Small talk

Another crucial phase for Iraq’s future has passed. How does one sum up the March 7^th parliamentary elections? Not with a one-liner.

Starting with voter turn-out estimates, said to lay around 62%. To some that figure is a disappointment, especially in comparison with Iraq’s previous election. Nevertheless, the share of people eligible to vote that actually showed up is  larger than during Britain’s last election, however. “So what”, you might reply. Well, Britain wasn’t plagued by bombs set off by mobile phones and other, sadly more effective, acts of terrorism.

Seen from that perspective, one can easily understand how right US president Obama was in stating that he had “great respect for the millions of Iraqis who refused to be deterred by acts of violence, and who exercised their right to vote.” Because that is after all what happened: Even for ‘modernized’ democratic states, 62% is not a bad number.

The inevitably question is: What will happen next? Official results will probably not be available for a month and a government coalition isn’t anywhere in sight even if results make their public debut sooner than that. And, unlike in previous years, politics are now at the center stage by being Iraq’s biggest obstacle for a better future. If reasons for invading are cast aside, it is to Mr. Bush’s credit that security has improved greatly. His final attempt to secure life in the Arab state has been reasonably successful. Training too has worked out well, as more than a million people are now wearing uniforms in Iraq. Paying public sector workers already accounts for about a fifth of the total budget (and it is also the reason why unemployment rate isn’t causing heart attacks).

Despite that there is no denying the many deaths each month: It is not quite yet a ’safe haven’.  Last week’s elections – i.e. the government coalition eventually to to result from it – will only be proven useful if sectarianism can be overcome,  and that cannot be taken for granted, as it will mean that Sunni Muslims, who held power during Saddam’s reign, need to accept they will not have most of the power, and on the other hand that Shia Muslims need to realize that they cannot and should not abuse their majority.

Where in America’s senate 60 is the magic number, Iraq’s legislative chamber requires 163 for a majority in the legislative upper house. It is very, very unclear who will be part of it. The Iraqi National Alliance, a fierce Shia group (though leaning less on Iran than its rival the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq), is said to have done well, but Arab pride is growing too as shown by the rise (in admittedly notoriously unreliable Iraqi polls) of the Iraqi National Movement, led by Mr. Allawi.  He relied on a more secular –hence in this case less sectarian – way of campaigning, quite different from the Iranian tradition and theocracy, which is anyway much more Persian than Arab.

A split coalition is, I think, the safest bet. Kurdish involvement is expected by many, and that would be a good thing if one desires a representative government. And while they might not be the largest ethnic group, their numbers are great enough to ensure possibilities of filling in a vital role in the formation of a coalition. Another good candidate to participate therein is Shia party Dawa – led by the current Prime Minster Maliki – both thanks to his (expected) good performance in the elections, as well as the options he holds in steering the current policies of his country that might influence future agreements (and disagreements).

In the meantime an issue re-enters the scene, one that was thought to be dead: The withdrawal of American troops. The deadline approaches.  If the Iraqi government makes a request to the White House that some troops need to remain on their soil for a longer period, than Obama should give in, which means breaking an electoral promise.

The reason is simple. After spending hundreds of billions of dollars in a war nobody likes, we finally arrived at a stage where not all seems to have been done for nothing. Saddam is gone, Iraq is free and more secure, and has a lot of economic potential. But, in order to make sure those prospects and achievements are protected, security is essential. Being free on paper while still running the risk of being blown up whenever you stick your nose out of the front door is not a true form of being free. It is like having the freedom to think about criticizing the Kremlin, while KGB-idiots are looking for any expressions that might betray those thoughts, only to turn those into the full penalty of law.

All we can do now is wait for the results to lead to a long, bumpy road. That road is essential in more than just the respect of the latest elections; it is also a test of the durability of Iraq’s democracy. Let us hope for the best.

Last week the United Nations officially made a request to the Dutch government to lengthen their stay in Afghan province Uruzgan. However much the Christian Democrats (CDA) would like to fulfil that demand, each day that passes makes this less likely to happen.

Especially Labour Party (Partij van de Arbeid) refuses to let go of the last agreement, in which a withdrawal was scheduled to take place in August 2010. Despite requests from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen, they have made it very clear that they will not give in.

Ben Bot, who is a former UN-diplomat and minister, says that Holland is making a fool of itself by wasting their carefully crafted image on the international scene: “It isn’t about what you have done; it is about what you are doing”. The aim of his argument is international influence. You can’t, being as small as the Netherlands, demand to be heard and listened to, while neglecting those tasks that grant exactly these privileges.

There is some truth to his message. The Netherlands would have never received the praise it had from Clinton if no participation took place, let alone that Fogh Rasmussen would have labelled their work in Uruzgan as ‘the standard’ for all countries. That is not the question, however. The question is whether or not achieving a better reputation is enough to justify lengthening a stay in an already unpopular war.

On the whole, I would say it is not. It is an odd thing to perceive so much talk about what is in our interest, while the most important request of all gets so little attention: The one made by the governor of Uruzgan. Not because Afghan politics is reliable, by all standards it is not, but because he governs on a level that has actual input to the lives of Afghans (unlike president Karzai).

Being part of a representative democracy, we had a choice: A war, or no war? The same cannot be said of the people living in the region where our troops are located. Instead of focusing on what is in our best interest, we should be focusing on why we are there. If that cause is still a legitimate one, then we ought not to leave. And are we to leave, then another will have to take over. Canada might be a candidate, though whichever country it is, it will have to start from scratch. Rebuilding bases, trust and connections takes valuable time and money.

Sadly for the Christian Democrats, the prevailing point of view seems to be that the west’s own economic crisis and other internal problems are hard enough to cope with without a war in the Middle East to fight. And they might have sympathizers, but they lack actual allies.

Iran is a trouble(d) country, a place where women are oppressed and do not enjoy the equality as many grew so accustomed to. Its reign is one of terror, its fist made of iron and patience is running low. Ahmadinejad is considered a recalcitrant and extremely provocative leader who can only do well in the eyes of those who hate ‘Western Capitalism’, such as Venezuela’s leader Hugo Chavez.

While women are oppressed, they are also the spearheads of forces steering towards a revolution. My knowledge is not great enough to tell whether or not one is coming any time soon, but I certainly hope so. There is a reason why women are said to be so active in the protests: They have most to gain.

Change is what is needed on many fronts. China and Russia are still holding the west back in imposing sanctions on Iran. You might ask, why not walk the path on your own? And that would be a relevant question. The USA fought the war in Iraq without UN support, but they’re unwilling to impose economical sanctions on Iran, just because China does not want this. It is as ridiculous as it sounds. Even the people of Iran -who are being told over and over again that everything wrong can be attributed to the west-, realize this is an inadequate explanation or justification of their lives of fear. You cannot criticize religious institutions, you cannot criticize the government.

China has a ‘hands-off’ approach along the lines of ‘don’t meddle with our internal affairs, and we won’t even bother to ask you questions on the most simple of things’. This is easy, as they themselves are as corrupt, vicious and unrighteous. In the meantime Iran is setting course to become a nuclear power, which is why actions taken by the UN and USA are so absurd. Though I am no fan of Israeli policies in general, their devotion to secure their existence and freedom via fierce military action can teach us a lot. In the 80’s they acted swiftly when Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear reactor. If they feel endangered, they attack. If Israel knew it would succeed, then I am convinced they would have destroyed each and every one of Iran’s nuclear sites.

My suggestion is not going to war, not at all. There are many ways to get what you want, and politics combined with economics can lead to persuasive results. Fact is that our policies were too soft for too long, which means words and deeds must now be combined in a much more offensive manner to get anything done. Economic sanctions, to prevent Iran from continuing their nuclear projects, are easily justified here, though I doubt that it’ll be enough (if anything at this point still is), as they’re notoriously difficult when it comes to making compromises.

They’re also notoriously infantile on human-rights. Yes, they might have officially signed the declaration of universal human-rights, but that will not prevent nine upcoming executions for ‘taking up arms against God’. One more reason to keep your state well separated from religion.
Under all circumstances, I oppose the penalty of death. It is both irreversible and immoral. It takes us down to a level characterized by revenge, rather than keeping in mind who is the criminal and who should be the wiser man (or woman, naturally). Lady Ashton, the High Representative of the European Commission, clearly agrees as you can read here in a press release. I am very glad that the EU unanimously agrees that the death penalty is not a solution, not even an option.

Europe has its Lisbon Treaty, it is time to step up, take the stage and play the aspired role. Simple words which can be waved away like an irritating mosquito will not bring us anywhere. There are two countries toying with Europe: China and Iran. Its time to put that to an end.

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?

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?

Some Dutch politicians can make me laugh by their or lovely way of ‘delivering’ a message or setting an example, as if they are still a part of the old world order where Dutch ships ruled the waves and held an abnormal amount of power for such a small country . They like to take the lead in European matters, they like to talk about Iraq and Afghanistan as influential folks and they gave the Americans political support for their war in Iraq, though no military support. Last week, Dutch politician Koenders threatened to pull the plug out of financial support to Mr. Karzai, in hoping this will make him take corruption more seriously. I doubt it’ll make a difference, but I agree with him wholeheartedly, since Karzai does not make me feel that we are dealing with a reliable politician.

But we want Afghanistan to be peaceful, so we will have to deal with him. There are many doubts about democracy in the region already, concerning the impossibility of ‘imposing’ democracy which is surely true, since you cannot force someone to be democratic. Iraq serves as ammunition for this argument, yet this no longer seems fully justified. The extent to which it has been stabilized is pretty impressive. Yes, recent violence points in another direction, but so do the targets at which it was aimed. The extent to which Iraqis are participating in dialogue is also surprising; with elections coming up political parties even seem prepared to set cultural and ideological differences aside.  And that is good to see, especially with foreign forces leaving Iraq sooner rather than later. This, in combination with the obscure future of Afghanistan, confronts us with dilemmas: Should we leave either of the two countries?

Iraq

On the whole, I think not. I don’t think we should leave either of them behind. Many politicians seem to think so too, despite falling public support of both projects. On the issue of Iraq there is little choice left. Obama made a firm promise during his electoral campaign, and he will be ridiculed if he now declares he’ll prolong the stay. Being ridiculed might be bad for his current reputation, acting like a fool will do him no favors in the long run. The war in Iraq has cost fortunes, lives, patience and time, but it did not, contrary to many opinions probably based on the illegitimacy of the war, sent the country on the road to ruins. It is much safer than it used to be and recent violence was not aimed at any western army in particular. If it was aimed at anything, then the current government can probably claim to be the would-be target, for American soldiers are no longer patrolling the streets, and why should they?

Their bases are located in parts less often seen by public eyes, which by means of less publicity is a good thing. Withdrawing them altogether, while they are so well-trained and equipped, is still something vulnerable to heavy doubts from more sides than you would have thought. In the past years the question has always been whether countries should withdraw or not, putting what is best for Iraq or what is a good way to achieve it not totally on the side-line, but rating it as of secondary importance.  That is not a good way to handle this matter. Iraqi forces might think they are up to the job in taking care of national security, but that doesn’t mean that they actually are. Experience and knowledge is not something you can expect from such a young organization, whereas the Americans and Europeans have plenty of it. A smaller group devoted to Iraq, aimed at handling emergency situations and training should be reconsidered, even if they are located outside of Iraq. The U.N. is especially weary of such an initiative, but it would be near failure if, in a time of crisis, we won’t be ready to lend a newly elected government a hand. We don’t want to stop democracy dead in its tracks.

With elections scheduled at the end of January next year, it will be important to take precautions. The Americans are leaving Iraq no later than 2011, though up till then it seems at least 50,000 troops will stay put, taking care of just the job they should be taking care of: Training Iraqi’s. This is especially important because no one knows how next year elections will turn out, though everyone fears one that is splattered with blood, since the attacks by Al-Qaeda are generally arbitrary and take much civilian toll. If the elections succeed the question will be how the newly elected government will cope with violence, unstable stability and domestic issues.

The best way to satisfy your people is by creating more wealth, security and better institutions. Those are no easy targets indeed, but since health care and electricity have been extremely poor over the last years, we have good hopes that improvement will be all the more noticeable.  Better electricity networks might also have positive effects on the reliability of mobile phone networks, which are immensely popular: Over 20 million people use them on a 27 million population. Trade also needs a boost. Oil is the first that springs to mind, but to sell more oil infrastructure and stability are once again of the greatest importance. And a reminder that it is unwise to bet on one horse: Economies should not be dependant solely on one product, diversity is a must. A slight focus on the Kurds might do well. They hold a strategic position when it comes to trade. If the government will be able to make a deal with them, then options might at last be open for better trade relations with for instance Turkey, which will give the economy another big boost.

And Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is of course totally different. Subtracting more forces is possible only in the most unlikely of events. Obama is careful not to tread on important toes, or as I sometimes think he does not want to tread on anyone’s toes at all. He does this for obvious reasons: Slam a door and you’ll be in trouble when you want to go back. Afghanistan is not something you will go back to however. His army, and hopefully that of several European countries as well, is not going anywhere.

This makes Afghanistan much more difficult than Iraq. The latter might force us to ask painful questions, but at least we as good as know that we’ll leave anyway, even if only because the American people will not accept anything else. Our greatest problem is that we do not know who is able to make the best decisions.  Should it be general McCrystal? He is the general, well-respected and above all well informed on the situation. His requests and proposals shouldn’t be rejected out of hand therefore. We need not worry, because Obama isn’t doing so: He is considering extra troops; 40.000 if the general gets his way, less if he is set for compromising. I deem the latter to be more likely, since such grand enforcements are neither cheap nor popular.  It is clear however, that the “war of necessity” has lost it claim as a correct title. Complete withdrawal is no option yet, but the fact that political willingness to extend troop-numbers is a lot less heard than ‘staying a little longer’ should put you on your guard.

Among money and bitter prospects, corruption is one of the reasons. And this is what Dutch politician Koenders aimed at when talking about Afghan-support, and also why I had to snigger. Karzai and his men would not get a promised 25 million Euros of aid-money as long as they did not fight corruption. I don’t think it’ll make much of a difference. I doubt even whether Karzai knows as much as the existence of our country. Bu no 25 million Euros if nothing gets done, and rightly so.

Karzai will be sworn into office as an illegitimate president soon. The elections were a huge fraud, and his government stronghold remains filled with corrupt officials and friends. And like the Dutch, Karzai and his countrymen probably like to think of themselves as important. They are, if not for world peace then at least for peace and welfare in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is no mean feat as we should not forget. That is also the reason why we should not neglect or leave the issue unresolved.

Whether we need 20.000 more men or 40.000 in order to stabilize Afghanistan is beside the point, because anyone claiming less or no mission-expansion will be inclined either to leave or to propose a different way of fighting. Leaving would be a severe blow to the people of Afghanistan. It is not to their government that we owe anything, it is to those people, to whom, by entering warfare and promising to root out the Taliban and terrorists to western civilians, we also made a promise. On their lands has been fought, their crops have been devastated. And while we lost hundreds of soldiers, they lost thousands of family members, houses and large shares of their possessions. The price of this war has been put in money and in lives, but seldom in Arab numbers.

Amidst all the global talks on justice, global warming and nuclear powers, there are the troubled lives of rural Afghans. The world of grand politics is far away from their homes, because regional politics is what matters. Our aims should be focused at those we are trying to help, not at those who we are fighting as McCrystal reminded us when he reported on Afghanistan by stating that winning this war had to mean winning the hearts of the Afghan people, not killing more Taliban fighters. That is not something which is disputed much, and past experience seems to support his stance, although it doesn’t make it any easier. It’ll have to be done from top to bottom, but also the other way around. Karzai needs us, but we need him as well. So stopping the flow of incoming funds will not be an answer. Whatever Karzai’s fault may be, they’re not the faults of his people. By blocking money for development from coming into Afghanistan’s borders, you will punish the civilians. And we have done that before when, in our dogmatic ‘war on drugs’ poppy fields were burnt, leaving farmers behind with no decent alternative to make money. Such policies create anger, fury and hatred: As if we need any more of that.

So we need a good way to distribute available money, in order to get it where it is needed most. Some registration procedures and routine check-ups will be needed to make this happen, to which we might assign some U.N. or U.S.A. officials. But whatever we opt-for, it should be open to public scrutiny, with transparent processes, since many will have more confidence in international and daring-local journalists then in any government-official. Money should be spent on local projects that create labor, with an eye to the future. Infrastructure and schools should be two pillars, but easier goals can be set as well, such as improving farming efficiency and equipment. Above all, that should give rise to opportunities so desperately needed by Afghans to shape their own future.  If this is done well we can undermine their vulnerability to The Taliban as well, since social conditions with a lack of knowledge make them particularly prone to indoctrination by force of word or sword. Few will have heard of Facebook or Twitter, let alone have the means to make use of them, so their uprising is tied to locality and great personal risk.

That’ll be one long, hard road out of hell to speak more freely. But at least Koenders made our first step forwards clear: Obama and the EU should be much tougher in getting Mr. Karzai in line. He needs to fight the already mentioned corruption with a lot more vigor, but he should also redistribute his own power to the national parliament. Democracy as it is now will be victorious only by virtue of its name.

In the meantime someone needs to make a wake-up call to Europe. America has been accused of lies, treachery, oil-and money seeking intentions and arrogance, but we cannot accuse them of giving up easily. Despite loud shouts for an Iraqi and Afghanistan withdrawal, the first already hears new voices for a pro-longed stay; the latter can probably await more troops. Buried in the debris of the financial crisis, most European politicians seem to find their own quibbles over the use of bank bail-outs more important than raising the quality of living standards far away. For a continent that has global economical and political leadership on its agenda, that is a poor way to go.

With a population that is mostly made up of Muslims it differs to a great extent from most western countries, but it also differs from many Arab countries, because when it comes to legislation and constitution it is highly secular. Thus using geographical terms in a descriptive manner, many consider Turkey to be both a western and an eastern country; hence it is often called ‘Eurasian’. Some label it too as an Islamic state combined with democratic principles, without recent western interventions. This makes it not just highly interesting, it also shows that widespread adherence to Islam does not simply rule out more positive outlooks than is often seen, thought or expected. This is not to say that there aren’t many problematic issues of course, but we’ll find those even in the best of societies.

If we now take the geographical location of Turkey in a more literal sense we can point to another aspect, which is the gap it bridges between Europe, as the incarnation of western values, and Syria and Iraq, as points of departure for more Islamic oriented beliefs. In the current political climate only someone who wants to see ideologies heading for a dogmatic clash would neglect the opportunities this hybrid country can offer us. As I will argue, Turkey needs to be granted access to the European Union, unless we want to waste the valuable potential it has to offer in today’s struggle for cultural dominance.

But letting Turkey enter the European Union will stir up emotions and fuel opposition. France’s Sarkozy does not exactly talk as if he’ll give Turkey a warm welcome, and will probably let the outcome depend on a referendum. Reminding ourselves that he stems from one of the countries that rejected the European Constitution, we have good reason to think the French are to a great extent unwilling to welcome the country within European boundaries. Indeed, one of Sarkozy’s arguments is that Europe must fix its borders, for we simply cannot usurp all the countries into our political organization if we do not want to undermine unity and success.

However intuitively plausible this might seem, it is not. Europe’s strength has since long been grounded in its openness towards that which is ‘the other’. If we hadn’t chosen to cooperate, there would have been no European Union. It is not some metaphysical, cultural connection we share with the French that we do not share with Turks; it is our political and infrastructural relationship that differentiates our connection more than anything else. Europe as we have come to know it started as an initiative to move forwards. And yes, it has been presented and interpreted as an entity that must prevent another war among its member states; however the process started for economical reasons, best achieved not by imposing new laws, but by getting rid of obstacles. Turkey doesn’t lay in central Europe of course, which for many greatly weakens its claim to be a part of this continent’s political union. Some of its roots do undeniably lay in European soil however, both in political-economical terms as in Google Maps screenshots. We can see easily grasp this by glancing at the historical processes that have not only brought us to where we are now, but also Turkey. For it has been an associate member since 1963, one of the first countries that joined the European Council (1949) and one of the founders of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1961) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE, 1973). Two more recent ones can be added to that list: They have been an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992 and are a part of the Western European and Other Groups (WEOG) at the United Nations. Though their aim of becoming a full, officially recognized member is widely known, they have not been granted this ‘highest of honors’ yet.

Some reasons have already been mentioned. Another one not yet: The open boundaries. Many people fear a flood of immigrants from east to west; especially right winged people (and the politicians that speak on behalf of them) do not like this prospect at all. A temporary constraint on settling for other purposes than labor can of course be considered to solve the matter (though the realization that this cannot stay that way should be memorized). As many see it Turkey has a long way to go before all European demands are met anyway: A law that forbids insulting the Turkish nation will need to be disposed, women rights are not lacking in theory but are in practice not up to our standards and uniting Cyprus also poses serious problems. Since these are far from the only problems, isn’t it easier to just opt-out of entering altogether? I don’t think it is. I think our aims are correct, but the demands are wrongly put by focusing too much on the wish for (immediate) solutions. Our questions when reflecting should rather be: Do these objections function as legitimate arguments for a delay in entering the European Union? Some of them might, but all of them? We can imagine many countries struggling with problems, and diverse as these might be, why should they imply exclusion? Won’t it be easier and/or better to solve them from within, that is to say with explicit help from Brussels?

And I just ironically used the words ‘highest of honors’. But whose honor it is anyway? Although it seems Turkey can gain a lot, it is not any less so from the continental perspective. Some examples will probably speak of Turkey’s large army, a new bridge between western and Arab cultures and the inclusion of a large and relatively well developed economy. I’d like to stress that this is more than mere economic advantage. Thankfully, quite a lot of politicians are aware of this and do not want to waste the opportunity of improving mutual understanding between nations and the civilians that live under its flags. Now the realism involved can be questioned. It is not proven that Turkey will indeed improve our relations to other nations at all. No, but it does seem very persuasive. Even if it does not seem so to you, there is another side to this argument. What if we refuse to allow Turkey to get closer? Since a high percentage of its civilians are Muslim and a clear trend can be spotted of greatly improving economical ties with Arab regions, we might reasonably suspect that they will tend to turn eastwards more quickly than westwards. This is again an argument constructed as ‘if…then’, based on assumptions. But as Wittgenstein once said: “At the end of reasons comes persuasion”.

So we might ask ourselves now: What is in it for us? What is in it for them? Negative facts can be found on either side, but I do think the prospects are positive, on both sides of the line. We know we can help them, we suspect they can help us. It seems less risky than many of our hedge-funds; I say we should go for it.

We better hope Obama increases the number of soldiers in Afghanistan, as general McCrystal requested. The hearts and minds of the Afghan people remain unconquered territory. The general’s past reports have clearly indicated that killing more Taliban fighters will not win the battle for us. If this were the case, more soldiers wouldn’t have been necessary (bombing would’ve done the trick in killing people, obviously).

And now that the war of the Taliban against the army and forces of the Pakistani government seems to have found new fuel, it will be even more important to boost the moral on both sides of the border (that is, the moral of our allies. Not the moral of the Taliban). For more on this I suggest “The War On Pakistan” by Walid Phares.

Recent violence related to elections also underlines, as if it were necessary, the need for more security (in other words more troops). As the Economist reports:

For years the UN has clung to its reputation as a neutral arbiter, and managed to avoid becoming a militant target. But now the Taliban have declared that anyone involved in organising the “soap opera” of an election is a legitimate target. A spokesman for the movement said the carnage in Kabul was just the beginning.

Corruption will not evaporate and peace and stability will not return by internal processes. Without the financial, political and military aid of the USA and UN Afghanistan will not be able to barricade the Taliban’s struggle for power. Many, including myself, place a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of Mr. Obama. He must not give up hope. It’s a pity that European countries are so reluctant to help him.

Abdullah Abdullah decided not to participate in the upcoming Afghan elections. All of his proposals to make sure the elections would be at least fairer than last time were rejected out of hand, and he seems not to be interested in another campaign.

In any other country this would be a severe blow to basis democratic values or principles. But the deteriorated state of Afghanistan is impervious to this, since it is, in my view, quite clear that whatever happened, Abdullah would never be able to win the battle against Karzai. Winning the battle means attracting more than 50% of votes, which is by law the minimum a candidate needs to get in order to become president. And that, even if the August elections were as fraudulent so as to be worthy of Soviet-history, does seem all but likely.

And of course we cannot speak of a situation in which democracy did not receive a blow. By any means it did. What is now being experience however is an on lingering effect of elections that now seem to have been much more important relative to the efforts that were put into them. It is not the Afghan people that committed fraud to the elections; it’s the political establishment that did it. And the United Nations and States were unable to prevent this. The result is that Afghanistan will have a president without legitimacy, backed by an unknown part of its people, or that some alternative solution will need to be sought. What the latter can be without becoming as illegitimate as Mr. Karzai himself is an open question though. By sketching weird scenarios of interim-presidents you cannot possibly legitimize power any more than you can do at this very moment, especially not when Abdullah’s name is in the air (no supporter of Mr. Karzai will give his/her support to this in any case).

I also see the role of the Western countries as something that is hard to define. Any stances that are more than those of polite interest will all too quickly be interpreted as “Western imperialism”.  As an alternative way of wishful thinking we might suppose that there is one last straw op hope we can grab hold of. Presidents are important in power and prestige from our Western point of perspective, but to the Afghan people, the regional scene of politics is much more important. The far cry that national policy making is to daily affairs, makes sure that they are much more interested in regional politics, because these get much closer to touching people’s needs and desires.

But as I said, despite its partial truth, it remains wishful thinking. Surely it is better and more enduring to build or re-create a society from bottom to top, but that is just not what’s happening here. The fraudulent ways walked by politicians have made people skeptics about trustworthiness and integrity. Recent times have proved their point.