Audio available over at 'Aquarium Drunkard'
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Interview with Shirin Ebadi
The conflict in Iran is coming to a head: The state confronts demonstrators by brutal force. BZ editor Annemarie Rösch discussed the situation with Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate from Tehran.
BZ: Ms Ebadi, when will you return to Iran?
Ebadi: Iran is my base. My husband is there, my family. Due to the difficult situation, there is currently more that I can do for my country from abroad. If I return to Iran, everything can happen to me. You see, my sister was arrested just recently. They have taken my sister hostage, because none of my children is in Iran. My husband also is in danger in Iran. However, I will not do what they want me to do, I will not be silent.
BZ: Do you consider yourself a member of the opposition?
Ebadi: I am a human rights activist. I must not side with any one position. I do not belong to any of the opposition groups.
BZ: Currently it looks like protests are growing. What is your opinion on that?
Ebadi: Meanwhile, there are protests even in minor cities. People continue to take to the streets, knowing that they might even be killed during a demonstration. This shows how serious they are about their protest against the regime. On the other hand, much less people followed Ahmadinejad's invitation to join the pro-government rallies - even though Ahmadinejad's people rewarded them for their participation.
BZ: Do the protesters want the regime to be reformed from within, or do they prefer to abolish it?
Ebadi: Currently, the slogan is still "Death to the dictator". This means that the protesters above all want Ahmadinejad to resign. Their peaceful protests show that they want a peaceful reform from within - for now. However, they might eventually start chanting "death to the system". The regime should listen to the demands of the Iranians. If they don't, the protests will turn more radical.
BZ: Can the revolutionary leader Ali Khamenei actually still afford to cling to president Ahmadinejad, whom the opposition accuses of electoral fraud?
Ebadi: Right now there is no indication that Khamenei is ready to abandon Ahmadinejad. However, everything is possible in Iran.
BZ: What is your interpretation of the aggressive actions of the regime against the opposition?
Ebadi: Khamenei and Ahmadinejad both know how dangerous the situation is for them. That's why there is an increasing extent of violence. The more a regime feels threatened, the more it will resort to violence - everywhere in the world.
BZ: Allegedly, Ahmadinejad has expanded his influence on the clergy. What is your view on that?
Ebadi: Ayatollah Khamenei still controls everything. The question is, however, how long this will last.
BZ: What is the role of the paramilitary Revolutionary Guards who so brutally confront the protesters?
Ebadi: Well, what is striking is that Ahmadinejad has given the Revolutionary Guards access to many key positions. Today even the Chief Prosecutor has an aide who is a member of the Revolutionary Guards. That the military has such an important position in the judiciary is unprecedented.
BZ: Is it possible that the regime of the clergy will be replaced by a military dictatorship?
Ebadi: As I said, currently everything is possible in Iran - even a military dictatorship.
BZ: Could Iran become the first democratic state in the Near East?
Ebadi: I wish that. I hope that negotiations will take place between the regime and the opposition before violence escalates. Since the Iranians still remember very well how painful the revolution 30 years ago was for them, how many people died, I still hope for a reconciliation of the different political camps.
BZ: What kind of democracy do the protesters have in mind?
Ebadi: Many probably wish for a democratic system where state and religion are separate. This is what I personally would prefer as well. However, this separation is not the most important thing for me. There are secular states that do not deserve to be called democracies. What Iran needs is truly free elections. How exactly this democracy will look like in the end needs to be negotiated.
Satellite Crush - Paris to London
A backwards British Invasion....
After graduating from art school in Ohio, Elliot moved across the Atlantic to London, England with hopes of starting a band. Heavily influenced by British music, and determined to follow this path, he barely made ends meet by bar tending at a nearby pub and busking on the streets. In the extreme loneliness that followed, he spent much of his spare time writing songs in his small studio flat in central London. Having just left the girl with whom he was in love with, naturally she became the subject of many songs to follow.
Elliot began playing open mic shows around the city, eventually playing several solo gigs before forming a small band with several other Londoners he met at a show. Despite some promising success this however, proved to be short lived following some members' habits. In an attempt to escape the loneliness and addiction that London so warmly embraced, Elliot moved back to the states eventually planting himself in Los Angeles.
Shortly after moving to L.A, Satellite Crush was formed, basing their material around the songs that were written in London. The name came from a reference to the subject of the songs, the girl left behind, who he had minimal contact with while in London through emails, and occasionally a phone call, she was his "satellite crush".
Murdoch - you have SO much to answer for
Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, will return to her broadcast roots and take her conservative message to Fox News as a regular commentator, the cable channel announced Monday.
"I am thrilled to be joining the great talent and management team at Fox News," Palin said in a statement posted on the network's Web site. "It's wonderful to be part of a place that so values
fair and balanced news."
Fair & Balanced LOL!
Monday, 11 January 2010
The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (2006)
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.
Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation.
This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US backing. But neither explanation is convincing. One might argue that Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet capabilities.
Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For all that, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead...
Continue reading
Lieberman And McCain In Israel Back Netanyahu Against Obama
Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain and fellow senator Independent Joe Lieberman said today they would oppose any move to withold loan guarantees to pressure Israel. The pair are in Israel and were meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
“I don’t think it’s helpful and I don’t agree with it,” McCain said in Yerushalayim. Lieberman said there would be a fight in Congress if a move to pressure Israel was initiated. “Any attempt to pressure Israel, to force Israel, to the negotiating table by denying Israel support will not pass the Congress of the United States,” Lieberman said.
(!)
RIP Blasta
Just heard that someone I knew way back from my time in Amsterdam passed away in Cambodia on Xmas day.
If anyone out there knows more details could they get in touch.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
