Archive for the ‘Topics’ Category

29
Jan

 

One day in 2008, a friend called to tell me that he thought the world might be coming to an end. He was not a religious fanatic; he worked in markets. Lehman Brothers had just gone bankrupt and the international financial system appeared to be in its death agony. As Marx might have put it, the final “crisis of capitalism” seemed to have arrived.

But the world did not end. The international proletarian revolution did not arrive either, though a few decades earlier, it might have done. Financial collapse on the scale of 2008 might, once upon a time, have inspired the formerly powerful revolutionary Marxist and near-Marxist political parties of western Europe to take to the streets. But because Marxism was so thoroughly discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no appetite for radical revolution two decades later. Economic fashion, even on the political left, seemed to have moved on.

Fast forward eight years and the situation is drastically different. Many have noticed that the old-fashioned left is back. Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and Jeremy Corbyn’s British Labour party all now contain radicals who would, if they could, renationalise industry and put an end to free trade. But the more remarkable and less obvious change is taking place on what we used to call the far right. The nationalist parties of Europe, long dismissed as fringe groupings, are now winning votes by adopting previously discredited “leftwing” ideas.

Exhibit A is France’s National Front. Though better known for its anti-immigration rhetoric, the party, under Marine Le Pen’s leadership, has also taken over some of the symbols of the old left, as well as some of its economic policies. A few years ago, the party began holding rallies on May 1, the traditional international socialists’ holiday.

At one of those rallies in 2014, Ms Le Pen attacked the “draconian policy of austerity” that favoured “globalised elites at the expense of the people”. She and her colleagues have also denounced the “neoliberal” policies that supposedly unite the French left, the French right and the EU. Instead, the National Front wants to replace the “establishment” with a “muscular state” that taxes imports and nationalises foreign companies and banks. Read more…

 

By Anne Applebaum; Published on Jan. 27 in www.ft.com

28
Jan

In late 2014, when I visited the Peshmerga on the northern Iraq frontline with Isis, the famed Kurdish warriors were in buoyant mood. After a wobble when the militant Islamists captured Mosul that June, the Kurds had restored their image by recapturing a swath of land where the jihadis had massacred, terrorised and displaced Iraqi ethnic minorities.

Iraq’s Kurds have proved the most reliable western allies in an anti-Isis struggle in which other regional forces have been at best ambivalent and at worst have colluded with the jihadis.

With the survival of the autonomous Kurdish enclave at stake, and their aspirations of statehood closer to being realised, the Kurds have not vacillated in their resolve. For that, they have been celebrated and supported by western governments.

This tale of determination makes the Peshmerga’s treatment of towns and villages seized from Isis all the more distressing.

Stories of abuse have trickled out but it was only a few days ago that I read a comprehensive account. A friend handed me a report she had written for Amnesty International based on more than a year’s investigation into the areas recovered by the Peshmerga.

Through visits, satellite imagery and interviews with displaced people, she found a disturbing pattern. Arab residents of these towns and villages who fled to the Kurdish north were deliberately prevented from returning; in several cases the Peshmerga have destroyed or allowed the destruction of homes to ensure that villagers had nowhere to return to.

The forced displacement of populations may amount to a war crime, according to Amnesty. Read more…

 

By Roula Khalaf; published on Jan. 27  in www.ft.com

27
Jan

 

Why Arabs would regret a toothless Chinese dragon

Xi Jinping has left the Middle East, but the first visit of his presidency to the region has set pundits wondering if the Chinese dragon is preparing to replace the American eagle.

Here’s the short answer: it is not. Even if it were, the Arabs will not find a Chinese superpower more to their liking than the US one.

Much as the Middle East dislikes US foreign policy, Chinese foreign policy will bring with it its own problems. In particular, the Chinese policy of “non-interference” in the affairs of other nations, if applied to the Middle East, would not please the Arabs.

Here’s why. China has touted its policy of non-interference for decades. On one level, that sounds good – after all, non-interference in the affairs of other nation states is one of the pillars of the global system.

Perhaps a better way of thinking about it would be remaining neutral in the face of threats to allies. And that kind of “neutrality” is emphatically not what the Arabs want.

Neutrality, understood in that way, has two serious problems for the Middle East. It takes no sides in disputes and it entrenches the status quo. Neither of which is what the region needs right now.

Start with the disputes. As China’s global power rises, it gains greater leverage over international institutions such as the UN and over individual countries. As trade and cooperation increase between Arab countries and China, there is a natural next step where, having gained significant influence in Beijing, the Arab world will look to China to use its influence around the world in their favour. That’s what allies do, they support their allies.

What happens then, if China maintains its policy of strict neutrality? What happens when the Arab world asks China to use its influence at the UN to support the Palestinians – and China says no, on the ground of neutrality? Read more…

By Faisal Al Yafai; Published on Jan. 25 in thenational.ae

21
Jan

There’s a scary disconnect between the somber warnings you hear privately from military leaders about the war against the Islamic State and the glib debating points coming from Republican and Democratic politicians.

The politicians fulminate about defeating the terrorists, but they don’t talk much about the costs or sacrifices that will be required. The generals and admirals, who have been at war for 15 years, know that success can’t be bought cheaply. Defeating this enemy will require a much larger and longer commitment by the United States than any leading politician seems willing to acknowledge.

My visit here last week to the headquarters of Central Command, which oversees all U.S. military activities in the Middle East, came as part of a conference organized by the Center for Naval Analyses, which provides research to the Navy and other services. The ground rules prevent me from identifying speakers by name, but I can offer a summary of what I heard. It’s not reassuring.

Military leaders know that they are fighting a ruthless adversary that has adjusted and adapted its tactics as the United States and its partners have joined the fight over the past 18 months. The jihadists have lost about 25 percent of the territory they held in mid-2014, but they have devised innovative methods to compensate for their weakness.

Some examples illustrate the agility of Islamic State commanders: They have used tunnels and other concealment tactics to hide their movements; they have developed super-size car bombs, packing explosives in bulldozers and other heavy equipment and sending them in waves against targets; they have deployed small drones for reconnaissance and may be preparing armed drones; they have used chemical weapons, such as chlorine and mustard gas, on the battlefield and may expand use of such unconventional weapons. Read more…

 

Published on Jan. 18 by David Ignatius in https://www.washingtonpost.com

19
Jan

The beginning of 2016 in Europe saw the collision of two problems that have long been left to run their course undisturbed. Making allowances for human-rights abusers in order to avoid causing offense is, after all, nothing new here in Europe. Neither is our often well-meaning refusal to question the potential impact of welcoming record levels of migrants to our societies. On New Year’s Eve, more than 500 women out celebrating in Germany felt the impact of this collision: They were raped, sexually assaulted, and robbed by gangs of largely migrant men and then blamed for it by the authorities. Mayor Henriette Reker, of Cologne, released a “code of conduct” for women’s behavior in public, which included keeping strangers “an arm’s length away” and staying away from groups of people. Her words could have easily been mistaken for that of the U.K.’s Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), a pressure group with a long history of campaigning on behalf of convicted terrorists that published “precautionary advice” to prevent Muslims from “becoming targets of harassment,” stating that women “have to take personal precautions when they go outside.” Mayor Reker’s comments have rightly sparked an outcry from many activists and women’s-rights groups. But her words form part of a much darker picture, one that ends with women off the streets. Read more…

By Emily Dyer, Jan. 6, 2016 published in www.nationalreview.com
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429878/european-gang-rape-refugees
1 7 8 9 10 11 169

We use both our own and third-party cookies to enhance our services and to offer you the content that most suits your preferences by analysing your browsing habits. Your continued use of the site means that you accept these cookies. You may change your settings and obtain more information here. Accept