Thought at the Meridian

Shame on the EU

2005-02-08T22:45:00.000+01:00

Former Czech President Vaclav Havel recently criticized the EU for its leniency towards Fidel Castro's dictatorship. It seems the EU has decided to ban Cuban dissidents from attending EU-embassies' receptions and dinner parties, so as not to disturb their relationships to the Cuban dictator -- all in the name of European big business.

Havel asks us to imagine what will happen:

Try to imagine what will happen: At each European embassy, someone will be appointed to screen the list, name by name, and assess whether and to what extent the persons in question behave freely or speak out freely in public, to what extent they criticize the regime, or even whether they are former political prisoners. Lists will be shortened and deletions made

Now I find it appalling that the EU, who so criticized the US for ending tyranny in Iraq, openly advocates the silencing of Cuban dissidents in the name of good business relations. It's purely cynical and hypocritical.

It makes me furious to think of all the waffling and bureaucracy going on within the grey walls of the EU-parliament, when all it amounts to is the refusal to give the very founding democratic principals and rights of Europe to victims of dictatorship in another part of the world. And worse still, actually aiding a dictator by doing so.

Well then why all the hubbub and commotion about the EU Constitution? Why bother with having a constitution if what it says has no meaning for actual living people in actual reality? It's fine to show off a piece of paper and some grand words to go with it. But if you can't or won't implement it in actual life, then what's the point? How cynical can you get?

Vaclav Haval again:

I can hardly think of a better way for the EU to dishonor the noble ideals of freedom, equality and human rights that the Union espouses -- indeed, principles that it reiterates in its constitutional agreement. To protect European corporations' profits from their Havana hotels, the Union will cease inviting open-minded people to EU embassies, and we will deduce who they are from the expression on the face of the dictator and his associates. It is hard to imagine a more shameful deal.

[...]

Today, the EU is dancing to Fidel Castro's tune. That means that tomorrow it could bid for contracts to build missile bases on the coast of the People's Republic of China. The following day it could allow its decisions on Chechnya to be dictated by Russian President Vladimir Putin's advisors. Then, for some unknown reason, it could make its assistance to Africa conditional on fraternal ties with the worst African dictators.

Where will it end? The release of Milosevic? Denying a visa to Russian human-rights activist Sergey Kovalyov? An apology to Saddam Hussein? The opening of peace talks with al Qaeda?

Neither the EU or the UN are at the moment fulfilling their grand schemes. And to think that many high-ranking officials within the EU would like to see it as a "counterweight" to "US dominance". Well, I must say supporting dictators and refusing to acknowledge political and human rights activists really does make for a counterweight to toppling dictatorships and helping to build up democratic institutions. So if this is the aim of the EU, I suppose it will have reached its goal. My God, talk about imperialism!

I'll let Vaclav Havel have the last word. Be sure to read the whole text here:

It is suicidal for the EU to draw on Europe's worst political traditions, the common denominator of which is the idea that evil must be appeased and that the best way to achieve peace is through indifference to the freedom of others.

Just the opposite is true: Such policies expose an indifference to one's own freedom and pave the way for war. After all, Europe is uniting to defend its freedom and values, not to sacrifice them to the ideal of harmonious coexistence with dictators and thus risk gradual infiltration of its soul by the anti-democratic mind-set.

Shame on the UN

2005-02-01T19:12:00.000+01:00

The UN still refuses to acknowledge what is going on in Sudan as genocide, something the US did a long time ago. By not calling it a genocide, the UN can keep on ignoring the atrocities. A report by a UN panel says the Janjaweed militia did commit acts of mass killings, rape and torture -- but guess what, it still isn't genocide. Not according to the UN anyway.

Now to have an organization like the UN, who is supposed to be the safeguard against atrocities like genocide, acting as if it were engaged in an academical-theoretical discussion is frankly disgusting. I am appalled at the status of the UN as a holy cow that is beyond criticism. The UN needs to be reformed now, or else there needs to be some serious thinking if this isn't the time to form a new body of free and truly democratic states to uphold global peace. An organization which would not be, and this is the important part, afraid of humanitarian intervention..

The way it is now, China with its oil interests in Sudan and Russia who sells arms to Sudan, constantly put in their veto as soon as the Security Council proposes an embargo. Of course an embargo won't do it. Things have already gone too far. But you can't have a peacekeeping organization which let's dictatorships and semi-democracies run the agenda. People are dying here! Kofi Annan should do the only decent thing and resign. I am sick of hearing the empty phraze of "never again". Kosovo, Rwanda, Iraq under Saddam and now Sudan. How long is this list to be? How many people are going to be allowed to die, because of UN-bureaucrats refusing to call things by their right name. What is going on in Darfur right now is genocide. Genocide. That is, the mass-slaying of innocent men, women and children by a corrupt and dictatorial regime. If this is not a task for the UN, then what is. And if the UN can't deal with this, then why do we need the UN in its present state? There is an urgent need to act now and stop the genocide. And if the UN can't, or rather won't do it, then I would prefer Pax Americana forced upon Sudans criminal regime any day soon.

Congratulations Iraq

2005-01-30T21:53:00.000+01:00

Up to 8 million Iraqis turned out to vote today. I was very glad to hear this. At last, democracy is truly taking root in Iraq for the first time ever. Hopefully, the new government will be on good terms with the United States, thus becoming a Western ally, and more importantly a democracy, in the midst of the Middle East.

The elections should also make it more difficult for those reactionaries who call the terrorists "insurgents" or "the Iraqi resistance", when they see that ordinary Iraqis risked their lives going out to vote. However, I very much doubt that the Reactionary Left ever would admit this.

Iraq has still got a long way to go, but like ambassadeur Rolf Ekéus, former head of the UN weapons inspection, said -- this is a great democratic process which will take time. Ekéus also critized the EU for not helping to build democratic institutions and letting the United States pull all the weight. It is not only embarrassing that the EU is so invisible, it is also a proof of how far the Euro-chauvinistic attitude has gone.

I also feel that the role of the UN should be much more heavily debated. Kofi Annan should be removed from office. The lack of leadership, responsibility, the corruption within the UN and, most importantly, the shameful unwillingness to intervene in Rwanda, Iraq and the Sudan is appalling.

Let's hope that this great step forward will evolve into a stable Middle Eastern democracy in time. It would be an immense success for democracy not only in the Middle East, but for democracy worldwide.

NO PLATFORM FOR TERRORISM

2005-01-19T23:27:00.000+01:00

In a reply to my most recent post, David Schraub at The Debate Link has come up with some critique of what I said. Although we seem to agree in general, David criticized me for being hard on the Left, whilst being too soft on the Right.

David’s criticism mainly concentrates on how Bush and the neocon camp around him are too eager to promote “state-centrism”, and that the Bush administration’s mind set is stuck in a pre-9/11 Cold War-mode.

Now, with all due respect, I don’t really see the problem with President Bush’s so called state-centric approach. In my view, Bush has been going in the right direction since 9/11. After this day, he changed from being an isolationist and protectionist (e.g. skeptical towards human intervention in Kosovo) to promoting the (neocon) idea of democratization of the Middle East and a global war on terror. Now, I don’t know about you, but I would much prefer a US President with the current attitude to one who refused to acknowledge that international terrorism poses a real and very dangerous threat to us all. And I’m quite sure that David shares this general viewpont with me.

However, David seems to think that what he calls state-centrism is somehow opposed to, or at least an ineffective way, to combat terrorist networks – quite simply because they operate in networks. David writes:

“the policy of attacking states rather than attacking terrorists is counterproductive, as Al-Qaeda can just "stick and move," dodging recrimination as we get bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and whatever other states we decide to intervene in.”

But it is important to understand, as Marc at American Future has pointed out, that these terrorist networks don’t exist in a stateless vacuum. They need states sympathetic towards their cause in order for them to be able to operate and gain momentum. This seems to me to be a crucial fact: if we deny terrorist groups access to a platform, we will be able to strongly diminish or annihilate them. And that platform is often a rogue state such as Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Another important objective is that by democratizing the Middle East (by military force if necessary), there is a great chance to also change the mindframe of the people living there. This can be made by focusing on the states -- their infrastructure and their culture. We need to hunt down the terrorist networks themselves, but also eradicate the very platform they’re standing on, i. e. rogue states sympathetic to their cause. This is something that the neocons have understood.

It is also important to understand that there is no clear-cut boundary between terrorist networks and states. The boundaries are blurred and often they interact. This is why you, in my opinion, cannot choose one strategy (going after terrorist networks) and discard the other (destroying the platform of terrorist networks, i.e. rogue states).

I also find that David contradicts himself. Whilst criticizing state-centrism, he at the same time says that:

“Conservative belief in free market principles and the inability of government to affect social change both hamper American efforts to defend our country and to defeat the root causes of terror, respectively.”

To criticize the Right for being too state-centric in one area (foreign policy/the war on terror), whilst at the same time criticizing them for their belief in free market principles (that is non-state intervention) and for the government to affect social change, seems rather inconsistent to me.

As for my being hard on the Left – they’ve earned that kind of criticism. It has been revolting to say the least to see people like George Galloway in Britain shaking hands with Saddam and co-operating with Islamofascist groups. Many within the Left have betrayed their own heritage of antifascism, feminism, human rights, liberty, equality and solidarity. Whilst showing solidarity to tyrants like Saddam and marching by the millions in protest of the war against his dictatorship, I have hardly heard one word of support for, say, the Iraqi Kurds struggling for independence and democracy. The revelation of the Taliban tyranny in 2001 didn’t provoke millions of Leftist activist out on the streets calling for the end of Taliban cruelty and the rights of Afghan women. Neither has the genocide in the Sudan generated any such reaction. Many within the Right did however react, and this should be duly noted, in my view.

On being a Centrist -- a personal view

2005-01-16T17:10:00.000+01:00

There have been debates lately concerning what it means to be centrist. I will try to give my highly personal view here.

Being centrist means to not want to buy the whole package of either Left or Right. It means being more concerned about issues than ideological consistency. A centrist position can hold strong principles, but it tries not to get tied down by stale ideologies. However, most centrists (at least in Sweden and the greater part of Europe) could be placed in or near the social-liberal camp: that is, they will tend to promote personal liberty coupled with social justice. They will champion individualism, but within a social framework.

Some people sneer at the centrist position. It is often said to be the viewpoint of the willy-nilly, wishy-washy and undecided. I strongly disagree with this view. I think that many people today don’t want to, like I said, buy a whole ready-made package deal of leftist or rightist ideas. Many people hold leftist views on some issues, and rightist views on others. There is nothing strange or weak about this position. On the contrary, it takes careful consideration on every separate issue. I, for my own part, am more to the left when it comes to social justice-issues, but more to the right when it comes to foreign policy and the war on terror.

Instead of going to the extremes of the political scale, I. e. to the left or to the right, I prefer to go deeper into the centre. To delve down to the roots of things. A radically democratic view, if you like. Most centrists also have an instinctive dislike of political extremes and the all-too political, which is why so many centrists also are antitotalitarian, i. e. they combat extremism whatever shape it takes, be it Fascism, Nazism, Communism or Islamofascism.

I’ve noticed that I hold views that could be considered conflicting by some, but which I consider complimentary. I am culturally conservative in many ways, but politically radical in others. This kind of “conservative radicalism” has been shared by many other people like George Orwell and Lewis Mumford (please note that I am in no way equivocating myself with these people!). Perhaps someone like Christopher Hitchens could be included here. He has often talked about “the radical conservative”. Some people would say that this is an oxymoron or a paradox. Perhaps it is a paradox, but therein lies its strength. The concepts, in my view, aren’t conflicting but, as I said, complementary. It’s a syncretistic position. It is possible to be traditionalist and progressive at the same time. These concepts aren’t, and shouldn’t be, mutually exclusive.

Many schools of thought within philosophy have recognised the importance of centering-down, finding the proper balance and creating a whole from complementary forces, such as Daoism, Buddhism and the ancient Greek concept of metron.

In my own country, Sweden, it is people within the centre of the political field that have most successfully combated totalitarian ideas such as Nazism and Communism. Often these were individuals more or less connected to the Swedish social-liberal party, The People’s Party. The Conservative Right and the Socialist Left have traditionally been more prone to support dictatorships, whereas people within the centre of the political scale have fought against oppression and tyranny.

Today we face a new totalitarian threat: Islamofascism. This has not yet dawned upon the Left. Or rather, there is the Reactionary Left to whom it will never dawn, as they do not wish to know. Instead, they will try to support totalitarianism in opposition to “Western” or perhaps more commonly “US imperialism”. Then there is the Liberal Left, who has turned out to be even more naïve than I expected it to be, indirectly supporting tyrants and dictators, believing that “violence will only make things worse”. The political quietism and pacifism of the Liberal Left, and the openly totalitarian and anti-democratic ideals of the Reactionary Left will risk undermining our Western democratic way of life if we don’t start acting against these forces as well as against Islamofascism itself. So far, a great part of the Right has seemed to understand the totalitarian threat we’re up against, except of course for the rabid, far-right “America first” isolationists who, like the Islamofascists, think that America is rotting from the inside because of the “decadence” going on there.

So today, I wish to pursue the middle path with guiding principles such as social individualism, the pursue of both personal liberty and social justice, a balanced relationship between the market and the state, the defence of our Western values and way of life whose very existence is now threatened by a religiously motivated Fascism. Further, promoting human rights and equality between men and women – to ensure, like Marcus Aurelius said, that we will be no one’s master, no one’s slave.

A blogger's return

2005-01-09T23:35:00.000+01:00

So I’m back. For now anyway. New times, new blog-design. I have been away from blogging since November, as some of you may have noticed (I hope...).

The reason I stopped was partly because I was so fed up of politics and the useless idiocy of the War on Terror-debate. Hearing deafitist and so called pacifist arguments from the Left that missed the point completely.

This combined with a feeling of political homelessness and disillusionment followed by a move towards a more centrist position had the effect that I stopped posting in order to do some soulsearching.

I have also grown more and more disillusioned with the so-called liberal or moderate Left. Even within the ranks of these, there has been for the most part a total lack of understanding of what were up against here. The unwillingness to face the threat of global Islamistic Fascism and even the direct and voiced support for those terrorist groups carrying out attacks on civilians in Iraq is not only mindboggling. It is also deeply tragic and dangerous.

I can’t see a radically democratic and antitotalitarian stance being developed by the liberal left, let alone the Left as a whole. The fascistoid squabbling going on amongst leftist groups is not only annoying, but deeply disturbing. And I can’t see that that’s going to change in the foreseeable future. Neither can I see any evidence of a decent Left evolving, only decent Leftists. People posting on blogs like Harry's Place, Norman Geras and Socialism In An Age Of Waiting are still carrying the torch of a free and free-thinking Left. However, to me it seems these are only the exceptions confirming the rule. But I hope that they will continue to struggle against the perversions of the Left being perpetrated by so many on the Left and liberal Left as we speak.

For some time now I have felt that I might start blogging again, but from a slightly different, more centrist, angle than before. This is not a radical change in me (from centre-left to centrist), however I feel I have a clearer view of my on position now. Centrist, independent and antitotalitarian.

So stay tuned, sooner or later things will probably start moving again. Anyway, I'll let you know.

The Irrational Logic of Fascism

2004-11-10T21:44:00.000+01:00

The murder of the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh by an islamistic fanatic has sparked off a spate of violent reactions. Many people now ask, how could this happen in Holland? Well, it really isn’t that complicated. Islamofascists don’t care if a country took part in the US-led alliance to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein or not. They won’t care if a country voiced its opposition against the war. They will only use these sentiments when it suits their cause, which is a globalized theocratic-Fascist rule. The bottom line is: they, i. e. the Islamofascists, hate us, i. e. Western-style democrats, and they will do everything they can do destroy our way of life and our least opposition to islamistic fundamentalism. That’s it. There’s no need for a grand theory or analyzing every detail everytime something like this happens. Islamofascists hate everything the democratic and Western world stands for: free speech, freedom of religion, tolerance, liberty, justice, humanity, the joy of life, our right to live our lives as we choose. This must be understood if Islamofasicm is to be combated in an effective way. Fortunately, the current president of the United States does understand. And fortunately his number one ally, the UK, has an equally insightful leader when it comes to dealing with this imminent threat to democracy.

Why non-Conservatives Support Bush

2004-11-10T21:43:00.000+01:00

To many critics of the re-elected Bush administration, everyone who supports or voted for Bush is assumed to be a convinced Right-wing Conservative. Most of the liberals, moderates, centrists and even leftists who support Bush only support his foreign policy and not his domestic agenda. Actually, I support Bush’s foreign policy precisely because it is NOT conservative. Instead, it is progressive and democratically internationalist in its outlook. Rememer that President Bush started out a critic of nation-building and US interventionist policy. He was more of an “America first” kind-of-guy. This all changed after 9/11, and this was also when the small core of neocons put forward their ideas of a new progressive internationalism, liberal interventionism, regime change and the need for democratizing the Middle East. All of which could have been said to originally be issues of the democratic left of yore. Not recognizing this fact is part of the reactionary Lefts propaganda to make the world fit into its clearcut, black&white view of the world. Well, we do exist and I hope that the seed of democratic internationalism will grow and prosper, so that the world can be made a safer and more democratic place for future generations to live in.

Some thoughts in the aftermath of the presidential elections

2004-11-06T18:51:00.000+01:00

So, finally the elections are over. I think it will be a relief for many people, whichever way they voted.

I almost felt a bit sorry for Kerry when when I was listening to him making his concession speach. He would probably have made a good president, and he is certainly closer to me ideologically. But he was also unclear and inconsistent when it came to foreign policy and Iraq. Bush was more convincing. There is a war going on, and it would probably be unwise to wish for change for change’s sake.

Pre-9/11 I would never have hoped for Bush to win. But times really have changed. And Bush has proved himself on this issue. He has shown that he is competent of taking the necessary measures which are needed to combat Islamofascist terrorism and that he understands how vital the process of democratizing the Middle East is. I hope, like Hitchens, that the small kernel of neocons are able to outweigh the loony religious Right-wing of the Republican Party and mould it into a more radically democratic and internationalist party.

And hopefully, Predisent Bush will also show more interest in trying to find a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict than he has so far. Although, in all fairness, this is a very complicated issue with many people sharing an enormous responsibility. If Arafat dies there could be room for more moderate Palestinian voices to be heard, which would of course help the process a great deal.

What has really disturbed me throughout the run-up to the elections is the annoying simplification about America and Americans which has been coming from busy-bodies and know-it-alls. The so called liberal chatterati and the latte-Left voicing their support for Kerry and critisizing Bush as if he was some kind of vile dictator. It really is understandable that people like Tom Wolfe endorsed Bush out of spite (although it could be said to be arguable). I was reading an account of the absurdity of the total conformity among many middle-class liberals by a columnist whose name I’m afraid I don’t remember. He was saying that when he at a dinner voiced his support for Bush, he might just as well have said “Hi, I’m a child molester”. The reaction was, according to the columnist, that grim, which only goes to show how absurd and conformistic (on the verge of mass-hysteria at some times) the all-pervasive view of these pseudo-liberals really is. I too was getting increasingly tired of how it was ASSUMED that you were in favour for Kerry when talking to colleagues or acquaintances.
Look, Bush did NOT get support only from the moral-conservative religious Right. And I refuse to think that my own position is THAT uncommon – being a liberal of somekind, or centrist/centre-left, and yet still hoping for a muscular foreign policy and a spirit of democratic internationalism. Rather, this should be part of a liberal (in its most broadest sense) world-view.

Last week I was also astonished at hearing colleagues at work talking about Americans as if they were a lower form of life and of the derogatory talk of America in general. “In many ways America is an underdeveloped country”, one of my colleagues sputtered. They were talking of America as if it existed ONLY of hillbillies, white trash and racist Texans; and that Americans are a priori ignorant of the rest of the worl. Yes, there are uneducated and uninterested people in the USA. But how would we react if Americans started to slander “Europeans”? Europe is a big place, with many different peoples and cultures. America is a big place, a continent which of course carries a plethora of different cultures and mind-frames within its vast geographical and cultural space. Singling out just ONE way of thinking and then projecting it onto a whole continent is pure racism. Imagine what the reaction would be like if I were to talk of Germans as being belligarant or Muslism as being only terrorist, or Jews being the root of all evil in the world. There would quite rightly be an outrage (at least I hope there would be. These days you can never be too sure.). But this is EXACTLY the kind of jargong we can read in the press and here in our cantines at work everyday. Because somehow, America is now a “legitimate target”. Why? Because “America went to war”. Well, let me remind you: it was America who was attacked on 11th of September 2001. America did not attack anyone else first. President Bush has contributed to liberating 50 million Muslims from tyranny, crushed the mediaeval Taliban rule in Afghanistan and enabled its inhabitants to take part in free and democratic elections. For this he is spat upon by self-righteous “radicals”. Concidering what is taking place in the world today, it would be more apt to direct anger towards Islamofascist thugs and homicidal-bombers blowing up innocent civilians on a almost a daily basis.

Democrat First

2004-10-25T22:36:00.000+02:00

Soon it will be over. The US Presidential Elections. Which for many people I think will be a relief. Many people seem confused and bewildered, unable to find a canditate that suits their political outlook. And if I were an American citizen and had to vote (which I of course am not), I would probably give Bush a reluctant vote.

Some Left-Liberals have spoken out in favour of Bush (Hitchens and this life-long Labour voter, via Michael Totten) and some Conservatives are promoting Kerry (Andrew Sullivan, Michael Portillo). This may seem confusing at first, but it needn’t be.

The most important thing to many people is the belief in certain inalienable rights.

To these people (of which I consider myself to be one) Democracy acts as a kind of super-structure: a democrat first – democrat and antitotalitarian. Only then are you a Liberal, Socialist, Social Democrat, Conservative or what have you. Ideology is secondary.

It is how strong your democratic and antitotalitarian conviction is that decides which way you will vote, and not solely your ideological leanings.

I don’t think it’s that uncommon that in certain periods of history there are shifts whithin ideological movements. For instance, during the Second World War you had Socialists (like George Orwell) supporting the Conservative Winston Churchill and there was probably Conservatives opposing Churchill. During the Cold War there were Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists combating the so-called “Socialist states” in Europe, as were neoconservatives on the Right.

And now, in our days we have certain individuals within both the Left and the Right who understand the grave issue of Islamofascism and its totalitarian threat to our democracy and our Western ideals, our way of thinking and living.

To me it seems clear that George W. Bush is the candidate that will be best at combating Islamofascism and continuing with the process of democratizing the Middle East. I’m not saying Kerry wouldn’t also try to do this, I just think that President Bush is of a stronger conviction. We can’t afford to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt. Not at this point in time. I won’t cheer if Bush wins, but I will probably draw a sigh of relief.

So what it comes down to is not about ideology, but knowing what’s at stake.

Thugs

2004-10-09T16:26:00.000+02:00

Ken Bigley was murdered. Once again, it should be clear what we are up against. Murdering thugs. These people WANT mayhem. They WANT bloodshed. Several times now, terrorist groups have made statements about “the righteous” (i. e. theocratic Fascists) loving death. Death, mayhem, bloodshed, constant war, oppression, spitting on human dignity. You cannot, as some dangerously naïve people have tried to, explain this kind of behaviour. Nor is it desirable. It is the antithesis of everything our Western democratic and humanistic values stand for. And I think Tony Blair put it succinctly when he said:
"They are not provoked by our actions; but by our existence."

Bush vs. Kerry

2004-10-01T18:46:00.000+02:00

I was watching the Presidential Debate today and consequently had some thoughts about who would make the best president.

As I was watching the debate, I came to realise that I feel that Kerry comes across as the more intelligent and cultivated of the two. But I also feel, that I agree on principle with President Bush.

On domestic issues (social security, economy, jobs), I am probably closer to Kerry. And when it comes to issues as abortion, research on stem cells, gay marriage, environmental issues and economics, I don't agree with President Bush.

However, since Iraq is such an inflamed issue, this is of course what the whole elections is based on. Basically, I believe that Kerry and Bush share the same view on Iraq. But in order for Kerry to win votes, he needs to distance himself from Bush. How to do this? Easy, just say something about Iraq that goes against what President Bush is saying.

The problem is that Kerry isn't disagreeing enough. He keeps entangling himself in details on how to secure victory in Iraq. On one hand, he supported the war in Iraq and has himself said that he saw the need for the removal of the dictator Saddam Hussein. On the other hand he has said that the war is wrong. Or that the timing was wrong. That he would have done it another way.

It is all good and well to be saying this now, in the light of what has already happened. And of course, Kerry has to say these things. That's part of the problem. Kerry's and Bush's view on foreign policy and the war on terror isn't all that different. This makes Kerry's campaign filled with paradoxes and oxymorons. He has to play the charade of being a sharp critic of Bush's Iraq policy when he is not. Otherwise he would be handing over the victory to Bush.

I didn't like George W. Bush before the last elections. I didn't think he was suitable for the job. But after 9/11 I changed my mind. This was, and still is, a nightmarish situation for any president or leader, and I must say that I think that "Dubya" has done a great job to combat more terrorist acts. One must also remember that prior to 9/11, George W. Bush was much more of an isolationist with an "America First" mentality. The small group of Neocons like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle made the president aware of the true nature of the problems of the unstable regimes in the Middle East. This combined with good advisors like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice helped President Bush to become a strong and conscientious leader.

If Bush wins, we know what we'll be getting. If Kerry wins, well he's something of a wild card. And I'm not sure that a wild card is what we need at this moment in time.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

2004-10-01T18:34:00.000+02:00

I was reading an article yesterday on the bombings in Bagdad which killed and maimed innocent bystanders -- amongst them many children.

The article was published on Dagens Nyheter's website, which is one of the major newspapers in Sweden. In connection with the article, there was a photograph of an Iraqi woman who, according to Dagens Nyheter, was "screaming out in anger at the United States".
Now, you might be misled to think that it was in fact US bombs that had done the damage. But it wasn't. This bloodshed was caused by homicidal and fanatical islamist terrorists.
(the photograph was later removed from the site. Coincidence?)

I find this sort of biased reporting typical of the Swedish media: whatever happens, the US or Israel is to blame. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In this case, it was perfectly clear who the perpetrator was. The woman could of course be screaming out her anger at the US. But to put this picture in a context where the US is not in any way to blame for the loss of innocent human life is plain irresponsible, misleading and simply in bad taste. Very bad taste.

The Hari-Hitchens Dilemma

2004-09-27T23:01:00.000+02:00

After reading Johann Hari’s interview with Christopher Hitchens I started thinking about the future of antitotalitarian and progressive politics.

Hitchens is right in a way. These are early days yet, but the Neocons are proof that there is today a radical-democratic, internationalist and universalist Right promoting Enlightenment values. People like Wolfowitz and Perle are actually preaching the spreading of these values worldwide. A fairly idealist and radical approach.

Now, Hari also has a point. What Hari is saying is, what about social democracy? Shouldn’t we be promoting economic justice and welfare policies? Today democratization on a global scale seems to mean more or less free-market economics.

Hailing the Market alone as the be all and end all of things, is about as stupid and dangerous as hailing the all-powerful State. There needs to be a balance, and more precisely a system of checks-and-balances, for both the state AND the market.

So the role of the market seems to me to somehow still be the defining issue when it comes to the Left-Right divide.

However, the Neocons have proved to be more willing to use the state to promote democratic rights, which is something that cannot be said of the Libertarians and Neo-Liberals.

Then there is also the issue of factions within the Right and the Left. The far-Right Anarcho-Capitalists (i. e. extreme Libertarians/Neo-Liberals) often side up with the anti-war Left. So the isolationist Right and Left go hand in hand here. The Neocons and the Liberal and pro-war Left see eye to eye when it comes to toppling a fascist dictatorship in order to promote democracy and spreading Enlightenment values. They are in fact both UNIVERSALIST and INTERNATIONALIST.

So we should perhaps not be too eager to judge the Neocon faction just yet. I’ve said it before: perhaps we need something new. Something different. A Democratic Rejuvination. And perhaps this something doesn’t have to come from the Left, as it has done in the past. In our time, it might just be the Right that will take on this rejuvination of democracy. But like I said, it’s early days yet. We’ll have to wait and see.

From a Swedish point of view (for those of you who don’t know, I live in Sweden), the Left here is pretty much anti-war, “anti-globalization”, anti-American and nationalist. There hardly is a coherent Liberal Left or anything you could call a movement. Only disparate voices of dissent. And there aren’t too many, let me tell you.

The Swedish Right has been more ardent and vociferous in defending human rights and seeing the necessity of toppling dictatorship. It was in favour of the Iraq War and has been supportive of the struggle against terrorism.

So, for my part I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place. And it’s beginning to give me a cramp.

The State of the Left

2004-09-13T23:26:00.000+02:00

I’ve been on holiday, isolated from most of what’s been happening in the world, which in many ways is a good feeling. A feeling of relief. However, it didn’t take long to get back to reality. The terrorist atrocity in Beslan was a reminder of which lengths coldblooded religious fascists movements are prepared to go.

Yesterday, as I cruised through my favourite blogs (se roll on the right) I came across the appalling piece written by the self proclaimed anti-globalist queen Naomi Klein (can’t even be bothered to link to that complete work of tripe). This was also a reminder of what we’re up against these days.

Now, the problem with many people on the Left is that they claim to be antifascist, but in reality they are only antifascist up to a point. Or, to speak with the words of George Orwell:

The sin of nearly all left-wingers from 1933 onward is that they have wanted to be anti-Fascist without being anti-totalitarian.
(From the Orwell Essay titled Arthur Koestler)

Sadly, this is still true today. If it were 1936 today, a large part of the left would act as apologists for Franco’s fascists. This is at least a hypothetical parallel to Naomi Klein and her accolytes on the non-democratic and nationalist Left, who are now openly supporting Islamofascism.

Klein’s article, then, must be concidered a definitive defection to the Fascist or Totalitarian Left, if there can be thought to exist such a Left. And I think there does. Naomi Klein, John Pilger and Noam Chomsky are but a few examples of such a political distinction.

The problem with a great part of the Left is that it doesn’t seem to be willing to acknowledge the fact that Fascism and Totalitarianism in the guise of radical militant islamism is alive and well today. Fascism and the struggle against Fascism is thought of as a thing of the past. Something that ended with the downfall of The Third Reich and Hitler’s suicide in his bunker. It is not willing to try and understand that Fascism will take different shapes through history and that there will probably (and unfortunately one might add) always be some sort of Fascism around in some guise or other.

But the thing is, Fascism exists HERE and NOW. It is not a thing of the past. And it needs to be combated here and now.

The question then arises, how do we combat it? Well, by defending and extending our democratic and humanistic values. By a peaceful and open discussion and debate within our democratic communities. And by the use of force if necessary, and it has proven to be the case that it is necessary to fight religious Fascism.

I sometimes wonder about the state of the Left. That, maybe it’s not the Left that will be the bastion of democracy. That maybe there’s time for something new. Something that wouldn’t be called Left or Right. Something fresh with clear principles that would be free of stale ideological labels. A free and pro-active antitotalitarianism.

Because the thing with the Left is that it is not just the hard Left that is the problem. Even people within the moderate or liberal Left are unwilling to see the threat of Islamofascism and religious totalitarianism. If they also represent the left, then where do those of us who think of ourselves as belonging to a democratic, libertarian and antitotalitarian (centre-) Left go? What is our place within the Left? Should we leave the left for something else, as I suggested above (whatever that may be)? Or should the apologists of Islamofascism be forced out of the legitimacy and political acceptability that the concept of being on the Left provides?

Apologies

2004-09-03T17:32:00.000+02:00

I have been on holiday and forgot to mention it before I left. My apologies. You'll here from me again in the near future.

The Cult of Death

2004-08-04T17:28:00.000+02:00

In one of the major Swedish newspapers of today, Svenska Dagbladet (I won't bother to link to it since it is in Swedish), journalist Thomas Gür writes about the trait shared by all totalitarian ideologies -- the cult of death.

He refers to Paul Berman's book Terror and Liberalism, which declares islamism to be the third totalitarian movement of our time. The other two being of course Nazism/Fascism and Communism.

All these ideologies shared a belief in, and a perverse admiration, of death. As Mr Gür points out, the parole of the Spanish Fascists was Viva la muerte! (long live death!). The terrorist's who carried out the bombings of Madrid said "we love death, and you love life".

Mr Gür goes on to say:

"What through history unites Japanese Kamikaze-pilots, secular Tamil or Kurdish terrorists, Iranian suicide-battalions and islamistic suicide-bombers, is what you could call an ideologically formulated glorification of an individual's death for a nobler purpose."
[My translation]

Now, many people don't seem to realize that this is what the fundamentalist islamism of today is all about. It surprises me that many people don't seem to realize that Islamofascism is just that. Fascism. That the suicide- and homicide-bombings which kill civilians by their hundreds and even thousands is the greatest totalitarian threat in recent history.

The anti-semitism and anti-Americanism which follows in its keel, should be taken more seriously than it at present is. Some people seem to think this is being overtly sensitive or melodramatic. It is not.

I am quite surprised at how quickly many people seem to have forgotten the 9/11-atrocities, the bombs in Istanbul and the Madrid bombs. These are not haphazard events. They may or may not be centrally co-ordinated in some way or other. However, that's not the point. The point is that it is happening now and it will probably happen again, and that these acts of large-scale terrorism are a part of something bigger: the desire to create a religious-clerical fascist empire. No more, no less.

People who downplay or ridicule this fact simply do not understand the seriousness of the matter. And I don't have to mention the Looney Left. I'm fed up with them .

I for one am glad that both Tony Blair and George W. Bush have understood the seriousness of this terrorist threat and are trying to do something about it.

I would also wish that people around me would face the facts and read the situation more accurately.

The thing is many people still say "oh, it's such a complicated issue". No, it's not. Either you oppose death-loving religious Fascism or you support an open, free and equal democratic society.

Involuntary Absence

2004-08-03T11:19:00.000+02:00

I would just like to apologize for my absence for the past week or so. As most of you know, real life sometimes invades the blogosphere (also, blogging can get a bit intense and some fresh air will do you a lot of good...)

I'd like to thank all those who have checked out my blog and made comments to my posts.

I'm also glad to hear from democratically-minded people on the (centre-) Left who share my concerns about the, unfortunately, vociferous false Left and realize the threats coming from Islamofascism. There really is the need for an antitotalitarian strain of the Left.

Also, my thanks to Who Knew?, Michael Totten , Harry's Place and Norman Geras for mentioning this blog and/or linking to it.

Keep reading and keep commenting.

New stuff will be coming shortly.

Social Democrats USA, again.

2004-07-29T00:26:00.000+02:00

I was so happy when I found this statement from the Social Democrats, USA on their website:

"American social democrats believe unabashedly that the United States is a force for good in the world. (A view most persuasively argued in recent times by the social democratic Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair.) But our citizens and our government alike need continuous encouragement if our moral influence and our diplomatic and military power are to be used effectively to assist those in other countries who share our commitments to democracy and human rights. Some conservatives consider such commitments sentimental, or a drain on our national capabilities. Certain liberals and leftists scorn American efforts in behalf of democracy abroad as a spurious disguise for economic and military domination – an anti-Americanism that overrides consideration of the good that so often comes from such engagement, even under Republican Administrations.

The strident anti-Americanism and magnanimity toward third world dictatorships of some who claim loudly to speak for the left are once again feeding the perception that the left cares little about freedom. As in the conflicts with communism waged by past generations of the democratic left, social democrats not only must distinguish ourselves from the false left — we must take the lead in exposing and combating it. We know this enemy better than the conservatives, we know the territory better, and we understand the damage that can be done to good people and good causes when the battles that must be waged are conducted in reckless ways."

Hear, hear!

Social Democrats, USA know the deal

2004-07-29T00:05:00.000+02:00

"one hardly needs to look far into the news coming out of Saudi Arabia – the extent of terrorist attacks both on foreigners and the regime, the dubious loyalties of the security forces, the hold that certain demented clerics have over large numbers of dysfunctional young men – to grasp that this is a society on the edge. Those who imagine that American diplomacy can keep a lid on this explosive cauldron are probably the wooly-minded idealists. The reality is that changes are going to come in this part of the world, and the best we can hope to do is nudge things in the most democratic direction possible."

There's more where this came from. Visit Social Democrats, USA.

This is not Fascism

2004-07-28T23:10:00.000+02:00

There is still people on the far Left equating Bush with Fascism. Especially now with the elections coming up. This "misconception" seems to be widespread amongst stoppers, wishy-washy liberals, Michael Moore Conservatives and parts of the US Democrats.

You may not approve of many of George W. Bush's political views (I know I don't). You may find supporting the death penalty, lobbying against gay marriage and not endorsing the Kyoto Treaty abhorrent (I know I do). However, this is not Fascism. Nor does it make George W. Bush a Fascist. In fact, he is a democratically elected president who will be, and has been, scrutinized by the Senate and the Congress, due to the United States wonderful checks and balances system. He is responsible to the people of the United States and has to answer to them.

Let me point to a few differences between the current President of the United States and Fascists. Here the term Fascist will include all those who in recent times have persued a Fascist path -- be it Islamo-Fascist or Baathist.

President Bush does not persecute or murder American citizens because they don't share his political or religious views -- Saddam did.

President Bush does not cut out the tongues of dissenting journalists. Saddam did.

President Bush does not murder children's parents, because they have voiced their dissent. Saddam did.

President Bush does not demand every American citizen to obey the "divine law" or face imprisonment, torture or death. Islamo-Fascists do.

President Bush, although not supportive of gay marriage, does not prescribe the stoning of homosexuals. Islamo-Fascists do.

President Bush does not have state-endorsed rape-rooms. Saddam did.

Now, in my view, it would be far better if the anti-war Left realized what the real Fascism of today is: Islamo-Fascism. That is, the persuit of a theocratic dictatorship based on power, submission, violence, perverted religion, the hatred and persecution of religious, ethnical and sexual minorities and a total disregard for human life.

George W. Bush may be conservative on many issues. Perhaps even concidered a reactionary by some. That still doesn't make him a Fascist.

The anti-war Left had better get their priorities right. The unholy alliance and motley crew of the culture relative and conservative far Left, and the reactionary and intolerant islamists that is currently emerging in, for example, the UK is alarming.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is an urgent need for a democratic, liberal and antitotalitarian Left. We need to carry on the tradition of antitotalitarian ideals that once were common to many democratically-minded people on the Left.

New Sudan blog

2004-07-24T01:29:00.000+02:00

Click here for news, updates and discussions about the genocide in Sudan.

(Via Harry's Place)

David Aaranovitch on what the Left should be about

2004-07-23T10:41:00.000+02:00

"My main reason for supporting te [sic] invasion, however, was about smashing a fascist dictatorship. It was one of the things the left used to believe in."

David Aaranovitch in yesterday's Guardian online debate.

Sudanese government directed recruitment of Janjaweed militia

2004-07-21T12:39:00.000+02:00

Not surprisingly, the Sudanese government is now denying responsibility for the genocide in Sudan.

However, International Human Rights Watch have documents proving that Sudanese government officials directed recruitment and arming of the Janjaweed militia.

Read the full text here.

Million march for Sudan?

2004-07-19T19:30:00.000+02:00

How come there arent' a million people out on the streets of every major European and American city protesting and screaming their heads off about the ongoing genocide, mass raping and persecution in Sudan?

Why would the anti-war Left show up in hordes to protest against the toppling of a brutal totalitarian dictatorship in Iraq, but are nowhere to be heard or seen when it comes to one of the most appaling human rights situations in the world since Rwanda?
(And for that matter, why weren't more people protesting against the genocide in Rwanda?)

Why are there no demonstrations with banners, placards and speeches to wake up the world to what's happening in Darfur?

Seriously. Why?

Iraqi comment on the Liberation of Iraq

2004-07-19T19:22:00.000+02:00

Omar at Iraq the Model comments on the Butler report and the Liberation of Iraq:

"You cannot tell a man that saving him and his family from torture, humiliation and death was a mistake and it should’ve not been done because it’s illegal. This is almost an insult to Iraqis to hear someone saying that this war was illegal. It means that our suffering for decades meant nothing and that formalities and the stupid rules of the UN (that rarely function) are more important than the lives of 25 million people."

(Via Norman Geras)

The consequences of inaction

2004-07-19T19:01:00.000+02:00

In his Guardian-column of 18 July David Aaranovitch discusses the
horrific results of inaction as opposed to liberal intervention:

"After Rwanda and Bosnia, however, there were no Huttons, no Butlers to scrutinise such massive foreign policy failures"

Enough said.

Read the whole text
here

Mass rape in Sudan

2004-07-19T13:00:00.000+02:00

The horrors and atrocities in Sudan continue. Read this piece on mass rape of women by the Janjaweed militia.

Confusion of the Left

2004-07-18T20:28:00.000+02:00

Although the debate on the Iraq war has died down a bit, there is still reason for scrutinizing the rift between the "anti-Imperialist" Chomskyite Left and the democratic and antitotalitarian Left.

The problem with the Chomskyite Left is that amidst all of their pseudo-revolutionary, anti-globalization rantings they do not have much of an ideology. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the far Left can no longer lean on Communism -- although some Neo-Stalinist groups such as Stop the War Coalition in the UK seem to be ignorant of the fall of the Soviet Union. Theirs is a strange mix of life-style anarchism, anti-Americanism, Anti-Occidentalism, Isolationism and "anti-Zionism" (which often comes down to pure anti-Semitism).

All these ingredients make the anti-war Left a pretty reactionary lot. Galloway's and the Socialist Worker's Party's flirtation with radical Islamists in the UK is one proof of this. Siding with religious fanatics with a hatred for modernity and liberal democracy can hardly be called progressive.

This dark mixture of ideas is not only cynical, but also dangerous. We live in a time when the greatest totalitarian threat is coming from radical Islamofascism. Having a so-called Left that not only chooses to ignore this fact, but who actually co-operates with Islamofascists and has been unwilling to (as in Iraq) refuse to support the toppling of a dictator in order to free a people from oppression is appalling.

I am afraid that these sentiments are not exclusive tho the far Left. Some people mith moderate leftist views also hold them to be true. The problem is that people on the Left harbouring these anti-democratic ideals seem to be quite vociferous.

What is the remedy to all of this? I am not sure. But I know that there is a need for the democratic and moderate Left to regroup.

There is a need for a strong democratic centre-Left or moderate Left with clear principles and the ability to combine idealism with pragmatism. A democratic movement wich is as libertarian as it is egalitarian, and which is -- this is the important part -- strongly antitotalitarian. This movement also needs to be clearly internationalist in its approach, as opposed to the current isolationist tendency of the anti-war Left. It also needs to recognize the fact that regime change and liberal interventionism sometimes is necessary and perhaps even vital to world peace. In these days of religious fanaticism it also needs to promote the Humanistic values we have inherited from the Enlightenment.

These are confusing days, but the choice between supporting liberal democracy or clerical Fascism should be crystal clear.

Sudan is bleeding

2004-07-16T15:18:00.000+02:00

The human rights situation is getting worse by the hour in Sudan.
30, 000 people are believed to have died. More than 1 million people are fleeing. 200, 000 people have fled to Chad, the neighbouring country in the west. According to the UN 2 million people are currently suffering in Sudan.

This is of course due to the Sudanese government's and its affiliated Arab Janjaweed militia, who have been persecuting, killing and raping the black population of Sudan.

Is the rest of the world crying out in unison demanding that something be done? No. Are there UN peace-keeping troops on their way as we speak? No.

Sure, the UN have contributed with food-packages and aid-workers. The problem is that the food deliveries have been looted and aid-workers attacked by the militia. The food packages need to be shipped to the east coast of Sudan and then transported to the Darfur area which is in the west. This means that the food-packages have to be transported by car or truck across the nation, which obviously entails a high degree of risk-taking.

Human Rights Watch
has the following to say on this matter:

"The international community, which so far has been slow to exert all possible pressure on the Sudanese government to reverse the ethnic cleansing and end the associated crimes against humanity it has carried out, must act now. The UN Security Council, in particular, should take urgent measures to ensure the protection of civilians, provide for the unrestricted delivery of humanitarian assistance and reverse ethnic cleansing in Darfur. It will soon be too late."

Yes. Soon it will be too late. Remember the genocide in ex-Yugoslavia? Back then we said never again. Rember the genocide in Rwanda? Back then we said never again.

How many times are we going to let thugs and fascists commit genocide on innocent civilians before we actually do someting?

Peace-keeping troops need to be deployed NOW. Before it's too late.

Anti-Americanism in Sweden

2004-07-15T17:56:00.000+02:00

I suppose it's a worldwide phenomenon by now. Anti-Americanism. Since the Liberation of Iraq by coalition forces, an anti-American tidal wave has swept the world.

I for my part notice it quite clearly here in Sweden. It seems to be "radically chic" to hold anti-American views.

A week ago there was an article published in one of the major newspapers in Sweden, where an American business man spoke out against what he perceived to be racism against Americans. Sometimes when people heard his accent they would state bluntly that they did not like Americans. What if you substitute "American" for, say, "Jewish"? Where would we be headed then? Speaking of which, anti-Americanism and so called anti-Zionism often go hand in hand. Especially after the war in Iraq.

This American businessman was careful to point out that it is just a small minority of Swedes who hold these views, but there is still an ongoing trend of hostility towards Americans. And there is of course a danger when one group of people is singled out in this way. In the same newspaper, a young girl of American descent living in Sweden told the reporter that her little brother was teased at school simply for being an American.

Now, not liking the current US president is one thing. But showing antipathy and even hatred of ordinary American people is pure racism and it should be called by its right name.

Unfortunately, Sweden like France has a long history of anti-Americanism. This, I think, is due to our neutrality (Sweden is not a NATO-country) and also of our cowardly stance during the Cold War, when the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme tried to create what was called "the Third Way" -- a compromise between totalitarian Soviet Communism and Western style Capitalism. This also entailed not being critical enough of the Soviet Union, but at the same time criticizing the US too much. Geographically the Soviet Union was pretty close to Sweden and I suppose that the Swedish government's fear of this superpower and the approximity to it created some sort of misguided solidarity that never should have been, and at the same time created a knee-jerk animosity against the US.

However, the world has changed. After 9/11 I think most sane people realized this. We were forced to take sides. Either you support Western-style democracy and its values of freedom, equality and tolerance or you support a clerical fascism disguised as religion. There is no grey zone. A lot of people still haven't realized this. People on the Chomsky-Left still regard the United States as the epitome of all evil. Often this anti-Americanism is part of a lifestyle-package where things like anti-globalization sentiments and a faiblesse for anything vaguely "revolutionary" overrides any sense of what democracy needs to be and what it needs in order to thrive or even survive.

There is apparently a new organization in Sweden, the Swedish-American Association. There aim is to "provide a more open-minded view of the United States in Sweden, and also to be inspired of the American vision: freedom and democracy is not an exclusive right for the West - it's a right and a capacity that belongs to all human-kind."
Apart from their apparent sympathy towards the deceased ex-US president Ronald Reagan, there aim sounds healthy enough to me, and it makes me happy to know that someone is trying to change the current situation in Sweden.

Intro

2004-07-15T17:44:00.000+02:00

Welcome to Thought at the Meridian. This is the premier of my little blog. I will try to keep it updated as regularly as possible. However, time isn't always on my side, so I hope you will bear with me.

As to the contents of this blog, it will focus on political and cultural issues worldwide. The approach will be internationalist, although I'm stated in Sweden.

If you care to cast an eye on the recommended blogs and links you will get an idea as to where I stand when it comes to politics.

Alright, that's it for now.