 1500-2000 characters (including spaces) is plenty for lots of text, a few quotes and allow for reasonable paragraph and white-space structure. Among other things I’m a writer, and editing is a basic skill every writer needs to learn. We get postings over 6000 caharcetrs long, PLUS links! Who do they think is going read all that?
fs- By deeper logical honesty, I mean avoiding shallow setups like Islamofascist, etc. which are deliberately provocative. I enjoy an argument as much as the next person, so I believe in multiple posts per issue, but I would rather that discussions not resemble cage fighting. Others on the Meta Discussion have thought 5 posts would be good. BTW, I don’t think Huck either decides to or did indeed leave civilization. Rather it was a wonderful combination of escape and quest, as in Clemens’ science fiction, with a hopeful and humorous note.
pln- I agree wholeheartedly that editing is essential for utility. Also, if the community has had occasion to read one’s views on one thread, there really isn’t a need for those expressions to migrate; that’s more appropriate for diaries. I also have hit the submit button before I meant to do it. But several consecutive posts, without opportunity for reply, doesn’t seem like much of a conversation and should be avoided, don’t you think?
“fs- By deeper logical honesty, I mean avoiding shallow setups like Islamofascist, etc. which are deliberately provocative.” hf
I know what you meant, hf.
You meant that any descriptive statement that you disagree with is illogical or at least shallow.
The point of an argument is for both sides to present their points of view and not to pretend that we can in advance tell what is deep and what is shallow.
I happen to agree with those who hold that modern political Islam is dominated by a fascistic logic which was probably borrowed from the West.
btw: Limit the number of posts to five? Why five, why not six, or four?
I don’t think one can honestly limit the number of posts and still pretend to be carrying on a free discussion.
“I happen to agree with those who hold that modern political Islam is dominated by a fascistic logic which was probably borrowed from the West.”
This is an interesting assertion.
I use the term “islamofascism” myself as a shorthand to denote the combination of theology and violent authoritarianiam that seems to characterize political Islam these days. What would “Huck Finn” suggest as an alternative shorthand? I’ve been criticized in the past when I simply refer to Muslims as in “what if the Muslims try to blow up this plane?” as though there was any serious risk of Lutherans, Jews, Catholics, or Buddhists doing so.
But technically, Fascism is a a political philosophy characterized by an authoritarian police state combined with a free-enterprise economic system in which many of the companies are in bed with the government. The best current example of fascism is actually the PRC.
Oh well, you folks will have to carry on without me – I’m off to Bermuda on vacation – if you-know-who doesn’t try to blow up the plane.
fs- No, you don’t know what I was thinking. & pln- If you are genuinely content to to short circuit the thought process with inflamatory, rhetorical constructs on the order of feminazi, you’re welcome to be tarred with your own brush. Gross oversimplifications do not lead to understanding of the issues, only the person making the comment. Strictly speaking, both the US and Russia have recently fit one of the State Department’s own definitions of totalitarian regimes – … when the head of state is the head of the secret police … and further that our form of capitalism where the corporation, a legal construction, has primacy over the individual, is fascist on it’s face. The US, Russian, and Israeli government’s continuing relationship with organized criminals and agent provacateurs, among other things, would also support such a designation. But would it be useful as shorthand to term all right wing israelis and americans as neoconistas or fasciolikudnics? No, the issues are deeper than that.
Darwhin re: 8/22 @ 3:21:
Whether various Arabs, Arab groups claim victory (as they usually do) and whether with justification or out of bravado to save face and head off further humiliation should not be occasion to complain about the “double standard� which can’t be denied. That Israel must behave in a more moral or “civilized� manner is entirely in Israel’s own interest. To the extent that Israel does not, it suffers from the consequences. Israel would do well to act in a much more, not less civilized (moral) manner understanding that the suffering it brings down upon it’s enemies ( internal, external), even though perhaps justified, has a direct and negative effect on it’s own well being and ultimately it’s survival.
It’s true for both sides, but Israeli’s are not martyrs which puts Israel at a disadvantage in this game of mutual self-destruction but an advantage otherwise.
For instance instead of going hastily to all-out war there should have been time given for warnings and diplomacy. The air bombing campaign was used to save Israeli soldier’s lives on the ground at the expense of civilian lives. Yet had Israeli’s gone in on the ground, there would have been less loss of life, less destruction and more international support.
Deep feelings of humiliation and anger should be an internal matter, and have an internal fix but get deflected easily on external enemies. This is the trap that Israel, US fall into when they react by using extreme tactics of “shock and awe”. It only makes the other side want to get even somehow.
I propose two separate columns for all postings relating to the middle east.
Right brain and Left Brain.
Leave the reader to choose which side to participate in.
!
And further,
allow Brenden to decide to which column said posts belong.