Small talk

Another round of fighting between China, Taiwan and the USA.  Weapons sales made the Chinese furious, again.

By law America is obliged to deliver enough military supplies in order for Taiwan to be able to defend itself in an unstable region. Even so, the latest deal, worth about 6,4 billion dollars, was bound to create new problems, just like a similar one did in 2008, when the then still Bush-administration planned on selling arms.

In comparison to 2008 there are three advantages. First is that there now is Obama. He is less likely and willing to step on politician’s toes, as he has clearly and sometimes even elegantly, such as in Japan, demonstrated. Two other, less admirable, examples  of this would be his choices not to talk with the Dalai Lama before visiting China and not openly going into debate with high ranked Chinese officials during his visit to their country.

The second is a more important advantage: Ma Ying-jeou. The Taiwanese president isn’t all pro-China, but his promise spoke of ‘no reunification, independence and war’ during his time in office, and that has improved relations as long as you compare them with how the situation had been for decades.

The last advantage, in my eyes nearly negligible, is that Congress (the US Senate and House of Representatives) has 30 days to respond to the weapon sale plan. This is negligible, because they have shown a strong tendency to support such sales. Nevertheless, you never know (not that I would support withdrawing or cancelling sales).

I do honestly think the strain is starting to count, however, as Taiwanese officials underline simply by staging things along the lines that America does take China’s temperament seriously. Most of the arms will be defensive, rather than offensive. No F16 fighters, no diesel powered submarines will be included. Offensive weapons won’t threaten a country that takes little interest in the well-being of its citizens in the first place, especially not when it has about 1000 missiles aimed at Taiwan just as a precaution, but for China all is about image. Speaking about image, anyone that even slightly remembers China’s weapon parade in October 2009 will estimate Taiwan’s survival, if ever a military clash occurs, at zero.

On some occasions it is wise and pragmatic to give in to developing nation’s demands. To that rule China is no exception. But whereas countries such as India and Brazil can be called decent democracies, China is the underdeveloped child in the class. This leads to complications, and these lead to conclusions that do not carry a sense of compromise.  It is utterly senseless to give in to Chinese demands on weapon and war related issues, for the sole reason that its leaders cannot be taken seriously when it comes to these matters. They’re arming themselves like madmen, they are at best reluctant to solve international disputes, they don’t care about human rights and their ties with some nations have the potential to reach boiling point in mere seconds.

Just look at the way in which China reacts. Not a hint of solving the dispute by words; threats lead the way.  Some examples: Cooperation on Iran and North-Korea will be a lot harder to get it the deal goes through – as will for that matter anything that needs Chinese assistance-, military cooperation between the two superpowers is in jeopardy and plans to visit each other’s bases are on hold (which means it is of yet unclear whether U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will go to China, and whether a visit to America by Gen Chen Bingde, a Chinese military chief, will happen).  The visits might be classified as unimportant, yet what about Iran and North-Korea? Is it possible to justify endangering these hugely complex and dangerous topics because China does not want to see Taiwan armed? It is, after all, a willingness to be able to defend your land and life that is the driving force behind this arms deal, unless you can seriously convince yourself Taiwan is the one about to infiltrate.

For China the answer seems clear, so I’m glad America arms Taiwan and I’m also glad that Obama will speak with the Dalai Lama. On points they might have lost some territory, as for instance on the already mentioned defensive character of the deal, on other points this just fits into the whole picture of Obama’s administration. That is not, as any republican would like to tell you, an administration of compromise. It is one that tries to be practical in reaching solutions by taking one step at a time, without losing sight of ideals. And that inevitably leads to paradoxical situations in which the president doesn’t ever want to slam a door, in case he wants to go back later. Remember also, that some doors should never have been opened.

You just cannot be happy with the way in which the West handles China. In philosophy you will often hear the phrase ‘rights trump utilities’. While I do not always agree with that saying, it should unnerve a lot more of our politicians. The large Asian country itself mightn’t be bothered how others solve their internal disputes, we should be (and many of us are). Not because it is good to interfere with businesses that are not your own, only because some systems are not based on consent or voluntary assent of the majority living under its rule.

Google’s (probable) upcoming withdrawal out of China shows just how real this is and to how many obstacles you can run into, even as an internet giant. Imagine how difficult matters are for individual dissidents: Need we say or know more?  As argued before here, China is not yet a match to the US, we definitely shouldn’t make them feel like they are. Our sounds should be louder, the messages tougher and the results better.

Not much news in the things Obama’s spoke about in his ‘State of the Union’ speech.  It was good to hear; he has not lost his demagoguism which made him the president of hope. This president of hope has got some pretty harsh punches though, which he carefully but honestly admitted. Not that he had any choice.

Some things were bound to come up, such as health-care and the financial crisis. His tone was at least pleasing to those who felt wronged in the last twelve months. As Obama spoke about the bank bail-outs, he made it clear that he hated them as much as McCain’s ‘Joe the plumber’: Helping out Wall Street without helping those working on Main Street was and is not the White House’s aim.

I expected him to come up with a little bit more on health-care. There are not many difficulties to overcome, even if the fact to the matter is that those which do remain will be hard to take. A clear message to his own democratic party to back him in his plans, packed in a message to all congressmen to ‘not walk away from reform’. After all, America hasn’t been so close to reform for many, many years. And he is right, although current proposals aren’t good enough. He spoke of the millions that will lose their insurance in the coming year. If that is a correct prediction, it might open republican eyes. The next couple of weeks might tell us more, and I’ll do my best to keep development in plain view.

There was also a slight reassuring message. Without having had the time to plunge the depths of finances, even I was glad to hear Obama backed a plan to cut the deficit. “Specific steps” will be taken to pay for the trillions of dollars, and these steps will start moving in 2011. It’ll be a freeze of government spending for three years. Too late according to republicans, but I doubt that. I’m not at all sure whether the American, or world economy at large, is able to stand on its own feet after depending on government spending for such a long time. Governments have grown huge, so cutting will inevitably have to happen, but carefully, not driven by saving-lunacy. They’ve not done that for years, why over-hurry when the stakes are so high?

This brings us to the next point of Obama’s speech: The workforce. America’s unemployment rate is still rising. That is both bound to create a sense of unease, as well as a negative mood among US citizens. Start making cuts in government too quickly, and even more workers will lose their jobs. A market driven by innovative minds and processes might be much better able to create new jobs; it does need a sense of security in which investment is rule rather than exception. To my knowledge then, Obama does wait long, but it is better than acting too early and slump the economy back into recession (or long term miniscule growth).

I lied earlier on. He did surprise me in his speech on one topic: The Supreme Court. I believe it was last week (?) when the Supreme Court decided spending could be unlimited in electoral campaigns. The president did not agree, and neither do I. The runs for public functions are already too often a pig circus, where budgets and mud throwing competitions decide much too much. Don’t let that get out hand.

The American nation has to come together, and carry the burden. Republicans and democrats working along each other’s side, instead of blindfolding themselves with their ideologies, is the only thing that can bring improvement. Obama knows this, reaffirmed that his first year wasn’t easy and all didn’t go according to plan: He also broadcast a new message of trust and hope. Don’t switch sides too quickly; if he acts decisively his presidency is all but lost.

It’ll be easy to help out Yemen in fighting their fertile soil for terrorism: Give 50 billion dollars over the next ten years, and forget just about half of the country’s debt to other nations. That is, if we may believe Hisham Sharaf, Yemen’s deputy minister of planning and international cooperation.

The plagued countries foreign minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi doesn’t make things much easier. As soon as foreign reform-demands enter the picture, he vigorously starts shaking his head. That’s Yemeni’s business, and can be decided at other times, on different occasions.

Why yes, it can. But it shouldn’t. The last promises made by Western countries towards Yemen stem from 2006, when five billion aid dollars were written down. Only about 415 million of that amount has actually been transferred. Instead of illegitimately complaining about this, the Yemeni government should have started an intense fight against corruption, which is the main reason why investors, of whatever kind, stopped the flow of money.

In recent times we have seen and heard much of this country, formerly so well hidden, or so it seems, from journalistic pens. In all fairness it can be said that – even though nations should have been quicker to step up and act with Yemen, in Yemen – there will ‘always’ remain relatively poor countries, so taking away those things that make terrorism thrive will, in principle, be a hard nut to crack. Spending more money on these countries is therefore not a good way to go if it virtually means flushing money down the toilet.

America has already given its word that it’ll double its efforts in terms of dollars, which mean 140 million dollars will head towards this part of the Arabian Peninsula.  The United Kingdom sticks to their old plan, giving 160 million, spread over a four year term running from 2006 to 2010. How their policies and numbers will be changed is unclear to me, but I figure this will be decided after the elections, by the Tories in probable words. One thing shone nearly as bright as our sun: No military aid in the struggle against al-Qaida. The depth of unpopularity of the Afghan war is great; all are weary to enter another battle. Usual signs of allegiance are present of course, such as training-help, technological hand-outs and arms.

Summarizing things a little, we have two important perspectives. Yemen’s one – a demand for money and social improvement -and a Western one – a cry for security, safety and probably democracy-, both agreeing on the issue of state autonomy and military help. The latter is easy: Just don’t send in soldiers, which cannot be difficult, as sending troops will be political suicide in these times. The remaining aspects of the perspectives are reconcilable, even more so in theory. A demand for money and social improvement generally goes well with democracy and safety.

The problems then do not lie in goals, but in how to achieve them. Personally, I find it erroneous to suppose sending money does any good if the state can’t argue a good case as a justification of how aid-money has been spend in the past, and will be spent in the future. A demand how Yemen intends to do so will be of vital importance therefore. That is the first obstacle, as they are quite reluctant to “listen and obey”. Rescuing a nation in poor health will take time, probably a lot of it, but it will take indefinite time if we’re unable to find solid grounds to build government institutions on.

Of Yemen’s 23 million people, almost half lives on less than two dollars a day. Whatever is your standard of wealth, this is not it. Much of reform has already been discussed by politicians, and I think most Western nations are willing to pay the price to give terrorism another blow. Do it right this time though, and focus on Yemen’s population. Remember: It became a state susceptible to terrorism because it is poor and corrupt. Take away those things, and your problem might disappear as quickly as it arose (to another place). To do so, serious and uncompromising demands will have to be drafted. Yemen must cooperate and take on its own rotten core, only then will dollars and Euros be your friend.

Yesterday the London conference on Yemen was held; today the powers that be will discuss Afghanistan. Where the Afghans will see their country’s future being discussed for a near full day, Yemeni citizens had to hope for results with a two hour meeting. I wrote this more to get my thoughts to line up, than with the intention of posting it. The results of the conference were, however, so desperately predictable that they might as well have gone to the pub instead.

The Netherlands will lead an initiative that needs to help carve a democratic state, based on principles of justice, out of Yemen’s mess. As no meddling is wanted, this will take the form of an advice. How on earth this is going to work still makes me wonder, but in any case they’re willing to do this without spending any more money on the country than they’ve already done, as Koenders and Verhagen (ministers for development cooperation and foreign affairs) state that the Netherlands have already paid a fair amount of money in recent years. That is correct, even if the policy will probably get more expensive if there is no immediate success.

And what else are they aiming for? Social and economic improvement. How? Unclear, though money echoes as always. For the average Yemenite, what does this mean? Not much, as long as prices of bread and stability of gas supplies don’t change. According to journalist Judith Spiegel, located in Yemen, what the Yemeni people want is a new government, plus revolution in the whole social and legal order. Small feat?

It is nearly three years ago that Hamas took over control and started their bloody reign over the Gaza-strip. Seen as the counter side of more secular minded Fatah, it gets little respect except from extremist and other irrational thinking creatures.

Belgium, where Europe’s hearts pumps -on foreign policies like that of a dying man-, planned to send its minister for development there. Israeli Deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon thought this wasn’t a very good idea.

We’ve heard his name in the news before. Only a few weeks ago he had a meeting with the Turkish ambassador, over allegedly insulting video material that was broadcast on Turkish television, after which he stated words in Hebrew that wouldn’t do much good in any Islamic orientated country, or, for that matter, in any country at all.

This time Israel made the news because the Belgium minster was not welcome in Gaza. The reason is Hamas: Israel neither talks, nor wants to recognize this group, which it considers to be a terrorist group (as do many countries).

Humanitarian aid and food is what is allowed into Gaza’s borders, and that is it. That is it indeed, as even those things have slowed down over the past few years. As an outsider to the region, it is difficult to shape your own views, at least if you would like to have any objectivity in them. So many stories meet each other head on while the truth, often so simple, is hidden and obscure. We hear Israel about terrorists’ casualties, and then moments later Hamas comes up with a story that works only if the other version is falsified. I would like to believe, as I don’t doubt many others do too, that the people in Gaza know that Hamas is no good. I actually do believe that, thought I must admit a lingering inability to make a hard, closed case to support that claim.

There are, however, some other issues that the world’s leaders should fight a little harder for. Israel, founded as a Jewish state over half a century ago, was a place “for the Jews”. After the terrible misdeeds of Hitler in the Second World War, and via a route of nasty deals made by former colonial powers, the United Nations agreed to grant them the right for their own state. The history is complicated, messy and unfair. Not just from the UN’s and Israel’s side, but from the other side as well. Those issues must be left behind, as Israel exists and will not be wiped out, whatever some people might hope or think.

With an eye to claiming borderlines as they were before 1967, many, even some of the fiercest anti-Israelis, unwillingly and silently accept that claim. In part it is all the more ironic, that a state with so called Biblical chosen people is neglecting a basic duty of giving each their due. Living in a country that is only theirs because it was granted to them by those who had no right to give it anyway, why not give to those who have lived through their own Diaspora too? Naturally, the people that occupied those areas prior to ‘Zionism’ also have a right to exist, a right to prosperity and certainly a right to fulfillment of basic human needs.

A two-state solution here is the best hope. That won’t succeed without more White House efforts, of that much I am sure. This also means condemning Israel for their settlement building more vigorously. Yes, Netanyahu might have postponed it, but he neither cancelled it nor did it with an indefinite time table. Add on top of that the buildings currently under construction, which by knowledge will be finished, and all his ‘painful step’ does is create some hatred, instead of a lot.

This all goes much further than basic human needs, which is the absolute place to start. From what I’ve heard and read, a practical stop of people going into Gaza has been active since March 2009. This has led to a severe backdrop in humanitarian aid, of which Michel, the Belgian minister for Development, says that only 20% is still arriving on the places where it is needed. And now that Michel isn’t allowed in either, there is an easy political route to take a look at the situation, again.

As a Dutch citizen, and therefore a European one, my hopes are aimed at Brussels. They’ll probably be futile: Their voice is not unified, and it doesn’t carry much weight in comparison to that of the US. The Belgian minister is right in a way, though, which brings us back to the introduction: Israel’s vision differs.

By not allowing him in, it considers itself to keeping a straight backbone. As I see it, it is doing something very different from that. More than anything else it is neglecting not a political organization, but a large group of people who have asked for their sorrows as much as Israeli citizens who are shot at with rockets.  With an aim of bolstering the ideals of the European Union by meeting parts of the population, not every politician is a political message without being a moral one too. I wonder whether Hamas has ever even heard of Belgium in the first place.

Some answer to twitter questions, as I’m completely unable to answer them in 140 characters. Keeping up with the discussion pace isn’t doable for me either, not at this moment anyway. They are the result of remarks/discussions on burqas.

@jurnan Why JESUS never declared “I am God” and u still call him God? Jesus doesn’t know Christ. What’s Christ?

Well the ‘why’ question is probably fairly easy to answer. It is because in 325 C.E. the clergy decided this for us. Tradition made sure it was passed on, at least in western cultures. In a strict sense, however, it is not so that you can call Jesus God. Only if you are a religious believer will you do so.

Historical evidence does not point to him as if he thinks he is God at all. All the ‘evidence’ we have for his words and life mostly stem from the four canonical gospels, and the Nag-Hammadi texts, found at Qumran. The texts of Nag-Hammadi were probably written at least two centuries after Jesus’ death, though Qumran is dated variedly from 250 BCE to 100 CE.

These all present a very divergent picture of Jesus’ life and words. Unlike many people these days believe, it is Christianity in its beginnings that is very divergent, not Christianity these days. Of course we have many different streams and interpretations, but that is something that has always been present. Any fool that says ‘we should go back to pure Christianity’ can therefore be mocked with my support.

@jurnan U did not reply why Christian nuns and Hindu women also cover their face?

No I didn’t.  but I’ll give it a try now. This is an excerpt from the New American Standard Bible. There are some differences between translations, but their message is quite the same.

^NAS 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

^NAS 1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head.

^NAS 1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved.

^NAS 1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head

^NAS 1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

^NAS 1 Corinthians 11:8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

^NAS 1 Corinthians 11:9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.

^NAS 1 Corinthians 11:10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

That ought to explain why Christian nuns do so. It doesn’t explain why Hindu’s do so, but I’m sorry, I’m in no position to make any judgments on their motivations for wearing them at this stage. So please, maybe you will be able to explain it to me. If not, I’ll dig into my books; I have some laying around on Hinduism and Indian society.

@humourking Humanity can never hate each other. If u visit Muslim countries, u will find they are lovely, clean and hospitable people.

Yes, you will, likewise in probably other, non-Muslim, countries. I don’t believe in men as having a bad nature: Man has nature, and it is mostly one apt for social conventions and communities. It is not that which is at stake or at issue. It is those things which go against those very things – i.e. hatred towards other opinions, oppression and indoctrination etc- that should be discussed and, if possible, solved.

@jurnan It’s NOT social pressure any more. It has become a powerful political message to exercise once free will and choice.

It is a political message indeed, but a political message without social cooperation will die out sooner or later. For the very reason that it is a political message, I want it out of sight. As much as I think anyone should be free to express his or her own ideas, I wouldn’t want that to be at cost of minority liberties.

You can spot this trend in Switzerland, where they recently approved a ban of Islamic minarets. It’s not the minarets they oppose, as there are only a few. It is the message this building-addition carries with it: An Islamic tendency to think itself superior, to grant itself a prominent place on the horizon of everyone else.

@jurnan Islam preaches equality, modesty and universal brotherhood. Burqa is a social dress code adopted by Muslims inline with this prncpl.

I certainly do not agree with that. Just like the Jewish Torah, you will be able to put religious writing to any use you see fit. Islam does not preach universal brotherhood: It preaches brotherhood among Muslims. As you know, many Muslims see Muhammed as their example. Living like him, living up to his ideals, is what they like to aim for. As his word is also that has been written down in the Q’uran, if we may believe tradition (try Robert Spencer’s book “The Truth about Muhammed”), take a simple look at two fragments (there are many more):

That is because they believed, then they rejected Faith: So a

seal was set on their hearts: therefore they understand not.

When thou lookest at them, their exteriors please thee; and

when they speak, thou listenest to their words. They are as

(worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to

stand on their own). (Qur’an 63:1-8)

And you’ll remember the ‘pigs and monkeys’ references so common in the Islamic world these days, directed at Jews:

As his armies approached the fortifications of the Qurayzah, Muhammad addressed them in terms that have become familiar usage for Islamic jihadists when speaking of Jews today—language that also made its way into the Qur’an: “You brothers of monkeys, has God disgraced you and brought His vengeance upon you?” The Qur’an in three places (2:62-65;5:59-60; and 7:166) says that Allah transformed the Sabbath-breaking Jews into pigs and monkeys. (Spencer, ‘the truth about Muhammed’, p129)

There isn’t much egalitarianism hidden  in there if you ask me. Not much brotherhood either.

@jurnan Define literacy.

I also got the question to define literacy. Defining is an exhaustive business; I will never be able to do it satisfactorily at it always leaves something out. Still, what is most relevant is that people who are literate are able to read for themselves. This means reading the Quran or other religious texts is no longer something that makes them depend on authorities in the crudest sense.

Something you see in Afghanistan for instance, where locals are unable to counter arguments or prescriptions because they simply don’t know what is true and what isn’t.  Can you imagine the strength of an argument when it is said to come from Allah’s prophet?

I’d fight America, or indeed any invader or opponent of the Taliban or institutions, if I, as a religious believer, thought it needed to be done because God wanted it done (hypothetical, naturally).

We’ve all heard the apocalypse that approaches Obama’s democratic administration. Massachusetts has elected a new senator: Scott Brown. Suddenly all you hear is the word ‘filibuster’.

Exaggeration is not good in politics or journalism. It creates irrationality. Just how quickly this is relevant here, I cannot tell. I am inclined to say it is a serious signal for a traditional democratic state to elect a republican senator. Then again, Obama was never expected to have an easy second year, so does it matter?

It just might, for what is at stake here is health-care reform. Many republicans would love to stop the president dead in his tracks here. That’d be like a bomb going off right in his face, damaging his image on his own soil, more than anywhere else. In other countries this is much less important. Only those who are trying to make up the balance of Obama’s first year, or who are reviewing his general path, present their views in direct relation to his performance.

Much of Obama’s campaigning focused on health-reform, however. So he’ll be desperate to get at least something through. He has several options here. At this moment both the House and the Senate have passed a bill. This means that, if one of these accepts the other’s proposal, the essential foundation for reform has been completed. There is only one route that has any potential for success here: The House of Representatives must accept the Senate’s version. The other way around is virtually impossible.

Even seeing the House adopt the Senate’s version, in order to get something implemented, seems unlikely though. Several reasons will take care of that. Most important is that the Senate has not included a government run insurance-scheme. Pelosi once said that “she would not accept anything that didn’t’ include a government-run scheme”. It does provide the option for states to adopt such a scheme, but add to that the unpopularity of the current direction in which things are heading, and it’ll make many representatives very reluctant to accept anything at all at this stage, fearing for their next elections.

Obama could also opt for another route. In order to do so he will have to come up with ideas and plans that cure wounds in the current system. Thinking in financial terms will do much good here: Eradicating rules and policies that waste valuable dollars, but which are nevertheless being overlooked or ignored by many democrats, will please at least some republicans.

“Cost control” will be the magic word. If he manages to cover distance that way, he might be able to reform health-care step by step, instead of drastically, though insufficiently, changing all at once. Most democrats might still be on the president’s side; it would still be a good thing if they kept, or started, looking at some of the republican’s better arguments.

The next Iraqi elections are crucial. There are the more obvious things no one wants to see, such as fraud, violence and deaths, but there are also aspects of the democratic process that are a lot less clear. Remarkably, the old Saddam-Baath party is an example.

They should be kept at bay when it comes to politics is the general tendency. In the past, they have proven themselves to be able to ruin all that can be thought of as fair and free. To which extent does this process need guidance?

To answer that, consider the widely known fact that, even though Shi’ites (Shi’as or Shiites) made up the majority of Iraq’s people, the iron first Saddam-regime with its Sunni-ways waved the scepter. Relationships between religious groups are already, or indeed still, fragile and cannot handle severe blows. Quite simply stated, however, that is exactly what happens when people get punished by being excluded from the upcoming elections.

At this moment Iraq expects to hold Parliamentary elections on March 7^th. That means there is still time; it also means there is not much of it. An electoral commission, called ‘Accountability and Justice’, has already excluded over 500 people from participation. They’re not just names either. One of them is said to be Abdulqadir al-Obeidi, the current minister for defense. This brings two questions readily to mind. The first that arises is whether this can be justified. We know of past-misgivings and crimes, but these are to be handled and decided in court; that is an essential step towards being a more democratized state. You cannot punish people by taking away public rights, unless this is done via the legal system. The second question concerns the political foundations for legitimizing and enforcing any decisions made by the commission. As it never got parliamentary approval, this means – at least according to Iraq’s president Jalal Talabani- that it never had anything to go on in the first place, hence the reason why that very same president took the issue to Supreme Court.

Now giving people the opportunity to speak-out and participate is important. Preventing the Baath-party from coming back is as well. While this is a task you could label as legitimate, it should be a signal more than it is a process of fierce political silencing. Even idiots should be allowed to talk and participate. It is voters that should laugh and punish them; not by formal exclusion, but by means of getting no votes. When toes cross the line that is law, then there will be room for punishment.

The religious problems so omnipresent in those regions should not get any more fuel either. Is it really worth it to exclude a number of people, if that means enraging many more Sunnis? I’ll finish with an insufficient answer to the first question: To which extent does this process need guidance?  I, for one, do not think it needs any. What is important is preventing fraud and violence, and then, if that goal can be met, the people of Iraq are to decide what happens next.  Can you imagine the rise of a new Baath-party, which escapes the commission’s attention, while also escaping that of the Shi’ites -majority that had to endure their governance?

France is much further when it gets to banning things that are associated with oppression than the U.K. is. Still, there are sounds and ideas that call for a similar policy on burqas on the isles. Surprisingly enough this is coming not from the British National Party (BNP), but from the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

As always, politicians are clear to underline their impartiality by stressing something along that runs along the lines of ‘this is not a move against Islam or Muslims per se’. Indeed, it isn’t. As I argued a couple of days ago, such moves should be seen for what they are: The protection of egalitarian and libertarian principles.

It was Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP) that claimed this was the way to move forward, by stating that

“It makes sense to ban the burqa — or anything which conceals a woman’s face — in public buildings. But we want to make it possible to ban them in private buildings. It isn’t right that you can’t see someone’s face in an airport.”

As a reply to that you could argue that, like for instance Neurope.eu has done, this is a very strange way to move about if it is to be seen as not anti-Muslim policy. Especially as the UKIP is regarded as a libertarian party, which makes government roles and interferences in people’s lives look counter-intuitive. Legislating what we can and what we cannot wear seems strange to adherents of libertarian legacies. It is not as strange as it might seem, however.

No doctrine of Islam, that goes to the heart of the religion, makes wearing a veil or burqa obligatory. You will be sure to find rules for wearing them further along the road, when particular, more diverse and radicalized interpretations find their way into people’s minds. This does not mean that our freedom of religion is at stake. On the contrary: Freedom of religion is not a right that goes beyond freedom of expression and opinion, it is one that builds upon these. The problem here is: Does freedom of religion create opportunities and situations in which particular groups based on gender or ethnicity are subjected to things they might not want?

The answer to that is a clear yes. Not in all cases, no. Probably not even in most of the cases. In some cases, however, the answer must be a definite nod. Now that brings us to a very hard issue. You cannot expect women to sue their husbands, which would be a problematic and unlikely event stemming from someone indebted to Islamic-based cultures. You cannot leave them without any sort of protection and rights either.

And this is the reason why forbidding burqas or veils are no signs of anti-Islamic tendencies, or at least not in the sense people think they are. Many people, and I include myself on that list, think that basic rights of freedom should exist for everyone. Freedom of religion should be a result of that wish. In the U.K., Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S.A. you can choose and live up to your own ideals, only because there are laws providing a foundation in which freedoms can function. In a sense, and not completely correct, this is as much as saying that there are laws that hold you back, only so that you will not hold other people back. Those are egalitarian laws that do not discriminate between people on the basis of things that are thought to be irrelevant (i.e. gender, ‘race’, and ethnicity). And that is where and why the ways of some Islamists clash with those of libertarians.

If all was well, if all knew that veils and burqas are being worn as a sign of religious piety, rather than subduing the ‘other gender’, no problems would have arisen.  As that is not clear, and as that is exactly what is at stake, even libertarians are willing to step in to protect their base that lies in equality and freedom.

Arguing along this line also solves two arguments brought forward by Neurope.eu. One speaks of the association with terrorism. As I don’t associate burqas with terrorism, any support from my side to the anti-burqa law would make me side with anti-Muslim laws, unless of course it turns out that all terrorists wear burqas. But, as I argued, the reason why we should oppose burqas at this stage is because they are in direct opposition towards the most essential aspect of our modern-day democracies. Coming up with a law against wearing ‘balaclavas’ then, would be of no use, as they are not a sign of discrimination or less freedom. If at any given moment in the near future, Christians will demand that all Christian women start wearing balaclavas, then I cannot stress enough that I would support a law that forbids balaclavas with all my might, right from the start.

That is not something that’ll happen, as our culture differs to an enormous extent on many issues. I wouldn’t go as far as saying they cannot be blended into something that works. When all sides are willing to cooperate, and have a common language to use, then most issues will resolve themselves as long as people keep using their heads. Too bad, many people are not willing or just unable to use their heads (and that happens on both sides of the coin!). And for as long as that is the case, and words cannot resolve (minor) cultural clashes, than we are in a position where we should make sure that we maintain our beliefs in equality and freedom, even if that means restricting others that might create obstacles for an individual to live his or her own life.

In January of 2009 the Dutch government erected a commission burdened with the task of investigation procedures, reasons and mistakes that were made in 2003, when America and the U.K. decided to invade Iraq, which got political support of the Netherlands.

This report has now finally materialized. Over 500 pages present a wide, partly historical view, of what happened in the early years of this millennium, without forgetting processes that have taken place years, or even decades, earlier, which have seen much Dutch political meddling.

It could be argued that little weight might be given to anything that focuses solely on Dutch politics when it comes to these grand, international matters. In general, that would be correct. But although this investigation stems from a relatively small country; it still is a bold underline to an already fiercely debated topic. A general trend towards more objective criticism on government decision procedures and involvement can be spotted in more countries, of which the U.K. is of course one, wherefore I thought bringing this news was relevant to a more general public.

Too bad little is presented in the result of this investigation that was not previously known. On the contrary, there was disappointment on the lack of rigor in condemning the Dutch government. One journalist, who was a guest in evening talk-show ‘De Wereld Draait Door’, repeated what he had stated before by saying that “already in 1998 we knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction” and that the Netherlands, who promised no military involvement, “participated in exploration with F16’s”.

Problem here is the evidence. The sources who speak of F16-usage are anonymous, so their reliability is as questionable as anything. Even so, many people were willing to dig deeper into this issue. David and his men, however, decided to opt for the road supported by the arm of law, neglecting opportunities that could have given us a more profound insight. Their reason for doing so was not persuasive: It could very well be that these sources, possibly military ones, were not allowed to have spoken out in the first place, wherefore the material could be considered illegal and is better ignored. As there wasn’t much more to go on, they dropped it.

Leaving that behind, there still remains a lot to be discussed. Some of this is Dutch politics only; much of it touches broader concerns. It is quite reasonable to suspect that, if the Dutch government knew Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, then so did U.K. and U.S.A. governments. It is equally reasonable to conclude that no country fought a war that can be called legitimate via the chosen route. And while the U.S.A. and U.K. directly fuelled the whole process, The Hague showed lack of spine in their response. In a sense they can be said to have fared even worse: Deciding not to go forth and support America, like France and Germany had also done, would have been wise, sound, responsible and, not in the least sense, justified.

The whole affair was messy and obscure, right from the start. The Dutch parliament did not know that the American government filed an official request for support to build up military forces for an Iraq-invasion on November 15^th, 2002. Only in January 2003 more light was shed on the issue, when prime-minister Balkenende weakly and unconvincingly joined the debate. Gathered information by the AIVD, the Dutch CIA only without torture affairs, and the MIVD (Military intelligence/information and security unit) had also provided the Dutch parliament with their reports and viewpoints on an Iraqi invasion, in a much more nuanced tone than those from foreign intelligence organizations. These were all too readily and easily cast aside, fitting with the picture that it no longer mattered: A decision had already been made.

Now this is definitely something clearly stated by the Davids-commission in their book, which I am not about to summarize to you. The facts that I just mentioned already point out where problems can be found. First of all, the government did not extensively, if at all, use available sources. Second, their opinion was formed quickly and emotionally, rather than via a route of reasoned argument (even without taking sources into account). Third, de Hoop Scheffer, then minister of foreign affairs, had a ridiculous and profound influence over the decision procedure. In a time span of less than an hour something as important as a war got its first, if still temporal, approval. Accusations that de Hoop Scheffer only gave his support to the war in order to get the secretary-general job at the United Nations were proven to be baseless; even if he did only get the job because of support, he did not provide it in order to get it.

An extra dimension is brought in by voters. Polls suggest little support among citizens for political support without military support (46% opposed this, while 43% supported it), but even less backing existed for ‘full-blown’ military support (only 18% ). What probably was the most important conclusion, in my eyes, was that whatever may have happened, an attack on Iraq without UN support or mandate was unjustified. And this was no secret. Practically every citizen was aware of this; the only ones seemingly still able to ignore this were politicians, of whom Dutch prime-minister Balkenende was one until yesterday-evening, when he finally gave in and admitted mistakes made by him and his party: Support for the war arrived too quickly, and should not have been given without the UN’s mandate. On the other hand, on a side note, it could be stressed that from an American perspective this arguments is less important. We should not expect them to wait going to war if they think the cause to be a legitimate one. Security is a complex issue these days, and the bureaucratic systems of Europe are often slow and not transparent. Only this argument is deflated not just by a lack of suitable and reliable evidence that could justify a war, but the absence of it on the whole.

There is one small upside to this new report. If forces Dutch parties that were involved towards recognizing mistakes. As I just mentioned this did not go down easy with Balkenende, who is the leader of the christian democrats (CDA). He refused to take over the document’s conclusions, stubbornly holding onto a view that made you think they took a wise decision to the best of his and his party’s abilities. Well, if it truly is the best you were able to pull off, it might be better to give up politics altogether. His stance has nearly led to a pre-mature break-up of the governing coalition. Sadly, it did not get this far: A full day of talks prevented early elections.

Only to those without the tiniest bit of education in European history might ‘the French revolution’ be a new term. It was, by near definition, a time of political and social upheaval, a revolution by the book: Bloody, drastic, influential and the sort of tale fit to make legends.

And so it did. For ten years, from 1789 until 1799, it drastically changed the way politics would be perceived for centuries to come. There are many things that can, one way or another, be traced back to the French revolution. Feudalism was cut off at its roots, monarchs were restored and executed, Napoleon entered the scene and empires were built and torn down.

But the French revolution is remembered in the minds of people for a slogan too: Liberté, égalité et fraternité, meaning liberty, equality and fraternity. This led to a secular tradition, combined with such pride that only one example would serve us well as an illustration. Back in the days, when king were seen as god’s replacement on earth, divine trust and legitimization made people loyal. Any act against the king, was an act against god. When, on 17^th of January 1793, Louis XVI was condemned to death, we could almost say a tradition died with it.

Many Western traditions have a secular constitution, among them America.  Yet in America president Obama had to lay his hand on a bible, and people in court hear the words ‘so help you god’. The French would be utterly perplexed if this happened in their public institutions. I believe no western state is as fearful as is France when it comes to losing its secular character, for which it feels that it fought so hard to attain. In order to preserve these precious gifts of history, they are willing to go to surprising lengths in limiting other aspects of people’s lives.

Lately, particularly Switzerland created upheaval across the globe by a minaret ban, as many Swiss people saw these as a sign of Islamic imperialism (there is a sort article on that issue on this site). Wild rounds of applause by right-wing parties across Europe followed, most vividly expressed by Wilder’s, no doubt sincere, congratulations to the Swiss people for their ‘splendid decision’. With recent threats to the Danish cartoonist, bad news from Yemen on terrorists, problems in Iran and with Pakistan being picky on which parts of the Taliban they want to fight (Afghan Taliban is mostly left alone, while the Pakistani Taliban, who are responsible for many suicide bombings in Pakistan, has had to endure many attacks by the army), we can hardly say Islam is thriving in the minds of secular rationalists. In France, however, things are of a different order.

There it is much less a right-wing anti-Islam offensive and much more of an enduring process that defends equality for everyone, by virtue of fighting things that are associated with radicalism. Already in 2004 a law went into force forbidding the burqa in public schools and on identity cards. It is as if they ran years ahead on the now as fraudulent perceived debate on multiculturalism. More and more people who think ‘outsiders will accustom to our values, traditions and opinions’ are being ridiculed and booed off-stage.

And to a certain extent this is justified: Doing nothing simply does not work. But too much enthusiasm, with stereotype ways of interpreting your own culture, which is then shoved down immigrants’ throats like they did in the Netherlands, will not work either. The Dutch’ heard-headed, unrealistic ways of bending people into newly baptized model-citizens was far from a success (constant policy changes and additions to a rotten core won’t do much to cure that). This is not to say that no firm measures are needed. You cannot simply let people in, without subjecting them to rules by which the game is played.

And that is what the French state is aiming for. If you want to live in France, then you will act and behave like it. This does not mean you will have to undergo a diet of wine and baguettes while wearing ugly caps, but it does mean the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, and indeed the French language. Don’t get me wrong. With millions of immigrants problems are bound to arise; then again, so do problems pop up among ‘ordinary’ citizens (forgive me my bold statements. I do not mean racial divisions, but elaborating on each term will make this text unreadable. I think you know what I am aiming for; if you do not, then please feel free to comment and I will elaborate).

These principles are part of a heritage, now deemed valuable enough by politicians to stick out their necks and ban burqas in public altogether. At least, that is the direction the French state is now heading for. Many fear violent reactions by Islamists, or much negative publicity that will bend the effect-curve of the ban downwards, instead of making it a positive addition to cultural and political upholding of values. With a five to six million Muslim population, it is a courageous step by any standards though. Nicolas Sarkozy summed up why this step is necessary: It is a ‘sign of subservience and debasement’.

It would be a safe bet to state that many will find this an inappropriate step. Especially other European governments will be quick in casting their doubts on the policy. The step itself is not unsound, however. Not many people will be affected by this new measure, at most a couple of thousands: This is not in itself an argument of course, though it does send a very clear signal to people by underlining that it is neither numbers nor religion they care about. It is a signal not just to Muslims, without sending it to everyone else.

Something as simple as looking a person into his or her eyes, seeing a facial expression and making recognition a possibility are not things we should consider to eradicate from public life, especially not if gender discrimination decides who should and should not be concealed. Keep that in mind: This should not be seen as a step against Muslims. It should be seen for what it is and what it does. No direct Islamic doctrine prescribed wearing a veil or burqa. And in any case, Muslims, like Christians, are free to practice their religion according to French tradition: Privately.