Post on Healthcare for the Comment is Free Aniversary
and a warning of things to come - a rumination on St Patrick's Day coming Friday
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Don't Mention the War-Reparations
Repairing Iraq
Latest Comment is free on Iraq, Iran and Reparations.
full text
One of the many injustices of the Iraq war is that the war-torn country is still paying reparations to its powerful neighbors.
Ian Williams
March 13, 2007 9:30 PM
Why is war torn Iraq still paying for Gulf potentates? And why is no one mentioning it?
In all the talk about Iraqi oil and development, you would think that "reparations" was a four-letter word. No one mentions it in diplomatic circles.
But while Washington was appealing to, and bullying, the world to provide development funds for Iraq as fast as Halliburton and its pals could siphon them off, the new, de-Ba'athed Iraq has been paying 5% of its oil revenue in reparations. Or rather "compensation", since reparations, rightly, got a bad press after Versailles.
In fact, that 5% was a big reduction from the original 30% that the Security Council imposed. Indeed, the biggest diversion of funds from the Oil for Food programme, even more than the $10 billion surplus that it handed over to the US-run Iraq development fund, was the $16 billion that went to the UN Compensation Commission in reparations - mostly to major companies and the Gulf States. The cut went down to 25% over the course of the OFF programme and, after the invasion, the Security Council reduced it to the 5% that Iraq still pays.
But there is much irony in the fact that Iraq has to pay anything at all. At about the time that the first Bush administration was being incredibly vindictive in its resolutions against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and ordering these reparations, a little known report landed very quietly in the UN put the blame for the Iran-Iraq war on Baghdad. The report existed because, as part of the peace deal the conflict, Iran insisted that a commission establish responsibility for the war. Accordingly, in December 1991, UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar reported that Iraq's attack on Iran "cannot be justified under the charter of the United Nations, any recognized rules and principles of international law or any principles of international morality and entails the responsibility for the conflict."
And so one would have thought that Iran had multiple liens on any compensation going around. Not only had Iraq launched the war, it had breached numerous international conventions in its use of chemical weapons and mistreatment of prisoners.
What is more, it was the Gulf States who had bankrolled Saddam's war were now to be the chief beneficiaries of the Iraqi compensation - while the UK and USA, who were the main movers of the sanctions and compensation resolution against Baghdad, had provided overt diplomatic and covert military backing for the Iraqi attack.
At the time I actually went to Iran's UN Ambassador and asked why Tehran was not raising a claim for compensation, and he said that Iran was satisfied with the moral vindication. Easily satisfied indeed: the report apportioning blame must have been one of the least publicised UN reports ever!
But the reparations were still going to the wrong people. It could be argued that the Ba'athist regime's reparations meant that they had less money to build WMDs with - but that money was coming from the Oil for Food coffers. (And one notes that the conservative columnists who howled about the 2% that the UN took from the mouths of Iraqi children for administering the fund never once mentioned the 30% going to Kuwait or Iraq.)
Since Saddam was overthrown, Iraq has paid out another $5 billion, and now has looming over it a further $30 billion that the Commission has awarded. Whatever sliver of justice there was in the original reparations has surely completely evaporated by now. The Iraqi people had neither votes nor voice in picking Saddam or directing his policies. Such collective punishment is exactly what the ICJ ducked in its recent decision on Serbia.
It really is time to stop these atavistic reparations. But someone has to mention them first - and there is still an uncanny silence in diplomatic circles.
Latest Comment is free on Iraq, Iran and Reparations.
full text
One of the many injustices of the Iraq war is that the war-torn country is still paying reparations to its powerful neighbors.
Ian Williams
March 13, 2007 9:30 PM
Why is war torn Iraq still paying for Gulf potentates? And why is no one mentioning it?
In all the talk about Iraqi oil and development, you would think that "reparations" was a four-letter word. No one mentions it in diplomatic circles.
But while Washington was appealing to, and bullying, the world to provide development funds for Iraq as fast as Halliburton and its pals could siphon them off, the new, de-Ba'athed Iraq has been paying 5% of its oil revenue in reparations. Or rather "compensation", since reparations, rightly, got a bad press after Versailles.
In fact, that 5% was a big reduction from the original 30% that the Security Council imposed. Indeed, the biggest diversion of funds from the Oil for Food programme, even more than the $10 billion surplus that it handed over to the US-run Iraq development fund, was the $16 billion that went to the UN Compensation Commission in reparations - mostly to major companies and the Gulf States. The cut went down to 25% over the course of the OFF programme and, after the invasion, the Security Council reduced it to the 5% that Iraq still pays.
But there is much irony in the fact that Iraq has to pay anything at all. At about the time that the first Bush administration was being incredibly vindictive in its resolutions against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and ordering these reparations, a little known report landed very quietly in the UN put the blame for the Iran-Iraq war on Baghdad. The report existed because, as part of the peace deal the conflict, Iran insisted that a commission establish responsibility for the war. Accordingly, in December 1991, UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar reported that Iraq's attack on Iran "cannot be justified under the charter of the United Nations, any recognized rules and principles of international law or any principles of international morality and entails the responsibility for the conflict."
And so one would have thought that Iran had multiple liens on any compensation going around. Not only had Iraq launched the war, it had breached numerous international conventions in its use of chemical weapons and mistreatment of prisoners.
What is more, it was the Gulf States who had bankrolled Saddam's war were now to be the chief beneficiaries of the Iraqi compensation - while the UK and USA, who were the main movers of the sanctions and compensation resolution against Baghdad, had provided overt diplomatic and covert military backing for the Iraqi attack.
At the time I actually went to Iran's UN Ambassador and asked why Tehran was not raising a claim for compensation, and he said that Iran was satisfied with the moral vindication. Easily satisfied indeed: the report apportioning blame must have been one of the least publicised UN reports ever!
But the reparations were still going to the wrong people. It could be argued that the Ba'athist regime's reparations meant that they had less money to build WMDs with - but that money was coming from the Oil for Food coffers. (And one notes that the conservative columnists who howled about the 2% that the UN took from the mouths of Iraqi children for administering the fund never once mentioned the 30% going to Kuwait or Iraq.)
Since Saddam was overthrown, Iraq has paid out another $5 billion, and now has looming over it a further $30 billion that the Commission has awarded. Whatever sliver of justice there was in the original reparations has surely completely evaporated by now. The Iraqi people had neither votes nor voice in picking Saddam or directing his policies. Such collective punishment is exactly what the ICJ ducked in its recent decision on Serbia.
It really is time to stop these atavistic reparations. But someone has to mention them first - and there is still an uncanny silence in diplomatic circles.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
A Bush in the China shop
Guardian Comment is free piece, full text.
The United States and China have issued competing human rights reports. Which one is actually worse?
Ian Williams
The US State Department annual human rights report came out last week and, to counter it, so did the annual Chinese report on the USA.
At first glance it looks like a mudslinging session between the pot and the kettle, but under the circumstances, the US State Department does a surprisingly objective job - its reports on Israel and the Occupied Territories, for example, are unparalleled in official Washington discourse. Sadly however, like those on several other expedient allies, these reports are rarely cited in White House policy formation. Human Rights are what we hector enemies about.
We shouldn't be too surprised at that. Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook
is often misquoted as calling for an "ethical foreign policy". What he actually said was that foreign policy should have an "ethical dimension". That is not just slippery expediency. For example, all of us non-herrenvolk should be glad that Churchill and Roosevelt did not, from any over-refined sense of ethics, scorn alliance with Stalin in 1941.
The problem with Washington is its preachiness - do as we say, not as we do - as epitomized by Newt Gingrich's sermons on Clinton's semen even as he was breaching several of the Commandments himself. As Mark Twain said, from the early days of the Republic, Americans have been proud of liberty and democracy - and prepared to dunk anyone who disagrees in horse trough. They either bridle at criticism or ignore it.
The reason for Chinese sensitivity is obvious. They have much to be sensitive about. Nowadays, their cover is the pseudo-principle of national sovereignty, which, to them, means "'tain't no ones business what I do". Their report urges the U.S. government "to acknowledge its own human rights problems and stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs under the pretext of human rights".
There is of course some truth in this, and the substance of the report is a useful corrective to American Panglossianism. As Rabbie Burns said:
Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
And foolish notion.
For example, the damning Chinese counter survey of American societal development on everything from health care to prisoners' rights points out that the United States is alone - or, rather, with Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea - in not having paid maternity leave. Of course, no one will ever look good defending the US's abysmal lack of labour protection, but one cannot help thinking that if there were one country less qualified than the US to lecture the world on prisoner's rights, it is China.
(Though, interestingly, the Chinese report does not take the US to task for its continued barbaric use of capital punishment.)
Perhaps the most amusing jibe is the reports quotation of the NY Times in saying that the USA "has the worst record in the 'free world' when it comes to stripping convicted felons of the right to vote. In contrast, most European countries hold that right so dear that they bring ballot boxes into prisons". And in China, that right is of course, so dear that Chinese who ask for it pay with an immediate trip to prison. For all the manifold failures of the US, Americans can complain about their government's behaviour without getting a bullet in the back of neck.
In this pot and kettle game, there is no doubt that China's record is far grubbier, even if it is legitimate to hold the Bush administration to the same standards it measures others by. It would just better if Beijing, the defender of Uzbekistan, Burma, Sudan and so many other regimes kept a tactful silence and let someone else better qualified do the critique.
The United States and China have issued competing human rights reports. Which one is actually worse?
Ian Williams
The US State Department annual human rights report came out last week and, to counter it, so did the annual Chinese report on the USA.
At first glance it looks like a mudslinging session between the pot and the kettle, but under the circumstances, the US State Department does a surprisingly objective job - its reports on Israel and the Occupied Territories, for example, are unparalleled in official Washington discourse. Sadly however, like those on several other expedient allies, these reports are rarely cited in White House policy formation. Human Rights are what we hector enemies about.
We shouldn't be too surprised at that. Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook
is often misquoted as calling for an "ethical foreign policy". What he actually said was that foreign policy should have an "ethical dimension". That is not just slippery expediency. For example, all of us non-herrenvolk should be glad that Churchill and Roosevelt did not, from any over-refined sense of ethics, scorn alliance with Stalin in 1941.
The problem with Washington is its preachiness - do as we say, not as we do - as epitomized by Newt Gingrich's sermons on Clinton's semen even as he was breaching several of the Commandments himself. As Mark Twain said, from the early days of the Republic, Americans have been proud of liberty and democracy - and prepared to dunk anyone who disagrees in horse trough. They either bridle at criticism or ignore it.
The reason for Chinese sensitivity is obvious. They have much to be sensitive about. Nowadays, their cover is the pseudo-principle of national sovereignty, which, to them, means "'tain't no ones business what I do". Their report urges the U.S. government "to acknowledge its own human rights problems and stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs under the pretext of human rights".
There is of course some truth in this, and the substance of the report is a useful corrective to American Panglossianism. As Rabbie Burns said:
Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
And foolish notion.
For example, the damning Chinese counter survey of American societal development on everything from health care to prisoners' rights points out that the United States is alone - or, rather, with Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea - in not having paid maternity leave. Of course, no one will ever look good defending the US's abysmal lack of labour protection, but one cannot help thinking that if there were one country less qualified than the US to lecture the world on prisoner's rights, it is China.
(Though, interestingly, the Chinese report does not take the US to task for its continued barbaric use of capital punishment.)
Perhaps the most amusing jibe is the reports quotation of the NY Times in saying that the USA "has the worst record in the 'free world' when it comes to stripping convicted felons of the right to vote. In contrast, most European countries hold that right so dear that they bring ballot boxes into prisons". And in China, that right is of course, so dear that Chinese who ask for it pay with an immediate trip to prison. For all the manifold failures of the US, Americans can complain about their government's behaviour without getting a bullet in the back of neck.
In this pot and kettle game, there is no doubt that China's record is far grubbier, even if it is legitimate to hold the Bush administration to the same standards it measures others by. It would just better if Beijing, the defender of Uzbekistan, Burma, Sudan and so many other regimes kept a tactful silence and let someone else better qualified do the critique.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Bush in a China Shop
Here is my comparative reading in the Guardian's Comment is Free of the US State Department Annual Human Rights report, and the Chinese counter-report.
Feel free to join in!
Feel free to join in!
Thursday, March 08, 2007
ICJ and Serbia, another take
From Tribune in the UK this week - another look at the ICJ verdict.
Two cheers for the International Court
When the International Court returned its verdict on Serbia, the reaction of some commentators was like a chill blast from the thirties. Some of those who would have rushed to condemn it is as a kangaroo court dispensing victor’s justice if it had found Serbia “guilty,” quickly pronounced exoneration for Belgrade and vindication for their own ceaseless downplaying of the crimes of Slobodan Milosevic and defence of “the Serbs.”
In the real world, an “exoneration” that found that the Serb state in Republika Srpska had committed numerous war-crimes and crimes against humanity in Bosnia, including an “Act of Genocide” at Srebrenica, and that Belgrade had failed it prevent it, is far from being a finding of “not guilty,” let alone of innocence.
And we should remember that Britain used strong-arm tactics to force Bosnia to drop its other case, against London, for its failure to prevent genocide in the days when the Conservative government was covertly encouraging Milosevic to get it all done quickly.
The ICJ accepted that atrocities had indeed happened, and that among the perpertrators were officers like Ratko Mladic whom Belgrade had seconded to the Republika Srpska Army, and paid. However, because the Serb authorities refused to release the records of the Defence Council in Belgrade, which would almost certainly have shown direct command and control, judges held back from attributing direct responsibility to Serbia itself.
The verdict was illogical – but perhaps politically useful in that it avoided exacerbating the self-righteous sense of victimhood that it is at the basis of the crudest Serb nationalism.
Awarding collective reparations against all Serbs for the actions of the unelected thug who controlled their government and airwaves for the duration of the nineties would not have served justice nor advanced future peace in the Balkans.
Even so, the widows and orphans of Srebrenica are understandably upset that Court has innovatively invented the perpetrator-free crime. The verdict was to some extent distorted by the process and the use of the Genoocide Convention. The Bosnian government had to use it to have hearing at the ICJ. Conventions against rape, torture and “mere” mass murder are not in the Court’s domain.
“Genocide” has been stretched in popular usage to cover mass murder: it does not technically cover the extinction of kulaks, of the victims of the Khmers Rouges, nor, as the UN correctly assessed, mass murders of black Arabic-speaking Muslim agriculturalists by black, Arabic-speaking Muslim pastoralists in Sudan.
The case at the ICJ was brought about by Serb nationalist intransigence. Under pressure from a people that had suffered such horrors, Bosnia wanted its day in court, but Sarajevo would probably have settled out of court for genuine contrition and an apology from Serbia’s government.
After all, the Serb government is now democratically elected and could legitimately point out that Milosevic had not been. Indeed they had overthrown his regime and sent him off to The Hague. However, even Serb moderates had legitimate cause to worry that a more clearly adverse verdict would have saddled Serbia with punitive reparations, so they had half an excuse for refusing to release the incriminating minutes and admitting to the state’s responsibility.
But killing millions of people with or without prejudice to their ethnicity does not really qualify as innocence in my book. It is the killing that is wrong – and inexcusable. But even as as excavators are still at work on newly discovered charnel pits of victims of Serb nationalists from Kosovo, Srebrenica and other horrors in the Balkans, apologists try the same excuses.
Firstly, it did not happen, secondly, “only” a few thousands died, thirdly, we should not really worry about them because Serbs suffered as well, and fourthly, Clinton and Blair waged illegal war using cluster bombs and depleted uranium ammunition.
It puts the defenders of Milosevic in the same position as if they had sprung to the defence of the Nuremburg accused on the grounds that the Allies had bombed Dresden, and that the Czechs had ethnically cleansed the Sudeten Germans from the homeland with extreme brutality. These were indeed reprehensible deeds, but I suspect that few of the Milosevic fan club would argue for the posthumous acquittal of the Nazi leadership.
While, as the Milosevic fan club points out, people of all faiths and ethnicities suffered in the Balkan Wars, it is irrefutable that it was the now-deceased strongman’s exploitation of Serb nationalism to consolidate his power that set in train the tragic events.
But even after the verdict, nationalist pressure in Belgrade is now trying to prevent an acknowledgment of responsibility, and as the ICJ points out, Serbia is still effectively giving asylum to Mladic and Karadjic.
The current government in Republika Srpska has already apologized for the crimes committed at Srebrenica, perhaps well aware that the legitimacy of the Dayton agreement that confirmed their quasi-Apartheid state will come under close scrutiny now.
Anyone who really supports “the Serbs” should be telling them that it was time to ‘fess up to what Milosevic did in their name, and disclaim his deeds, rather than covering for them.
Two cheers for the International Court
When the International Court returned its verdict on Serbia, the reaction of some commentators was like a chill blast from the thirties. Some of those who would have rushed to condemn it is as a kangaroo court dispensing victor’s justice if it had found Serbia “guilty,” quickly pronounced exoneration for Belgrade and vindication for their own ceaseless downplaying of the crimes of Slobodan Milosevic and defence of “the Serbs.”
In the real world, an “exoneration” that found that the Serb state in Republika Srpska had committed numerous war-crimes and crimes against humanity in Bosnia, including an “Act of Genocide” at Srebrenica, and that Belgrade had failed it prevent it, is far from being a finding of “not guilty,” let alone of innocence.
And we should remember that Britain used strong-arm tactics to force Bosnia to drop its other case, against London, for its failure to prevent genocide in the days when the Conservative government was covertly encouraging Milosevic to get it all done quickly.
The ICJ accepted that atrocities had indeed happened, and that among the perpertrators were officers like Ratko Mladic whom Belgrade had seconded to the Republika Srpska Army, and paid. However, because the Serb authorities refused to release the records of the Defence Council in Belgrade, which would almost certainly have shown direct command and control, judges held back from attributing direct responsibility to Serbia itself.
The verdict was illogical – but perhaps politically useful in that it avoided exacerbating the self-righteous sense of victimhood that it is at the basis of the crudest Serb nationalism.
Awarding collective reparations against all Serbs for the actions of the unelected thug who controlled their government and airwaves for the duration of the nineties would not have served justice nor advanced future peace in the Balkans.
Even so, the widows and orphans of Srebrenica are understandably upset that Court has innovatively invented the perpetrator-free crime. The verdict was to some extent distorted by the process and the use of the Genoocide Convention. The Bosnian government had to use it to have hearing at the ICJ. Conventions against rape, torture and “mere” mass murder are not in the Court’s domain.
“Genocide” has been stretched in popular usage to cover mass murder: it does not technically cover the extinction of kulaks, of the victims of the Khmers Rouges, nor, as the UN correctly assessed, mass murders of black Arabic-speaking Muslim agriculturalists by black, Arabic-speaking Muslim pastoralists in Sudan.
The case at the ICJ was brought about by Serb nationalist intransigence. Under pressure from a people that had suffered such horrors, Bosnia wanted its day in court, but Sarajevo would probably have settled out of court for genuine contrition and an apology from Serbia’s government.
After all, the Serb government is now democratically elected and could legitimately point out that Milosevic had not been. Indeed they had overthrown his regime and sent him off to The Hague. However, even Serb moderates had legitimate cause to worry that a more clearly adverse verdict would have saddled Serbia with punitive reparations, so they had half an excuse for refusing to release the incriminating minutes and admitting to the state’s responsibility.
But killing millions of people with or without prejudice to their ethnicity does not really qualify as innocence in my book. It is the killing that is wrong – and inexcusable. But even as as excavators are still at work on newly discovered charnel pits of victims of Serb nationalists from Kosovo, Srebrenica and other horrors in the Balkans, apologists try the same excuses.
Firstly, it did not happen, secondly, “only” a few thousands died, thirdly, we should not really worry about them because Serbs suffered as well, and fourthly, Clinton and Blair waged illegal war using cluster bombs and depleted uranium ammunition.
It puts the defenders of Milosevic in the same position as if they had sprung to the defence of the Nuremburg accused on the grounds that the Allies had bombed Dresden, and that the Czechs had ethnically cleansed the Sudeten Germans from the homeland with extreme brutality. These were indeed reprehensible deeds, but I suspect that few of the Milosevic fan club would argue for the posthumous acquittal of the Nazi leadership.
While, as the Milosevic fan club points out, people of all faiths and ethnicities suffered in the Balkan Wars, it is irrefutable that it was the now-deceased strongman’s exploitation of Serb nationalism to consolidate his power that set in train the tragic events.
But even after the verdict, nationalist pressure in Belgrade is now trying to prevent an acknowledgment of responsibility, and as the ICJ points out, Serbia is still effectively giving asylum to Mladic and Karadjic.
The current government in Republika Srpska has already apologized for the crimes committed at Srebrenica, perhaps well aware that the legitimacy of the Dayton agreement that confirmed their quasi-Apartheid state will come under close scrutiny now.
Anyone who really supports “the Serbs” should be telling them that it was time to ‘fess up to what Milosevic did in their name, and disclaim his deeds, rather than covering for them.
Bush and Alcohol in Brazil
An awful lot of baloney in Brazil
Bush wants a show of cooperation with the Brazilians over biofuels - while keeping the stuff out of the US.
Ian Williams
March 7, 2007 8:00 PM |
President Bush begins his tour of Latin America this week, hitting Brazil on March 9, in his attempt to woo America's backyard away from the seductions of Hugo Chavez. In an iconic display of content-free concern, Bush wants to engage Lula, the Brazilian president, in a show of cooperation over biofuels, in which Brazil is world leader - while keeping the stuff out of the USA.
Once upon a time, anyone who drank cachaça, Brazilian rum, could see why the Brazilians decided it may be better to use it to run their cars than stock their bars. However, times have changed. Aged cachaça and the caipirinhas made from them are high-end drinks in the world's cocktail lounges.
And the gasohol in Brazilian cars that used to cover the smell of alcohol on the breath of drivers is now an ecological blessing for a world where the oil is running out and the temperature is running up. Brazil's sugar plantations produce fuel that can compete on the world markets with the black stuff from the Gulf, and it is selling its technology to other sugar-producing countries. Renewable bio-fuels are good for the carbon cycle and global warming, and reduce dependence on fossil fuel which tends to come from countries whose rulers get uppity with Washington. They can also create economic opportunities in the developing world.
There are legitimate concerns about what the expansion of Brazilian sugar-cane production may have on its own society. However Lula has little choice but to use whatever comparative economic advantages the global economy gives him, while trying to spread the gains around domestically.
But the response from the industrialised world is, as usual, to protect its own climatic disadvantages with discriminatory trade practices. In Europe they subsidise sugar beet production - developed by Napoleon to beat British control of the Caribbean cane fields. But in the US, Brazil's hoped for biofuel market, there is a 54 cents a US gallon tariff imposed by the country that wants to impose free trade on everyone else in the world.
Two of the most potent lobbies, major sucklers at the teat of corporate welfare, have dressed themselves in a green figleaf with the bioscam. Archer Daniel Midland, and the exiled Cuban sugar barons, one of whom was, you may remember, important enough to interrupt Bill Clinton in his sort of suckling with his intern in Oval Office are generous donors to both parties.
Their campaign cheques are a sound investment. American biofuels and sweeteners made from corn or maize (as the British prefer to call it) can only compete with Brazilian sugar and ethanol because of the tariff wall, and because Washington subsidises corn syrup production and sugar production to the tune of billions of dollars.
So not only are American consumers paying over twice the world price for sugar, while their government effectively stomps on the chances for economic development of significant parts of the Caribbean and Latin America, but the diversion of a large proportion of corn towards syrup and ethanol production is raising American and world corn prices. Milton Friedman would not have approved.
The American companies concerned are fighting any attempt to reduce or remove the 54 cents a gallon ethanol tariff. Their spokesman told Businessweek that the tariff offsets the 51 cents a gallon tax credit for biofuels - making it fairly plain that the purpose of the tax credit was not to encourage better use of renewables but to boost the bottom line of Archer Daniels Midland and their colleagues.
So Bush's concern for biofuels will have all the sincerity of a Scooter Libby denial, and give Hugo Chavez yet more ammunition to highlight the hypocrisy of the gringos. Well done W.
Bush wants a show of cooperation with the Brazilians over biofuels - while keeping the stuff out of the US.
Ian Williams
March 7, 2007 8:00 PM |
President Bush begins his tour of Latin America this week, hitting Brazil on March 9, in his attempt to woo America's backyard away from the seductions of Hugo Chavez. In an iconic display of content-free concern, Bush wants to engage Lula, the Brazilian president, in a show of cooperation over biofuels, in which Brazil is world leader - while keeping the stuff out of the USA.
Once upon a time, anyone who drank cachaça, Brazilian rum, could see why the Brazilians decided it may be better to use it to run their cars than stock their bars. However, times have changed. Aged cachaça and the caipirinhas made from them are high-end drinks in the world's cocktail lounges.
And the gasohol in Brazilian cars that used to cover the smell of alcohol on the breath of drivers is now an ecological blessing for a world where the oil is running out and the temperature is running up. Brazil's sugar plantations produce fuel that can compete on the world markets with the black stuff from the Gulf, and it is selling its technology to other sugar-producing countries. Renewable bio-fuels are good for the carbon cycle and global warming, and reduce dependence on fossil fuel which tends to come from countries whose rulers get uppity with Washington. They can also create economic opportunities in the developing world.
There are legitimate concerns about what the expansion of Brazilian sugar-cane production may have on its own society. However Lula has little choice but to use whatever comparative economic advantages the global economy gives him, while trying to spread the gains around domestically.
But the response from the industrialised world is, as usual, to protect its own climatic disadvantages with discriminatory trade practices. In Europe they subsidise sugar beet production - developed by Napoleon to beat British control of the Caribbean cane fields. But in the US, Brazil's hoped for biofuel market, there is a 54 cents a US gallon tariff imposed by the country that wants to impose free trade on everyone else in the world.
Two of the most potent lobbies, major sucklers at the teat of corporate welfare, have dressed themselves in a green figleaf with the bioscam. Archer Daniel Midland, and the exiled Cuban sugar barons, one of whom was, you may remember, important enough to interrupt Bill Clinton in his sort of suckling with his intern in Oval Office are generous donors to both parties.
Their campaign cheques are a sound investment. American biofuels and sweeteners made from corn or maize (as the British prefer to call it) can only compete with Brazilian sugar and ethanol because of the tariff wall, and because Washington subsidises corn syrup production and sugar production to the tune of billions of dollars.
So not only are American consumers paying over twice the world price for sugar, while their government effectively stomps on the chances for economic development of significant parts of the Caribbean and Latin America, but the diversion of a large proportion of corn towards syrup and ethanol production is raising American and world corn prices. Milton Friedman would not have approved.
The American companies concerned are fighting any attempt to reduce or remove the 54 cents a gallon ethanol tariff. Their spokesman told Businessweek that the tariff offsets the 51 cents a gallon tax credit for biofuels - making it fairly plain that the purpose of the tax credit was not to encourage better use of renewables but to boost the bottom line of Archer Daniels Midland and their colleagues.
So Bush's concern for biofuels will have all the sincerity of a Scooter Libby denial, and give Hugo Chavez yet more ammunition to highlight the hypocrisy of the gringos. Well done W.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Bush and Alcohol -and Brazil
Latest Guardian Comment is Free on Bush's infatuation with American alcohol
Confined to Barack's comments on the ME
A Barack-star no more
Barack Obama used to inspire nothing but sympathy and affection. But recently he's given pandering a bad name.
Here's the full text of the Comment is Free Post.
Check the link below and do please note the comments. They are free with comments about stereotypical anti-American, anti-Semitic, liberal Guardian readers, but from the evidence of the comments, it would appear that the majority of readers were blustering, pro-Israeli NeoCons and American diehard patriots.
A previous posting in which I said Mao was a mass murderer, had me accused of apologetics for him, and this one, in which I point out that the Israel Lobby is in total dissonance with the views of most American Jews on war, brought the predictable accusations of anti-Semitism and promoting the idea of an all-powerful Jewish conspiracy. It's a mad world, my masters, as the Elizabethan playwright wrote!
Ian Williams
March 6, 2007 9:05 PM
Last week Barack Obama performed an inadvertent public service by taking two of my favorite hobbyhorses for a ride round the electoral ring. One was the corrupting power of money in presidential primaries, and the second was demonstrating that the Israel lobby was every bit as powerful as it has traditionally claimed on its website, even as it denounces anyone else who says so.
Hitherto Barack Obama has been a superficially attractive Presidential candidate, compared with the rest of the pack. The inane accusation that he was educated in a Wahabi madrasa led to a reflexive sympathy, as did his unequivocal opposition to the war in Iraq.
But as Ali Abunima, demonstrated yesterday, he has fallen at the first hurdle.
Just like Hillary Clinton, who was stalked for years by conservative pro-Israeli groups for expressing some mild sympathy but is now probably on the hawkish end of Israeli politics, Obama has been to burn incense on the altar of AIPAC.
"No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States," he declared. Not Shamir, not Sharon, no matter who is invaded - the aid cheques and cluster bombs must get through? Sorry, Barack, this gives pandering a bad name.
It is embarrassing to see the contortions that Obama is reduced to. His position for AIPAC on the Iraq war is now within a cheque's thickness of Clinton's.
He advocates that a phased redeployment of US troops out of Iraq begin no later than May 1, with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008. However, he says, "My plan also allows for a limited number of US troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos. In addition, we will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East".
That is not so far from the position of the NeoCons. Redeployment and maintaining an imperial garrison in Iraq and in the region is not what most people think of when they call for pulling out the troops.
On Iran, his coded wording is from Mars rather than Venus - but just as out-there. While calling for "diplomacy" and "tough sanctions", he adds what is basically a commitment to a future war, even as he hedges on his commitment to end the present one. "We should take no option, including military action, off the table". That is precisely the language that John Edwards used addressing a conference in Israel - for exactly the same reason that Obama has been tying himself in knots. It is probably the formulation that AIPAC is insisting on from all candidates.
So the only candidates getting any media attention have to pledge, however they hedge, support for potential war on Iran. Not bad work from a lobby for which it's a thoughtcrime to suggest has influence over American foreign policy! And, of course, it's a testament to how much more important donors' cheques are than voters' concerns at this stage of the primaries.
Obama's big advantage over Hillary has been his consistent opposition to the Iraq war, a position that is in line with most voters, most Democrats - and indeed the overwhelming majority of American Jews, who are maintaining their traditional liberal postures despite the donor-driven politics of their "official" organizations.
A Gallup meta-poll found that 77% of American Jews think the Iraq War was a mistake, compared with 52% of the general American public. Gallup's poll found that 89% of Jewish Democrats think the war was a mistake, and even among non-Democratic Jews, 65% thought so.
Indeed the official organizations are hedging over Iran: not only does their own nominal Jewish constituency not support them, but they are worried that the Jews as a whole may be seen as the cause of another unpopular war.
Thus, in addition to thanking Barack for revealing the plutocratic perils of primaries, perhaps we should also be thanking him for inadvertently helping to show that AIPAC does not represent American Jews.
Barack Obama used to inspire nothing but sympathy and affection. But recently he's given pandering a bad name.
Here's the full text of the Comment is Free Post.
Check the link below and do please note the comments. They are free with comments about stereotypical anti-American, anti-Semitic, liberal Guardian readers, but from the evidence of the comments, it would appear that the majority of readers were blustering, pro-Israeli NeoCons and American diehard patriots.
A previous posting in which I said Mao was a mass murderer, had me accused of apologetics for him, and this one, in which I point out that the Israel Lobby is in total dissonance with the views of most American Jews on war, brought the predictable accusations of anti-Semitism and promoting the idea of an all-powerful Jewish conspiracy. It's a mad world, my masters, as the Elizabethan playwright wrote!
Ian Williams
March 6, 2007 9:05 PM
Last week Barack Obama performed an inadvertent public service by taking two of my favorite hobbyhorses for a ride round the electoral ring. One was the corrupting power of money in presidential primaries, and the second was demonstrating that the Israel lobby was every bit as powerful as it has traditionally claimed on its website, even as it denounces anyone else who says so.
Hitherto Barack Obama has been a superficially attractive Presidential candidate, compared with the rest of the pack. The inane accusation that he was educated in a Wahabi madrasa led to a reflexive sympathy, as did his unequivocal opposition to the war in Iraq.
But as Ali Abunima, demonstrated yesterday, he has fallen at the first hurdle.
Just like Hillary Clinton, who was stalked for years by conservative pro-Israeli groups for expressing some mild sympathy but is now probably on the hawkish end of Israeli politics, Obama has been to burn incense on the altar of AIPAC.
"No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States," he declared. Not Shamir, not Sharon, no matter who is invaded - the aid cheques and cluster bombs must get through? Sorry, Barack, this gives pandering a bad name.
It is embarrassing to see the contortions that Obama is reduced to. His position for AIPAC on the Iraq war is now within a cheque's thickness of Clinton's.
He advocates that a phased redeployment of US troops out of Iraq begin no later than May 1, with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008. However, he says, "My plan also allows for a limited number of US troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos. In addition, we will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East".
That is not so far from the position of the NeoCons. Redeployment and maintaining an imperial garrison in Iraq and in the region is not what most people think of when they call for pulling out the troops.
On Iran, his coded wording is from Mars rather than Venus - but just as out-there. While calling for "diplomacy" and "tough sanctions", he adds what is basically a commitment to a future war, even as he hedges on his commitment to end the present one. "We should take no option, including military action, off the table". That is precisely the language that John Edwards used addressing a conference in Israel - for exactly the same reason that Obama has been tying himself in knots. It is probably the formulation that AIPAC is insisting on from all candidates.
So the only candidates getting any media attention have to pledge, however they hedge, support for potential war on Iran. Not bad work from a lobby for which it's a thoughtcrime to suggest has influence over American foreign policy! And, of course, it's a testament to how much more important donors' cheques are than voters' concerns at this stage of the primaries.
Obama's big advantage over Hillary has been his consistent opposition to the Iraq war, a position that is in line with most voters, most Democrats - and indeed the overwhelming majority of American Jews, who are maintaining their traditional liberal postures despite the donor-driven politics of their "official" organizations.
A Gallup meta-poll found that 77% of American Jews think the Iraq War was a mistake, compared with 52% of the general American public. Gallup's poll found that 89% of Jewish Democrats think the war was a mistake, and even among non-Democratic Jews, 65% thought so.
Indeed the official organizations are hedging over Iran: not only does their own nominal Jewish constituency not support them, but they are worried that the Jews as a whole may be seen as the cause of another unpopular war.
Thus, in addition to thanking Barack for revealing the plutocratic perils of primaries, perhaps we should also be thanking him for inadvertently helping to show that AIPAC does not represent American Jews.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Primary Discoloration: Obama gives pandering a bad name
Latest Guardian "Comment is Free" post
Feel free to comment there!
Feel free to comment there!
Monday, March 05, 2007
When the Reign Goes
the full text of last Guardian post - which for some reason barred comment!
The chairman's reign
Chiang is on the way out in Taipei. Maybe now would be a good time to exorcise Mao in Beijing.
Ian Williams
One of the few occasions on which Jun Chang and Jon Halliday show Mao Tse Tung with any deep human feelings in their biography is when they describe how he went into mourning following the death of his old partner and rival, Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek. Their biography also showed how much Mao owed Chiang for giving him a free pass for much of the legendary Long March. Chiang and Mao had other areas of agreement as well, notably their common determination that Taiwan was part of one China, with one legitimate government, even though they begged to differ about which of their governments that was. So it will be interesting to see Beijing's reaction to the news that the Taiwanese government is downgrading the massive Mausoleum to Chiang Kai Shek in Taipei, and evicting the old Generalissimo's mortal remains from it. Taiwan's pro-independence government have already de-Chianged Taiwan's airport, the presidential palace and moved his omnipresent statue from military barracks. They have also begun to rename the old agencies, deleting the vestigial "China" in the title. The next move is to commemorate the massacre, which took place sixty years ago this week (February 28 1947) of some 28,000 Taiwanese that Chiang staged as a "welcome-back to the motherland" for the brief period in modern history when Taiwan and the mainland shared the same government. Back in Beijing, crowds still queue to see the pickled chairman in the mausoleum while his head still adorns the appreciating Yuan. And his successors still maintain the peculiar protocols of the People's Democracy, one of which is pointing more than 900 missiles at Taiwan and threatening to unleash them if the Taiwanese people should ever renounce their vestigial claim to the mainland and declare the island an independent entity. In fact, the mainland would be better off inviting Taiwan to take over. Since Chiang's death, the island has built a prosperous and vibrant, albeit boisterous, democracy, which in the social democratic sense - of unions, labour regulation and a national health service - is actually more socialist than the mainland. Taiwan's elected rulers are actively engaged in exorcising the tyrannical past, in contrast to the comrades in Beijing, who try to avoid mentioning Mao the way that John Cleese tried to avoid mentioning the war. The chairman keeps cropping up anyway. In contrast, the People's Republic still adheres to the old principle that the way to win hearts and minds is either to twist testicles or put bullets in brains. Those 900 missiles are hardly a Valentine's Day card to the broad masses of compatriots in Taiwan. In the modern world, as the British discovered in Ireland, and indeed earlier with the 13 ex-colonies, it is difficult to win love and respect at the point of a bayonet. China's threats are more than a little counterproductive in building a spirit of Chinese patriotism among Taiwanese. China spent decades supporting the right to self-determination for its chums in the non-aligned. It could try being consistent. Indeed one additional charge that pro-independence Taiwanese may bring against Chiang is that when the mainland won the China seat at the UN in 1974, he withdrew his delegation. In the nature of the UN, Taiwan, as the Republic of China, could have relied on sheer inertia to retain a seat in the general assembly. Now of course, Beijing bullies and the rest of the world kow-tows. There is only one China, agreed Richard Nixon in the Shanghai Communique. And the rest of the world is prepared, for example, to leave a diplomatic and global governance vacuum in the epicentre of the SARS and Avian Flu global potential pandemics because Taiwan can't join the WHO. China keeps growling in the UN about the peacekeeping force in Haiti because the Haitians still recognise Taiwan. It is past time for other countries to stop the kow-towing and bring the PRC up to speed with historical progress. The Middle Kingdom is, like Monty Python's parrot, "dead, passed on ... no more ... a stiff ...b ereft of life", and should be left "to rest in peace". The PRC's claim to Taiwan has all the legal and moral stature of a revanchist British claim to Ireland or New Zealand. In fact, less. The British ruled those places far longer than the mainland had any effective power in Taiwan. Even if one were to accept the PRC's claims, the Chinese delegation, along with the rest of the world, accepted the new doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect at the 2005 UN heads of state summit. Legally, Beijing can no longer croon "'t ain't nobody's business if I do", if they drop 900 missiles on Taiwan. The rest of the world has a responsibility to intervene - and a large self- interest. It also has a big incentive to start thinking about this. Perhaps most disturbingly for the future is the US guarantee to Taiwan against a Chinese invasion, which in turn, the Chinese have promised if the Taiwanese "declare independence". A promise from Tricky Dicky is not the most negotiable currency in the world, and looking at the amount of money made in the US from buying Chinese goods cheap and selling them dear, it would be natural for Taiwanese to wonder about the protective umbrella. It was in return for those guarantees that they gave up on nuclear weapons. If the guarantees begin to look shaky then maybe the nuclear self-denial will be as well. If Taiwan is not a state it cannot join the non-proliferation treaty. and if it is part of China, then it benefits from the existing nuclear powers' exemption in the treaty. Whether it builds or buys them (North Korea may have some on offer) there are few nuclear powers in the world with half the justification that Taiwan has. There should be some serious negotiations with China about ending this impasse, not from the usual prone posture before the throne. They should be told: you can woo, but you cannot rape. And they have to take no for an answer if that's what the Taiwanese want. Beijing's rulers can keep Mao on the banknotes, but should get him out of their heads.
The chairman's reign
Chiang is on the way out in Taipei. Maybe now would be a good time to exorcise Mao in Beijing.
Ian Williams
One of the few occasions on which Jun Chang and Jon Halliday show Mao Tse Tung with any deep human feelings in their biography is when they describe how he went into mourning following the death of his old partner and rival, Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek. Their biography also showed how much Mao owed Chiang for giving him a free pass for much of the legendary Long March. Chiang and Mao had other areas of agreement as well, notably their common determination that Taiwan was part of one China, with one legitimate government, even though they begged to differ about which of their governments that was. So it will be interesting to see Beijing's reaction to the news that the Taiwanese government is downgrading the massive Mausoleum to Chiang Kai Shek in Taipei, and evicting the old Generalissimo's mortal remains from it. Taiwan's pro-independence government have already de-Chianged Taiwan's airport, the presidential palace and moved his omnipresent statue from military barracks. They have also begun to rename the old agencies, deleting the vestigial "China" in the title. The next move is to commemorate the massacre, which took place sixty years ago this week (February 28 1947) of some 28,000 Taiwanese that Chiang staged as a "welcome-back to the motherland" for the brief period in modern history when Taiwan and the mainland shared the same government. Back in Beijing, crowds still queue to see the pickled chairman in the mausoleum while his head still adorns the appreciating Yuan. And his successors still maintain the peculiar protocols of the People's Democracy, one of which is pointing more than 900 missiles at Taiwan and threatening to unleash them if the Taiwanese people should ever renounce their vestigial claim to the mainland and declare the island an independent entity. In fact, the mainland would be better off inviting Taiwan to take over. Since Chiang's death, the island has built a prosperous and vibrant, albeit boisterous, democracy, which in the social democratic sense - of unions, labour regulation and a national health service - is actually more socialist than the mainland. Taiwan's elected rulers are actively engaged in exorcising the tyrannical past, in contrast to the comrades in Beijing, who try to avoid mentioning Mao the way that John Cleese tried to avoid mentioning the war. The chairman keeps cropping up anyway. In contrast, the People's Republic still adheres to the old principle that the way to win hearts and minds is either to twist testicles or put bullets in brains. Those 900 missiles are hardly a Valentine's Day card to the broad masses of compatriots in Taiwan. In the modern world, as the British discovered in Ireland, and indeed earlier with the 13 ex-colonies, it is difficult to win love and respect at the point of a bayonet. China's threats are more than a little counterproductive in building a spirit of Chinese patriotism among Taiwanese. China spent decades supporting the right to self-determination for its chums in the non-aligned. It could try being consistent. Indeed one additional charge that pro-independence Taiwanese may bring against Chiang is that when the mainland won the China seat at the UN in 1974, he withdrew his delegation. In the nature of the UN, Taiwan, as the Republic of China, could have relied on sheer inertia to retain a seat in the general assembly. Now of course, Beijing bullies and the rest of the world kow-tows. There is only one China, agreed Richard Nixon in the Shanghai Communique. And the rest of the world is prepared, for example, to leave a diplomatic and global governance vacuum in the epicentre of the SARS and Avian Flu global potential pandemics because Taiwan can't join the WHO. China keeps growling in the UN about the peacekeeping force in Haiti because the Haitians still recognise Taiwan. It is past time for other countries to stop the kow-towing and bring the PRC up to speed with historical progress. The Middle Kingdom is, like Monty Python's parrot, "dead, passed on ... no more ... a stiff ...b ereft of life", and should be left "to rest in peace". The PRC's claim to Taiwan has all the legal and moral stature of a revanchist British claim to Ireland or New Zealand. In fact, less. The British ruled those places far longer than the mainland had any effective power in Taiwan. Even if one were to accept the PRC's claims, the Chinese delegation, along with the rest of the world, accepted the new doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect at the 2005 UN heads of state summit. Legally, Beijing can no longer croon "'t ain't nobody's business if I do", if they drop 900 missiles on Taiwan. The rest of the world has a responsibility to intervene - and a large self- interest. It also has a big incentive to start thinking about this. Perhaps most disturbingly for the future is the US guarantee to Taiwan against a Chinese invasion, which in turn, the Chinese have promised if the Taiwanese "declare independence". A promise from Tricky Dicky is not the most negotiable currency in the world, and looking at the amount of money made in the US from buying Chinese goods cheap and selling them dear, it would be natural for Taiwanese to wonder about the protective umbrella. It was in return for those guarantees that they gave up on nuclear weapons. If the guarantees begin to look shaky then maybe the nuclear self-denial will be as well. If Taiwan is not a state it cannot join the non-proliferation treaty. and if it is part of China, then it benefits from the existing nuclear powers' exemption in the treaty. Whether it builds or buys them (North Korea may have some on offer) there are few nuclear powers in the world with half the justification that Taiwan has. There should be some serious negotiations with China about ending this impasse, not from the usual prone posture before the throne. They should be told: you can woo, but you cannot rape. And they have to take no for an answer if that's what the Taiwanese want. Beijing's rulers can keep Mao on the banknotes, but should get him out of their heads.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Chiang is on the way out in Taipei. Time to exorcise Mao in Beijing
Latest Guardian Comment is Free - another attempt to upset Beijing's complacency.
Chiang is on the way out in Taipei. Time to exorcise Mao in Beijing
Chiang is on the way out in Taipei. Time to exorcise Mao in Beijing
Squaring the Circle: Full text
Full text of the Guardian Comment is Free Squaring a circle of hell See the link below.
The ICJ ruling was confusing, but at least Serbia is guilty of something. Unfortunately, they aren't the only ones.
Ian Williams
The ICJ judgment on Serbia's role in the Bosnian genocide was, as the diverse comments on this site have shown, confusing. Its demand for proof of clear instructions from Belgrade to the perpetrators of "acts of genocide", would have exonerated Adolf Hitler from the Holocaust - the even that inspired the genocide convention. The officers were seconded from the Yugoslav Army, paid by the Belgrade government and in constant communication with it. What is more, the Court itself found that Serbia is effectively sheltering those responsible even now.
Even so, the verdict was far from "Not guilty"; it was more like the Scottish law verdict of "not proven". It held that Serbia was guilty of not stopping an "act of genocide", in Srebrenica, which implies there was a chain of command responsibility going all the way back to Slobodan Milosevic. In fact, Milosevic did not appear to be motivated by the type of ethnic bloodlust of the more extreme Serbian nationalists, but he certainly tolerated it when it was politically expedient. He knew what Mladic was like and left him in charge.
On the other hand, by hedging on the question of Serbia's direct responsibility for genocide - and in particular by refusing compensation - the court has achieved two positive outcomes: it has avoided collectively punishing a people for deeds conducted by a state; and it has perhaps stopped sowing even more seeds on the ever-fertile soil of Serbian victimhood.
And by failing to go the whole way, the judges may have avoided the automatic dismissal of their findings. In fact, in any other circumstances - bearing in mind Washington's persistent hostility to the ICJ - the concept of the court as an American plot would be amusing. But that certainly was a common Serb view.
Judging from the behavior of Serb nationalist politicians and those who vote for them, there is only a slender likelihood of acknowledgement, let alone contrition, from a disturbingly large proportion of the population. It was, after all, the sense of victimhood that Milosevic so cynically exploited to maintain power. Even at this stage there is opposition to the Serbian parliament expressing contrition, and until the government hands over the perpetrators wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal it stands condemned by the verdict for violations of the genocide convention.
If Serb citizens, as individuals, have been spared the taxpayers' burden of paying reparations to the State of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia should recognize a debt to the individual victims, the orphans and widows of the massacre. Compensation and pensions for the victims would be a gesture that showed they were not just saying "sorry" in a half-hearted effort to comply with the Court.
And there should be others embarrassed as well. If Serbia is guilty of failing to prevent an act of genocide in Srebrenica, then so is the international community, whose forces set up alleged safe havens and refused to defend them; those who refused air strikes in support of the UN peacekeepers in the town; those who collaborated with the Serb forces during the war in maintaining the sieges of the Bosniak enclaves.
Perhaps even more responsibility rests with those at Dayton who rewarded the ethnic cleansers with control of half of Bosnia, including Srebrenica. Even though the Republika Srpska is rushing to apologize for the massacre, its very existence in the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina enshrines the apartheid principles of the ethnic cleansers. It is well past time to revisit the whole ramshackle arrangement, and integrate the country.
The ICJ ruling was confusing, but at least Serbia is guilty of something. Unfortunately, they aren't the only ones.
Ian Williams
The ICJ judgment on Serbia's role in the Bosnian genocide was, as the diverse comments on this site have shown, confusing. Its demand for proof of clear instructions from Belgrade to the perpetrators of "acts of genocide", would have exonerated Adolf Hitler from the Holocaust - the even that inspired the genocide convention. The officers were seconded from the Yugoslav Army, paid by the Belgrade government and in constant communication with it. What is more, the Court itself found that Serbia is effectively sheltering those responsible even now.
Even so, the verdict was far from "Not guilty"; it was more like the Scottish law verdict of "not proven". It held that Serbia was guilty of not stopping an "act of genocide", in Srebrenica, which implies there was a chain of command responsibility going all the way back to Slobodan Milosevic. In fact, Milosevic did not appear to be motivated by the type of ethnic bloodlust of the more extreme Serbian nationalists, but he certainly tolerated it when it was politically expedient. He knew what Mladic was like and left him in charge.
On the other hand, by hedging on the question of Serbia's direct responsibility for genocide - and in particular by refusing compensation - the court has achieved two positive outcomes: it has avoided collectively punishing a people for deeds conducted by a state; and it has perhaps stopped sowing even more seeds on the ever-fertile soil of Serbian victimhood.
And by failing to go the whole way, the judges may have avoided the automatic dismissal of their findings. In fact, in any other circumstances - bearing in mind Washington's persistent hostility to the ICJ - the concept of the court as an American plot would be amusing. But that certainly was a common Serb view.
Judging from the behavior of Serb nationalist politicians and those who vote for them, there is only a slender likelihood of acknowledgement, let alone contrition, from a disturbingly large proportion of the population. It was, after all, the sense of victimhood that Milosevic so cynically exploited to maintain power. Even at this stage there is opposition to the Serbian parliament expressing contrition, and until the government hands over the perpetrators wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal it stands condemned by the verdict for violations of the genocide convention.
If Serb citizens, as individuals, have been spared the taxpayers' burden of paying reparations to the State of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia should recognize a debt to the individual victims, the orphans and widows of the massacre. Compensation and pensions for the victims would be a gesture that showed they were not just saying "sorry" in a half-hearted effort to comply with the Court.
And there should be others embarrassed as well. If Serbia is guilty of failing to prevent an act of genocide in Srebrenica, then so is the international community, whose forces set up alleged safe havens and refused to defend them; those who refused air strikes in support of the UN peacekeepers in the town; those who collaborated with the Serb forces during the war in maintaining the sieges of the Bosniak enclaves.
Perhaps even more responsibility rests with those at Dayton who rewarded the ethnic cleansers with control of half of Bosnia, including Srebrenica. Even though the Republika Srpska is rushing to apologize for the massacre, its very existence in the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina enshrines the apartheid principles of the ethnic cleansers. It is well past time to revisit the whole ramshackle arrangement, and integrate the country.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
ICJ Squares A Circle of Hell
The World Court verdict on Serbia left me puzzled, but thinking that politically it may have been the most astute verdict. However, I argue in the Guardian that it is not just the verdict but what people do with it -- and people in the broadest sense, not just the Serb nationalists in Belgrade.
Squaring A Circle of Hell
Squaring A Circle of Hell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)