It may seem like a momentary lapse of reason, the firing today by the South African President, Mr. Thabo Mbeki, of the Deputy Minister of Health in the South African government, Ms. Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge. In fact, thus is the consensus of most commentators and interested parties that the untimely departure of this singularly capable deputy minister is potentially a devastating setback for the crucial campaign against AIDS in a country where that illness is inflicting countless tragedy across the country with more than 5 million persons HIV positive. According to News24, the President has fired the wrong minister, which can be taken as a thinly veiled quip at the controversial Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, also somewhat mockingly known as Ms Beetroot after her infamous preference for beets and garlic as medication against HIV infection.
The recent history of national health care or rather the lack of thereof in South Africa has reached alarming levels, with the exception of private clinics. In fact, on issues such as the government action towards addressing the AIDS epidemic in South Africa there have been international response ranging from grave concern to outright condemnation. Ms. Madlala-Routledge has been an outspoken yet outstandingly effective protagonist for solid, scientifically based plans and actions towards improving the health care situation in South Africa.
It appears that the main cause for the sacking of Ms Madlala-Routledge can be found in her distinct contradiction to the approach from the Minister of Health and the President himself to fighting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases in the South African population. At the surface, she was dismissed for taking an "unauthorised" trip to Spain in order to attend an AIDS conference. One would think a Deputy Minister of Health of the country where internationally AIDS has the second highest prevalence should be expected with full, official authorisation to attend such a conference.
In the 13 years since the change in political dispensation in South Africa, change has been constant and relentless. Yet, for all the hubbub, much of importance have gone decidedly sideways if not downright south. Education is in constant turmoil. Health care has given us this latest episode of bollocks. The Safety and Security ministry is a contradiction in terms with crime at near Colombian levels, if not as well-organised - thank God for small mercies.
In many ways one honestly can state without any smidgeon of disloyalty to God and country that all of the above are not what one has voted for in the run-up to 1994 and beyond. In fact, for all the hope and idealism of the time, with the wisdom of hindsight that vote seems to have become the wrong call.
10 August 2007
04 August 2007
A bridge too broken
Shock and awe were defined afresh last Wednesday, 1 August, at 18:02 US CDT when the I-35W bridge across the Mississippi collapsed under rush hour traffic without prior warning. Numerous eyewitness photo's of that catastrophic event can be found on Flickr. More chilling than the visual images are the consequent reports of well-established historic knowledge on the structural deficiency of the bridge. Apparently, over 70 000 bridges in the USA carry the classification of structural deficiency - a truly startling statistic.
The classification of deficiency can be awarded for any structural score below 80/100. The I-35W bridge had a score of 50 (or 4/9 according to the NY Times) before the collapse. This score had been given in 2005, yet the bridge remained in service. That was until last Wednesday, when it finally gave way. So to state the collapse came without prior warning is not quite holding up to the truth. I would call 50/100 on structural integrity for a heavily used bridge ample warning of impending doom. The disaster prompts the question: How is such a situation of infrastructural decay conceivable in the richest country on Earth?
The NY Times have reported that there are 756 bridges of this design in use in the USA. Most bridges were built during the construction boom of the 1950's and 1960's. Since the 1970's these bridges were merely maintained. Yet, there hangs a question over the original design and consequent construction. After all, bridges under heavy use elsewhere in the First World do not collapse in similar fashion. Could the pressures of profit and budget have compromised solid engineering wisdom?
Alas, the picture appears even grimmer upon taking a step back from the immediate calamity in Minneapolis. In Massachusetts, the recently commissioned I-90E tunnel suffered a collapsed roof in 2006, which incident caused the death of a passenger of a car hit by a piece of the collapsed roof. The so-called Big Dig that produced this tunnel was terribly over budget and late as well. The road system have been plagued by operational problems ever since. As it were, the government tender process for the Big Dig was a model of graft and first class lobbying in favour of local project managers and contractors.
The particular flaw at the root of the collapsed roof of the I-90E tunnel can only be attributed to amateurish design and cost cutting in which a cheap solution for tunnel ventilation was selected with undergraduate incompetence. Even a Third Year Civil Engineering student should know that one does not hang from tie rods screwed vertically into concrete, a heavy weight subject to vibrations and thermal cycling. Concrete does not take well to the prevalent stresses under such conditions - especially over time.
Yet there is further rot to be spotted. Only last week, there were reports of a manhole grid that had become unsettled on I-93 and seriously injured a driver when it was flung up by a passing lorry. This grid featured on a freeway, not a secondary town road. It defies reason how a freeway can be designed with manholes and grids on the road surface or even the emergency lanes. Instead, water drainage should be provided along the outer edges via gutters, not via manholes and grids on the road surface. Such proven safe design can be found on German autobahns. Again, cost is the likely motivation for the manhole and grid solution over more sophisticated and costly gutters along the road edges.
All in all, it has been estimated that the total cost of upgrading national infrastructure in the USA will amount to over $1 trillion dollar - a truly staggering amount of money [1], especially when facing a cumulative budget deficit of $741 billion for 2005 and 2006. Yet, Congress has already approved $500 billion for the futile Iraq war and it may cost another $500 billion to finish that mission unaccomplished. Could these imbalances and tragic consequences be symptomatic of an endemic fault line in the US culture of pragmatic paths to profit?
Perhaps what we have here is a bridge too broken to be fixed by sound bites, YouTube productions and quick fixes. One can only sincerely hope that it will not turn out a bridge too far.
The classification of deficiency can be awarded for any structural score below 80/100. The I-35W bridge had a score of 50 (or 4/9 according to the NY Times) before the collapse. This score had been given in 2005, yet the bridge remained in service. That was until last Wednesday, when it finally gave way. So to state the collapse came without prior warning is not quite holding up to the truth. I would call 50/100 on structural integrity for a heavily used bridge ample warning of impending doom. The disaster prompts the question: How is such a situation of infrastructural decay conceivable in the richest country on Earth?
The NY Times have reported that there are 756 bridges of this design in use in the USA. Most bridges were built during the construction boom of the 1950's and 1960's. Since the 1970's these bridges were merely maintained. Yet, there hangs a question over the original design and consequent construction. After all, bridges under heavy use elsewhere in the First World do not collapse in similar fashion. Could the pressures of profit and budget have compromised solid engineering wisdom?
Alas, the picture appears even grimmer upon taking a step back from the immediate calamity in Minneapolis. In Massachusetts, the recently commissioned I-90E tunnel suffered a collapsed roof in 2006, which incident caused the death of a passenger of a car hit by a piece of the collapsed roof. The so-called Big Dig that produced this tunnel was terribly over budget and late as well. The road system have been plagued by operational problems ever since. As it were, the government tender process for the Big Dig was a model of graft and first class lobbying in favour of local project managers and contractors.
The particular flaw at the root of the collapsed roof of the I-90E tunnel can only be attributed to amateurish design and cost cutting in which a cheap solution for tunnel ventilation was selected with undergraduate incompetence. Even a Third Year Civil Engineering student should know that one does not hang from tie rods screwed vertically into concrete, a heavy weight subject to vibrations and thermal cycling. Concrete does not take well to the prevalent stresses under such conditions - especially over time.
Yet there is further rot to be spotted. Only last week, there were reports of a manhole grid that had become unsettled on I-93 and seriously injured a driver when it was flung up by a passing lorry. This grid featured on a freeway, not a secondary town road. It defies reason how a freeway can be designed with manholes and grids on the road surface or even the emergency lanes. Instead, water drainage should be provided along the outer edges via gutters, not via manholes and grids on the road surface. Such proven safe design can be found on German autobahns. Again, cost is the likely motivation for the manhole and grid solution over more sophisticated and costly gutters along the road edges.
All in all, it has been estimated that the total cost of upgrading national infrastructure in the USA will amount to over $1 trillion dollar - a truly staggering amount of money [1], especially when facing a cumulative budget deficit of $741 billion for 2005 and 2006. Yet, Congress has already approved $500 billion for the futile Iraq war and it may cost another $500 billion to finish that mission unaccomplished. Could these imbalances and tragic consequences be symptomatic of an endemic fault line in the US culture of pragmatic paths to profit?
Perhaps what we have here is a bridge too broken to be fixed by sound bites, YouTube productions and quick fixes. One can only sincerely hope that it will not turn out a bridge too far.
10 July 2007
Precisely up there
Each to his own, it is said. Now Al-Qaeda reckons to suggest that Britain should watch its step in accordance with Al-Qaeda convictions. In fact, according to The Times of London, Al-Qaeda is preparing a "precise response" to the honours bestowed upon Mr. Rushdie earlier this year by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain. There is a distinctly ominous tone to that phrase, "precise response".
But the whole affair reeks of arrogance on the part of Al-Qaeda that can stem only from a petrified mind steeped in prehistoric religious entrapment. Let Al-Qaeda do as it pleases in its own territories and let Britain do as it pleases on its own land. Britain never has been a traditionally Muslim country and does not intend to become so in the foreseeable future, rampant immigration notwithstanding. It does not submit to Muslim dictates and decrees. It may bestow whatever honours it pleases upon members of its society without asking permission from outsiders.
Al-Qaeda can put its precise response precisely up there and that is that.
But the whole affair reeks of arrogance on the part of Al-Qaeda that can stem only from a petrified mind steeped in prehistoric religious entrapment. Let Al-Qaeda do as it pleases in its own territories and let Britain do as it pleases on its own land. Britain never has been a traditionally Muslim country and does not intend to become so in the foreseeable future, rampant immigration notwithstanding. It does not submit to Muslim dictates and decrees. It may bestow whatever honours it pleases upon members of its society without asking permission from outsiders.
Al-Qaeda can put its precise response precisely up there and that is that.
31 March 2007
Call a spade a spade
The English have a knack for candid sayings. One such saying jumps to mind upon hearing the latest uttering from the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, regarding the Palestinian refugee question: Call a spade a spade. Yet, we are treated to spin and more spin.
According to the NY Times, Mr. Olmert told one Israeli newspaper this past week that he would not accept the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. The refugees fled Israel during the 1948 war between Israel and Arab nations.
On the other hand, the NY Times reported the view amongst Palestinians that even before the Arab nations attacked Israel, many Arabs had fled or had been forced to flee by Jewish fighters. After the war, Israel barred their return.
Apparently, the majority of Israelis appear to have an aversion to significant numbers of Palestinians inside the borders of Israel in fear of undermining "the Jewish nature of the state", to quote the NY Times. Deja vu again, I am afraid. Smacks of Apartheid, one could say. Only, no major Western government or spokesman utters a whisper along that line.
It appears that as long as Israel nestles under the armpit of the USA, very few figures of any international or national prominence would dare call a spade a spade with regard to Israel and the Palestinian issue. Meanwhile, the region is digging itself ever deeper into a trench. Only problem is that the rest of the world may just slip over the edge into that very trench to tear itself apart once more.
According to the NY Times, Mr. Olmert told one Israeli newspaper this past week that he would not accept the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. The refugees fled Israel during the 1948 war between Israel and Arab nations.
On the other hand, the NY Times reported the view amongst Palestinians that even before the Arab nations attacked Israel, many Arabs had fled or had been forced to flee by Jewish fighters. After the war, Israel barred their return.
Apparently, the majority of Israelis appear to have an aversion to significant numbers of Palestinians inside the borders of Israel in fear of undermining "the Jewish nature of the state", to quote the NY Times. Deja vu again, I am afraid. Smacks of Apartheid, one could say. Only, no major Western government or spokesman utters a whisper along that line.
It appears that as long as Israel nestles under the armpit of the USA, very few figures of any international or national prominence would dare call a spade a spade with regard to Israel and the Palestinian issue. Meanwhile, the region is digging itself ever deeper into a trench. Only problem is that the rest of the world may just slip over the edge into that very trench to tear itself apart once more.
25 March 2007
Trading moral ground
There were some raised eyebrows in diplomatic circles this past week. Consternation might be too strong a term, but South Africa did shake the moral esteem in which the country had been held for the past 15 years with its counter proposal on a resolution for tougher action against Iran and its nuclear program.
South Africa had stood on high moral ground indeed since the remarkable political and social changes that came to pass between 1992 and 2007. The nation that was torn and traumatised by years of political injustice and consequent social unrest miraculously took noble decisions and a turn away from the precipice. In the process, the country turned a page in its history. It was welcomed back into the international community. It became the first country to renounce and abolish its nuclear weapons program of its own accord - although under pressure from traditional Western powers to do so. These actions had brought the country into high moral esteem and it since served as example for others to follow. That was until this past week when the South African ambassador to the UN left many leaders aghast with his proposed resolution on Iran. South Africa chairs the Security Council at present - a valuable position which should not be squandered by perverse proposals such as its proposal on Iran.
It can be argued that South Africa acted in its own interest although the formal line on the proposal was that it wanted to open the path for negotiation on the Iran nuclear issue. The week before the Iranian foreign minister visited South Africa for talks.
Iran is a notable trade partner of South Africa, which imports a significant quantity of oil from Iran. It is potentially also a weapons trade parter of Iran. South African heavy artillery had been sold in the Middle East in the past. The weapons industry in South Africa in dire straights and any potential deals could be rather tempting.
So if South Africa were trading moral ground for oil and weapon deals, would it be any different in this sense from the USA and Britain? Does not the USA prop up questionable Middle Eastern and South American regimes for its own political and financial interests? And yet, the US and UK foreign offices have been gasping for air the past week when South Africa seemingly attempted to throw a spanner into their works against Iran. Suddenly, the NY Times writes how South Africa has lowered its moral voice and makes rather trite remarks on the country's recent international stance.
The pot cannot blame the kettle it would seem. Morality in international affairs only go as far as the wallet dictates. In the end, we all have feet of clay.
South Africa had stood on high moral ground indeed since the remarkable political and social changes that came to pass between 1992 and 2007. The nation that was torn and traumatised by years of political injustice and consequent social unrest miraculously took noble decisions and a turn away from the precipice. In the process, the country turned a page in its history. It was welcomed back into the international community. It became the first country to renounce and abolish its nuclear weapons program of its own accord - although under pressure from traditional Western powers to do so. These actions had brought the country into high moral esteem and it since served as example for others to follow. That was until this past week when the South African ambassador to the UN left many leaders aghast with his proposed resolution on Iran. South Africa chairs the Security Council at present - a valuable position which should not be squandered by perverse proposals such as its proposal on Iran.
It can be argued that South Africa acted in its own interest although the formal line on the proposal was that it wanted to open the path for negotiation on the Iran nuclear issue. The week before the Iranian foreign minister visited South Africa for talks.
Iran is a notable trade partner of South Africa, which imports a significant quantity of oil from Iran. It is potentially also a weapons trade parter of Iran. South African heavy artillery had been sold in the Middle East in the past. The weapons industry in South Africa in dire straights and any potential deals could be rather tempting.
So if South Africa were trading moral ground for oil and weapon deals, would it be any different in this sense from the USA and Britain? Does not the USA prop up questionable Middle Eastern and South American regimes for its own political and financial interests? And yet, the US and UK foreign offices have been gasping for air the past week when South Africa seemingly attempted to throw a spanner into their works against Iran. Suddenly, the NY Times writes how South Africa has lowered its moral voice and makes rather trite remarks on the country's recent international stance.
The pot cannot blame the kettle it would seem. Morality in international affairs only go as far as the wallet dictates. In the end, we all have feet of clay.
01 January 2007
2007: Building a dream
Charity is as charity does. Today, the EU anthem, the prelude to "The Ode to Joy" by Ludwig van Beethoven, rang out in celebration of the ascension to the EU of Romania and Bulgaria. Prospects of new hope for these ex-Soviet states filled the vision of 2007. Yet, on the eve of New Year, there was another celebration taking place on the other side of the equator - one of hope for impoverished and depraved girls, of a proper education in fine style.
In Sun City, South Africa, Oprah Winfrey celebrated the New Year in grand style. However, this celebration was not only splash for celebrities. It was a celebration also of a very special institution. In the little town of Henley-on-Klip, Meyerton, South Africa, a new academy for girls will be opened in 2007: The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy.
The new institution is not without its controversy. With typical South African irony, Meyerton is built on gold mining. Yet, large portions of the broader community live in poverty, with rather dismal education provisions. Brushing aside critique over the lavish investment in a community where poverty reigns, Ms Winfrey made a rather poignant statement on her choice to build such a luxurious academy in that region of South Africa, saying she didn't build it in the USA because inner-city kids in the USA don't appreciate the value of a free education [Daily News].
Ms Winfrey went on to say, " If you ask the [US] kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school."
This stark difference in mentality is arguably characteristic of the current status of the two societies. South Africans are very much aware of the potential of education in a country that is largely Third World with a burgeoning First World sector. Children often travel long distances to reach school - even though the school standards are often dismal in many communities. The national budget for education takes the lion's share of the overall budget. The South African dream is very much centred on education.
The American society appears to be in a state of affluence and excess. Education has relatively less importance. Wealth, superficial entertainment and status symbols seem to take preference. Such a lifestyle feeds intense paranoia over loosing it all. The annual defense budget dwarfs all other segments combined. The American dream appears very much off course.
Ms Winfrey's investment in South Africa deserves applause. It also raises some reservations over the unusual trappings of American glitter that this institution introduces into a community with simple demands: Excellent education for realising dreams of a new future.
In Sun City, South Africa, Oprah Winfrey celebrated the New Year in grand style. However, this celebration was not only splash for celebrities. It was a celebration also of a very special institution. In the little town of Henley-on-Klip, Meyerton, South Africa, a new academy for girls will be opened in 2007: The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy.
The new institution is not without its controversy. With typical South African irony, Meyerton is built on gold mining. Yet, large portions of the broader community live in poverty, with rather dismal education provisions. Brushing aside critique over the lavish investment in a community where poverty reigns, Ms Winfrey made a rather poignant statement on her choice to build such a luxurious academy in that region of South Africa, saying she didn't build it in the USA because inner-city kids in the USA don't appreciate the value of a free education [Daily News].
Ms Winfrey went on to say, " If you ask the [US] kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school."
This stark difference in mentality is arguably characteristic of the current status of the two societies. South Africans are very much aware of the potential of education in a country that is largely Third World with a burgeoning First World sector. Children often travel long distances to reach school - even though the school standards are often dismal in many communities. The national budget for education takes the lion's share of the overall budget. The South African dream is very much centred on education.
The American society appears to be in a state of affluence and excess. Education has relatively less importance. Wealth, superficial entertainment and status symbols seem to take preference. Such a lifestyle feeds intense paranoia over loosing it all. The annual defense budget dwarfs all other segments combined. The American dream appears very much off course.
Ms Winfrey's investment in South Africa deserves applause. It also raises some reservations over the unusual trappings of American glitter that this institution introduces into a community with simple demands: Excellent education for realising dreams of a new future.
25 September 2006
Injustice incorporated
Shocking - that is the first incredulous conclusion after reading the article in the NY Times of today on American justice courts. As it turns out, justice court is a misnomer for a large number of these institutions that often occupy premises more reminiscent of a farm barn or a workshop.
"Some of the courtrooms are not even courtrooms: tiny offices or basement rooms without a judge'’s bench or jury box. "
These courts are supposed to bring affordable justice to common people in small towns in backyard districts. Instead, according to a NY Times report following a year long investigation, dependents are often denied proper recourse to law, unfairly judged, unduly sentenced and obstructed from an appeal through utterly incompetent court transcriptions, if any.
"People have been sent to jail without a guilty plea or a trial, or tossed from their homes without a proper proceeding. In violation of the law, defendants have been refused lawyers, or sentenced to weeks in jail because they cannot pay a fine."
The judges are often incompetent.
"Some 1,140 justices have received some sort of reprimand over the last three decades - an average of about 40 a year, either privately warned, publicly rebuked or removed. They are seriously disciplined at a steeper rate than their higher-court colleagues."
"For the nearly 75 percent of justices who are not lawyers, the only initial training is six days of state-administered classes, followed by a true-or-false test so rudimentary that the official who runs it said only one candidate since 1999 had failed."
There is little control over these courts and the judges that run these institutions.
"State court officials know little about the justices, and cannot reliably say how many cases they handle or how many are appealed. Even the agency charged with disciplining them, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, is not equipped to fully police their vast numbers."
These courts are prevalent in a majority of states in the USA.
"New York is one of about 30 states that still rely on these kinds of local judges, descendants of the justices who kept the peace in Colonial days, when lawyers were scarce."
These courts handle not just trivial cases such as speeding offences either.
"It is tempting to view the justice courts as weak and inconsequential because the bulk of their business is traffic violations. Yet among their 2.2 million cases, the courts handle more than 300,000 criminal matters a year."
Small wonder that this travesty of law and justice is the order of day: A judge of a justice court can be appointed willy-nilly - as long as the person is elected!
"The reason is plain: Many do not know or seem to care what the law is. Justices are not screened for competence, temperament or even reading ability. The only requirement is that they be elected. But voters often have little inkling of the justicesÂ’ power or their sometimes tainted records."
The article in the NY Times continues to cite examples of abuse and incompetence by these justice court judges.
In defense of the system of justice courts, it is argued that the benefits to people outweigh the rotten spots. However, in reality this system is the remnants of a thirteen century English system of layman law for lowly cases. Unfortunately, modern times have left this system behind and exposed it for the folly it is today: a band of cavalier henchmen who reign supreme over their little local fiefdoms, often providing anchor points for wholesale nepotism and prejudice on a local scale.
Not in Britain, the Netherlands, both ex-colonial powers; or South Africa, an ex-colony of both forementioned countries, is there today any such aberration of justice as the justice courts of the USA, a country that prides itself on being a land of laws. Perhaps it would be better served by setting its own house in order rather than preaching to other countries about justice.
"Some of the courtrooms are not even courtrooms: tiny offices or basement rooms without a judge'’s bench or jury box. "
These courts are supposed to bring affordable justice to common people in small towns in backyard districts. Instead, according to a NY Times report following a year long investigation, dependents are often denied proper recourse to law, unfairly judged, unduly sentenced and obstructed from an appeal through utterly incompetent court transcriptions, if any.
"People have been sent to jail without a guilty plea or a trial, or tossed from their homes without a proper proceeding. In violation of the law, defendants have been refused lawyers, or sentenced to weeks in jail because they cannot pay a fine."
The judges are often incompetent.
"Some 1,140 justices have received some sort of reprimand over the last three decades - an average of about 40 a year, either privately warned, publicly rebuked or removed. They are seriously disciplined at a steeper rate than their higher-court colleagues."
"For the nearly 75 percent of justices who are not lawyers, the only initial training is six days of state-administered classes, followed by a true-or-false test so rudimentary that the official who runs it said only one candidate since 1999 had failed."
There is little control over these courts and the judges that run these institutions.
"State court officials know little about the justices, and cannot reliably say how many cases they handle or how many are appealed. Even the agency charged with disciplining them, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, is not equipped to fully police their vast numbers."
These courts are prevalent in a majority of states in the USA.
"New York is one of about 30 states that still rely on these kinds of local judges, descendants of the justices who kept the peace in Colonial days, when lawyers were scarce."
These courts handle not just trivial cases such as speeding offences either.
"It is tempting to view the justice courts as weak and inconsequential because the bulk of their business is traffic violations. Yet among their 2.2 million cases, the courts handle more than 300,000 criminal matters a year."
Small wonder that this travesty of law and justice is the order of day: A judge of a justice court can be appointed willy-nilly - as long as the person is elected!
"The reason is plain: Many do not know or seem to care what the law is. Justices are not screened for competence, temperament or even reading ability. The only requirement is that they be elected. But voters often have little inkling of the justicesÂ’ power or their sometimes tainted records."
The article in the NY Times continues to cite examples of abuse and incompetence by these justice court judges.
In defense of the system of justice courts, it is argued that the benefits to people outweigh the rotten spots. However, in reality this system is the remnants of a thirteen century English system of layman law for lowly cases. Unfortunately, modern times have left this system behind and exposed it for the folly it is today: a band of cavalier henchmen who reign supreme over their little local fiefdoms, often providing anchor points for wholesale nepotism and prejudice on a local scale.
Not in Britain, the Netherlands, both ex-colonial powers; or South Africa, an ex-colony of both forementioned countries, is there today any such aberration of justice as the justice courts of the USA, a country that prides itself on being a land of laws. Perhaps it would be better served by setting its own house in order rather than preaching to other countries about justice.
18 September 2006
Not by the sword
Pope Benedict XVI has put his foot squarely in it during last Tuesday with his speech at the University of Regensburg, Germany. And he is still attempting to extract it so he can carry on with his tour to Turkey.
Once again Muslims are up in arms, some taking the opportunity to go on a rampage and in doing so, ironically affirm the view expressed in the unfortunate quote by the Pope from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The Pope continued along the lines of faith and reason: "[N]ot to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."
His lecture contrasted the Hellenistic foundations of Catholicism in which a rational God is the premise, with religions such as Islam where God is supreme above all reason including His own dictates. He could not let slip the opportunity to gaff at the Reformation by noting that dehellenisation of the Christian religion started with the Reformation.
Science was not spared and the Pope took a firm swing at the scientific foundations of Platonic/Cartesian formulation and empirical verification. Accusing science thus defined of leaving no room for God and thus limiting faith in God to subjective conjecture or experience, Benedict was clearly on a gallop.
The target now loomed large as his argument converged on science and religion, both of which must be obedient to the truth and are founded in reason. Therefore, by implication science is challenged to leave scope for the metaphysical of religion. A reason that does not accommodate the possibility of the divine reduces religion to a subculture and therefore exclude cultures. A faith that does not allow reason is bound to be relegated to the realm of the subjective, where ethics and conscience are purely personal choices.
His discourse screeched to a halt with the final stroke: A call to the worlds of reason and faith to reunite, for a new enquiry into the rationality of faith and ultimately, for dialogue of reason amongst cultures and religions.
To which one question stands up with quiet resolve: Where do the Crusades and Inquisition fit into this logos?
Once again Muslims are up in arms, some taking the opportunity to go on a rampage and in doing so, ironically affirm the view expressed in the unfortunate quote by the Pope from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The Pope continued along the lines of faith and reason: "[N]ot to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."
His lecture contrasted the Hellenistic foundations of Catholicism in which a rational God is the premise, with religions such as Islam where God is supreme above all reason including His own dictates. He could not let slip the opportunity to gaff at the Reformation by noting that dehellenisation of the Christian religion started with the Reformation.
Science was not spared and the Pope took a firm swing at the scientific foundations of Platonic/Cartesian formulation and empirical verification. Accusing science thus defined of leaving no room for God and thus limiting faith in God to subjective conjecture or experience, Benedict was clearly on a gallop.
The target now loomed large as his argument converged on science and religion, both of which must be obedient to the truth and are founded in reason. Therefore, by implication science is challenged to leave scope for the metaphysical of religion. A reason that does not accommodate the possibility of the divine reduces religion to a subculture and therefore exclude cultures. A faith that does not allow reason is bound to be relegated to the realm of the subjective, where ethics and conscience are purely personal choices.
His discourse screeched to a halt with the final stroke: A call to the worlds of reason and faith to reunite, for a new enquiry into the rationality of faith and ultimately, for dialogue of reason amongst cultures and religions.
To which one question stands up with quiet resolve: Where do the Crusades and Inquisition fit into this logos?
12 September 2006
The day after
Yesterday was 11 September. On that pivotal day five years ago, darkness fell upon the world. Brewing discontent spewed raw hatred into the capital of capitalism, New York. The serpent struck at the ankle of the colossus. The Twin Towers fell. In total 2,973 people were killed, including 246 on the four aeroplanes, 2,602 in New York City in the Towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. A nation recoiled in horror and grieve. The world stood aghast.
Soon, vengeance followed shock and bewilderment, spreading with the poison from that venomous bite. The world moved one step closer to global confrontation. Chasms sprang open, gasping divides between cultures, religions and, more importantly, global economic interests.
Afghanistan was invaded, it's Taliban government deposed; replaced by a moderate, elected government. Importantly, the new government had the approval of US, UK and EU leadership, which also served to prop up security. Also noteworthy were the rich oil fields of neighbouring Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, with the prospects of an oil pipe line through Afghanistan, breaking the Russian influence over oil distribution from these regions [Guardian 2001]. The human death toll was hard to calculate. Some estimated the civilian death toll at over 3000 by the year 2002 [BBC].
Iraq was next, after spin doctors on both sides of the Atlantic did their part in whipping up support for an invasion. Saddam Hussein was toppled and his government replaced by an elected government. Amid rising sectarian violence, the new government carried the support of the US, UK and EU, to whose forces it owed it's continued existence. Interestingly, Iraq had the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, as reported in Global Policy. The cat was certainly out amongst the pigeons as far as gaining control over oil exploration in Iraq. The human cost was enormous - more than 100000 according to some studies.
So here we are today, the day after 11 September. Yesterday, we commemorated that dreadful day in 2001. Today, the US Embassy in Damascus has been attacked by terrorists, fortunately intercepted by Syrian security personnel. One security person lost his live. The irony of that incident is not lost upon the audience.
Today, the Taliban is resurging. Afghanistan is an imploding dust bowl, in the words of Peter Preston of The Guardian.
Today, the tensions over Iran is racing towards critical mass over that country's defiant stance on its nuclear research programme. Some reports indicate that Iran is bound to deploy dual-purpose installations [Global Security]. Yet, no conclusive evidence has been found to proof military intentions for the nuclear programme [Spacewar]. Meanwhile, Iran has the world's second largest natural gas reserves and fifth largest oil reserves, according to Global Security.
Today, the war on terror is raging unabated. Security is the name of the game, democracy the new gospel, pre-emptive strike the method of choice. In Lebanon they are still counting the bomblets from cluster bombing of civilian areas. Civilians casualties are stated at 1230 [Wikipedia]. Yet, the faceless enemy is still spinning on its evil axis. Coalitions of the willing are stretched to exhaustion. Officials and leaders are forever mincing words in search of more spin, votes and money for more wars.
Today, quietly in their back offices, the corporate leaders are counting their returns from the new empire of the wealthy. As with the British Empire of old, the public hunger for commodities and energy are fueling the endeavours of those who are willing, ambitious and greedy. As before, it is the common treadmill peddlers who pay the dearest price for these endeavours, the day after.
Soon, vengeance followed shock and bewilderment, spreading with the poison from that venomous bite. The world moved one step closer to global confrontation. Chasms sprang open, gasping divides between cultures, religions and, more importantly, global economic interests.
Afghanistan was invaded, it's Taliban government deposed; replaced by a moderate, elected government. Importantly, the new government had the approval of US, UK and EU leadership, which also served to prop up security. Also noteworthy were the rich oil fields of neighbouring Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, with the prospects of an oil pipe line through Afghanistan, breaking the Russian influence over oil distribution from these regions [Guardian 2001]. The human death toll was hard to calculate. Some estimated the civilian death toll at over 3000 by the year 2002 [BBC].
Iraq was next, after spin doctors on both sides of the Atlantic did their part in whipping up support for an invasion. Saddam Hussein was toppled and his government replaced by an elected government. Amid rising sectarian violence, the new government carried the support of the US, UK and EU, to whose forces it owed it's continued existence. Interestingly, Iraq had the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, as reported in Global Policy. The cat was certainly out amongst the pigeons as far as gaining control over oil exploration in Iraq. The human cost was enormous - more than 100000 according to some studies.
So here we are today, the day after 11 September. Yesterday, we commemorated that dreadful day in 2001. Today, the US Embassy in Damascus has been attacked by terrorists, fortunately intercepted by Syrian security personnel. One security person lost his live. The irony of that incident is not lost upon the audience.
Today, the Taliban is resurging. Afghanistan is an imploding dust bowl, in the words of Peter Preston of The Guardian.
Today, the tensions over Iran is racing towards critical mass over that country's defiant stance on its nuclear research programme. Some reports indicate that Iran is bound to deploy dual-purpose installations [Global Security]. Yet, no conclusive evidence has been found to proof military intentions for the nuclear programme [Spacewar]. Meanwhile, Iran has the world's second largest natural gas reserves and fifth largest oil reserves, according to Global Security.
Today, the war on terror is raging unabated. Security is the name of the game, democracy the new gospel, pre-emptive strike the method of choice. In Lebanon they are still counting the bomblets from cluster bombing of civilian areas. Civilians casualties are stated at 1230 [Wikipedia]. Yet, the faceless enemy is still spinning on its evil axis. Coalitions of the willing are stretched to exhaustion. Officials and leaders are forever mincing words in search of more spin, votes and money for more wars.
Today, quietly in their back offices, the corporate leaders are counting their returns from the new empire of the wealthy. As with the British Empire of old, the public hunger for commodities and energy are fueling the endeavours of those who are willing, ambitious and greedy. As before, it is the common treadmill peddlers who pay the dearest price for these endeavours, the day after.
26 August 2006
Minority report
Since the notorious Kinsey Report of the 1950's, it has been accepted that roughly 5% to 7% of humans are homosexual. Further, the report suggested that up to 37% of males have homo-erotic experiences. The question immediately arises: How is homosexuality observed in the animal kingdom, with which humans share a significant section of our genome?
Observation of homosexuality in animals was recorded as far back as 200 years ago. However, because of the controversy, the social order of the day enforced censorship on these findings. In a word, the topic became the science that dares not speak its name.
Today, some enlightenment is dawning upon Mankind in the area of sexuality and sexual behaviour. Consequently, the study of animal homosexual behaviour has again been rekindled and the results are quite staggering to say the least.
In short, it would appear from scientific observations that homosexual behaviour is highly prevalent in the animal kingdom. Far from being a minority phenomenon as accepted amongst humans, homosexuality can be the norm - together with heterosexual behaviour. Finding an explanation within the framework set by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is another matter altogether. Beyond any doubt, homosexuality is somehow sustained in the animal kingdom and therefore must play a beneficial role to have survived the process of natural selection.
Since humans share at least 98% of our genome with other mammals and sexuality is a rather primary function in all species, one could conjecture that the sexual trends of mammals may also be present in humans in one form or another. Conversely, according to Wikipedia, "[r]esearchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species, sexual arousal from objects or places, rape, necrophilia, and a range of other practices among animals. Observers have documented behavior analogous to sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and situational sexual behaviour) in humans."
In light of the above, the moral arguments against homosexuality that often support the bigotry against homosexual and bisexual people have little ground beyond religious considerations. Certainly normality cannot be the premise. Subjective and perilous at the best of times, the concept of normality would rather seem to be supported in favour of homosexual behaviour by the above research findings of sexual behaviour in animals closely related to humans.
A brief glance at human history and culture shows how at different times and in different cultures the free expression of homosexuality was more or less prevalent. Most famous for the free expression of homosexuality and homo-eroticism were the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. If homosexuality was not a feature of the inherent human sexual behaviour then a more liberal culture would hardly have evoked such behaviour on such a broad scale. Moreover, the persistence of homosexuality under duress of persecution is a stronger argument for the inherent inclination to some degree of homosexuality in humans.
At the very least the truth about human sexuality is likely that sexual orientation is variable in the same individual according to circumstance. There may even be evidence to suggest that it is quite natural and advantageous also to form strong, enduring same-sex bonds and partnerships as opposed to exclusively heterosexual partnerships. And to take this argument to its extreme, the institution of marriage - that holy cow of the major religions - suddenly seems not so fundamental and solidly founded as we have been indoctrinated to believe.
In the end we still do not understand the evolutionary role of homosexuality, yet we cannot refute the prevalence of homosexuality in several species, including ourselves. Chances are that monogamy and marginalizing of homosexual tendencies are rather unnatural behaviour for the human species.
It remains to be seen whether scientific and therefore biological honesty will translate into human cultures open to bisexual as well as homosexual behaviour in the sexually active population.
[Detailed discussions follow in comments to this post.]
Further reference:
Bruce Bagemihl. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, ISBN: 0312192398, St. Martin's Press, 1999.
To reproduce or not to reproduce, that is the question!
Observation of homosexuality in animals was recorded as far back as 200 years ago. However, because of the controversy, the social order of the day enforced censorship on these findings. In a word, the topic became the science that dares not speak its name.
Today, some enlightenment is dawning upon Mankind in the area of sexuality and sexual behaviour. Consequently, the study of animal homosexual behaviour has again been rekindled and the results are quite staggering to say the least.
In short, it would appear from scientific observations that homosexual behaviour is highly prevalent in the animal kingdom. Far from being a minority phenomenon as accepted amongst humans, homosexuality can be the norm - together with heterosexual behaviour. Finding an explanation within the framework set by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is another matter altogether. Beyond any doubt, homosexuality is somehow sustained in the animal kingdom and therefore must play a beneficial role to have survived the process of natural selection.
Since humans share at least 98% of our genome with other mammals and sexuality is a rather primary function in all species, one could conjecture that the sexual trends of mammals may also be present in humans in one form or another. Conversely, according to Wikipedia, "[r]esearchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species, sexual arousal from objects or places, rape, necrophilia, and a range of other practices among animals. Observers have documented behavior analogous to sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and situational sexual behaviour) in humans."
In light of the above, the moral arguments against homosexuality that often support the bigotry against homosexual and bisexual people have little ground beyond religious considerations. Certainly normality cannot be the premise. Subjective and perilous at the best of times, the concept of normality would rather seem to be supported in favour of homosexual behaviour by the above research findings of sexual behaviour in animals closely related to humans.
A brief glance at human history and culture shows how at different times and in different cultures the free expression of homosexuality was more or less prevalent. Most famous for the free expression of homosexuality and homo-eroticism were the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. If homosexuality was not a feature of the inherent human sexual behaviour then a more liberal culture would hardly have evoked such behaviour on such a broad scale. Moreover, the persistence of homosexuality under duress of persecution is a stronger argument for the inherent inclination to some degree of homosexuality in humans.
At the very least the truth about human sexuality is likely that sexual orientation is variable in the same individual according to circumstance. There may even be evidence to suggest that it is quite natural and advantageous also to form strong, enduring same-sex bonds and partnerships as opposed to exclusively heterosexual partnerships. And to take this argument to its extreme, the institution of marriage - that holy cow of the major religions - suddenly seems not so fundamental and solidly founded as we have been indoctrinated to believe.
In the end we still do not understand the evolutionary role of homosexuality, yet we cannot refute the prevalence of homosexuality in several species, including ourselves. Chances are that monogamy and marginalizing of homosexual tendencies are rather unnatural behaviour for the human species.
It remains to be seen whether scientific and therefore biological honesty will translate into human cultures open to bisexual as well as homosexual behaviour in the sexually active population.
[Detailed discussions follow in comments to this post.]
Further reference:
Bruce Bagemihl. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, ISBN: 0312192398, St. Martin's Press, 1999.
To reproduce or not to reproduce, that is the question!
21 August 2006
Ms Beetroot and the salid stand
The government of South Africa has moved from denial to betrayal regarding their handling of the AIDS epidemic in the country. Gregg Gonsalves of the AIDS Rights Alliance of Southern Africa slammed the government's lack of leadership in this tragic epidemic, according to Allafrica.com.
The Minister of Health, Ms Tshabalala-Msimang, also known in media circles as Ms Beetroot, appears unperturbed and defiant at the strong condemnation of her handling of the AIDS epidemic. Ms Tshabalala-Msimang reckons the country is doing well, reports News24. Indeed.
With 5.5 million people HIV positive and about 1000 dying per day of AIDS, South Africa is doing very well, isn't it? The report on AIDS in SA by Avert.org makes for chilling reading. From 1994 when the ANC came to power until today, the prevalence of HIV in pregnant women has increased from 4.3% to 30.2%. During the same time, the government has gone through several phases of denial.
First, the president, Mr Thabo Mbeki, demonstrated immense difficulty in accepting established medical evidence that the HI virus is the cause of AIDS. Instead, the president flirted with rogue medical reports that other factors such as poverty and malnutrition are causes of AIDS. In doing so, Mr Mbeki demonstrated the common statistical confusion of false correlation.
While conducive conditions will correlate with a certain outcome, such conditions are not synonymous with causality. While poverty is often conducive to contracting the HIV virus and in turn poverty as well as malnutrition are conducive to developing AIDS from the HIV virus, it does not follow that poverty and malnutrition cause AIDS. Apparently, this train of logic has proven beyond the capacity of the president.
Second, the current Minister of Health, Ms Beetroot, to use her common media-title, has embarked upon a crusade to bolster agriculture by propagating a policy of traditional African remedies, such as olive oil, garlic and beetroot to address the AIDS condition. Perhaps the president should offer Ms Beetroot a post in the Department of Agriculture.
At the Conference on AIDS held in Toronto last week, the South African stand at the exhibition comprised of some posters and a display of wilted agricultural products, resembling a salad stand according to IOL. The condemnation from both South African NGO's such as Treatment Action Campaign and international figures like UN special AIDS envoy Stephen Lewis, was venomous.
It would appear as if the South African government has entrenched itself in an African vs. Western war of ideas. With a stubbornness that defies common sense the government peddles on while the grim realities of AIDS marches on relentlessly through the South African society and economy.
As the Minister defends her position with the smugness of a cat on a sofa, the victims of AIDS wilt with the beetroot on the salad stand.
15 August 2006
Soldiers
They were bold and buoyant on their return from southern Lebanon. Some sang the songs that soldiers sing. They appeared victorious, weary and relieved but when asked about the actual achievement of the war, some were despondent and not at all exuberant.
Everywhere there was utter destruction in Lebanese cities, towns and villages. Contrary, no Israeli cities or towns have been demolished or damaged to the extend that Lebanon has suffered. The infrastructure in Israel has been left mostly intact. In Lebanon, a power plant, an oil depo, an airport, multiple bridges and roads have either been damaged or destroyed.
Lebanon deaths:
About 1,000 - mostly civilians
No precise data on Hezbollah dead
Israeli deaths:
Soldiers: 114 (IDF)
Civilians: 43 (IDF)
Lebanon displaced:
700,000 - 900,000 (UNHCR; Lebanese govt)
Israeli displaced:
500,000 (Human Rights Watch)
Lebanon damage:
$2.5bn (Lebanese govt)
Israel damage:
$1.1bn (Israeli govt)
[Source: BBC]
Much gloating and bellowing followed today from Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. If anything, they seemed to have been handed an unintended windfall: The mood in Lebanon now seems firmly towards Hezbollah. The two captured Israeli soldiers that triggered the war, are still captive. Hezbollah, the proclaimed target of the destruction, seems to be rather well and alive, if somewhat diminished. Meanwhile, the sickening reality for the Lebanese seems to be lost on these leaders.
Last night, the Israeli Prime Minister made an hour long speech of belligerent spin in the Knesset, rationalising and justifying the futile escapades of the Israeli Defense Force in Lebanon. Between the Israeli prime minister and the president of the USA, there were a common factor of unconvincing posturing over the whole sad affair.
To all but the US White House and the Israeli majority, the war was senseless, unnecessary and a total disaster for the region. There are no winners and 1.5 million losers. In the mean time, the UN is struggling to bring aid to the desparate refugees who are streaming back to their devastated homes. The country is in need of serious restoration. The schisms of old seem deeper than ever.
In 1981, a song was released that today reflects grimly upon the situation:
Soldiers write the songs
that soldiers sing
the songs that you and I don‚’t sing
they blow their horns
and march along
they drum their drums
and look so strong
you‚’d think that nothing
in the world was wrong
soldiers write the songs
that soldiers sing
the songs that you and I won‚’t sing
let‚’s not look the other way
taking a chance
‚’cause if the bugler starts to play
we too must dance
[ABBA]
The question is: How will you dance?
Everywhere there was utter destruction in Lebanese cities, towns and villages. Contrary, no Israeli cities or towns have been demolished or damaged to the extend that Lebanon has suffered. The infrastructure in Israel has been left mostly intact. In Lebanon, a power plant, an oil depo, an airport, multiple bridges and roads have either been damaged or destroyed.
Lebanon deaths:
About 1,000 - mostly civilians
No precise data on Hezbollah dead
Israeli deaths:
Soldiers: 114 (IDF)
Civilians: 43 (IDF)
Lebanon displaced:
700,000 - 900,000 (UNHCR; Lebanese govt)
Israeli displaced:
500,000 (Human Rights Watch)
Lebanon damage:
$2.5bn (Lebanese govt)
Israel damage:
$1.1bn (Israeli govt)
[Source: BBC]
Much gloating and bellowing followed today from Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. If anything, they seemed to have been handed an unintended windfall: The mood in Lebanon now seems firmly towards Hezbollah. The two captured Israeli soldiers that triggered the war, are still captive. Hezbollah, the proclaimed target of the destruction, seems to be rather well and alive, if somewhat diminished. Meanwhile, the sickening reality for the Lebanese seems to be lost on these leaders.
Last night, the Israeli Prime Minister made an hour long speech of belligerent spin in the Knesset, rationalising and justifying the futile escapades of the Israeli Defense Force in Lebanon. Between the Israeli prime minister and the president of the USA, there were a common factor of unconvincing posturing over the whole sad affair.
To all but the US White House and the Israeli majority, the war was senseless, unnecessary and a total disaster for the region. There are no winners and 1.5 million losers. In the mean time, the UN is struggling to bring aid to the desparate refugees who are streaming back to their devastated homes. The country is in need of serious restoration. The schisms of old seem deeper than ever.
In 1981, a song was released that today reflects grimly upon the situation:
Soldiers write the songs
that soldiers sing
the songs that you and I don‚’t sing
they blow their horns
and march along
they drum their drums
and look so strong
you‚’d think that nothing
in the world was wrong
soldiers write the songs
that soldiers sing
the songs that you and I won‚’t sing
let‚’s not look the other way
taking a chance
‚’cause if the bugler starts to play
we too must dance
[ABBA]
The question is: How will you dance?
12 August 2006
Brother, where art thou?
Brother, can you hear me?
Brother, do you hate me?
Brother, will you kill me?
Why are we fighting?
Brother, can we make up?
Brother, have I hurt you?
Brother, may I hold you?
Why am I dying?
Brother, where art thou?
Brother, do you hate me?
Brother, will you kill me?
Why are we fighting?
Brother, can we make up?
Brother, have I hurt you?
Brother, may I hold you?
Why am I dying?
Brother, where art thou?
11 August 2006
On and on and on
It has to stop now. Those were the words of Jan Egeland, the Under-Secretary-General of the UN for Humanitarian Affairs. In an interview with BBC World today, Jan Egeland expressed his dismay and exasperation with the current spiral of violence in Lebanon.
A million Lebanese have been displaced within a month. More than 100 000 Lebanese are in desperate need for humanitarian assistance but are out of reach due to collapse in logistic infrastructure after Israeli bombing raids. Ongoing bombing and threats of bombing obstruct UN aid workers from reaching these Lebanese. A thousand Lebanese civilians have been killed so far - 30% are under the age of 13. Israel has lost 122 people, mostly soldiers, to this war. Each party is able to stop the carnage, at the drop of a hat. Yet it goes on.
Mr Egeland summarised the dire situation as no-win for either party. Every day prolonged fighting means more deaths on each side, more civilians killed. If it has to come to blows, each side should think first and then bomb - not vice versa as it appears to happen.
Wholesale destruction of houses and domestic infrastructure together with many civilians is brutal, according to Mr Egeland. In the same breath, indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities are similarly deplorable. For armed militia to hind amongst the public is appalling. For the UN Security Council to churn on the details for so long while these atrocities continue, is a disgrace. Therefore, the fighting should stop and it should stop now. The only solution is a political solution, addressing the fundamental issues. [Israel has created a generation of hatred]
The UN Human Rights Commission has voted today to investigate alleged Israeli human rights abuses in Lebanon. In a counter move, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre appealed to the same body to investigate Lebanon for complacency in allowing Hezbollah to rearm with rockets.
On and on and on it goes. Tit for tat. Accusation is met with counter accusation. Each side turns the facts to suit it own agenda and narrative.
"On and on an on, keep on rocking baby, 'till the night is gone..." [ABBA]
A million Lebanese have been displaced within a month. More than 100 000 Lebanese are in desperate need for humanitarian assistance but are out of reach due to collapse in logistic infrastructure after Israeli bombing raids. Ongoing bombing and threats of bombing obstruct UN aid workers from reaching these Lebanese. A thousand Lebanese civilians have been killed so far - 30% are under the age of 13. Israel has lost 122 people, mostly soldiers, to this war. Each party is able to stop the carnage, at the drop of a hat. Yet it goes on.
Mr Egeland summarised the dire situation as no-win for either party. Every day prolonged fighting means more deaths on each side, more civilians killed. If it has to come to blows, each side should think first and then bomb - not vice versa as it appears to happen.
Wholesale destruction of houses and domestic infrastructure together with many civilians is brutal, according to Mr Egeland. In the same breath, indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities are similarly deplorable. For armed militia to hind amongst the public is appalling. For the UN Security Council to churn on the details for so long while these atrocities continue, is a disgrace. Therefore, the fighting should stop and it should stop now. The only solution is a political solution, addressing the fundamental issues. [Israel has created a generation of hatred]
The UN Human Rights Commission has voted today to investigate alleged Israeli human rights abuses in Lebanon. In a counter move, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre appealed to the same body to investigate Lebanon for complacency in allowing Hezbollah to rearm with rockets.
On and on and on it goes. Tit for tat. Accusation is met with counter accusation. Each side turns the facts to suit it own agenda and narrative.
"On and on an on, keep on rocking baby, 'till the night is gone..." [ABBA]
07 August 2006
A momentary lapse of reason
How short is the memory of mankind. Whatever the cost of our mistakes, we do not seem to learn from history. Today, the death toll in Lebanon stands at 925 civilians, one quarter children. In Israel, 58 soldiers and 36 civilians have been lost to the conflict, which also illustrates the stark asymmetry of the current tit for tat. [1]
Bombs are never smart, whatever the military would like us to believe. Whatever Israel claims or aims to achieve, the facts on the ground grimly expose as folly. Similarly, the Hezbollah adventure has reached unbearable levels of insanity. For those of a cynical disposition, perhaps it is a classic if highly ironic case of David vs Goliath. Yet, peppering civilians in Israel with crude, unguided rockets that fall and maim at random cannot be judged a valid military assault or defense by any civilised measure. [2,3,4]
Nothing of lasting value for peace and justice is gained by any side in this conflict. If anything, the forces of extreme militancy on all sides and therefore the hopes of further hell in the Holy Land, which stretches beyond the borders of Israel, have everything to gain from this conflict.
The 1967 war, the 1973 Yom Kipur war, the Lebanese occupations of 1978 and 1980, have not achieved any lasting peace or created an improvement in the relations amongst the conflicting parties in the Middle East. Instead, tensions have increased, distrust has become entrenched, mutual fear ingrained and ultimately, hatred has snuffed out any flicker of understanding and tolerance. More wounds, bigger pain, greater losses are the fruits of this folly.
"An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind", said Ghandi. Yes, but even worse is the blindness of those who still have eyes but refuse to see. A momentary lapse of reason has brought us to the edge of a perilous precipice. Who will have the courage to open our eyes and lead us away from disaster?
Bombs are never smart, whatever the military would like us to believe. Whatever Israel claims or aims to achieve, the facts on the ground grimly expose as folly. Similarly, the Hezbollah adventure has reached unbearable levels of insanity. For those of a cynical disposition, perhaps it is a classic if highly ironic case of David vs Goliath. Yet, peppering civilians in Israel with crude, unguided rockets that fall and maim at random cannot be judged a valid military assault or defense by any civilised measure. [2,3,4]
Nothing of lasting value for peace and justice is gained by any side in this conflict. If anything, the forces of extreme militancy on all sides and therefore the hopes of further hell in the Holy Land, which stretches beyond the borders of Israel, have everything to gain from this conflict.
The 1967 war, the 1973 Yom Kipur war, the Lebanese occupations of 1978 and 1980, have not achieved any lasting peace or created an improvement in the relations amongst the conflicting parties in the Middle East. Instead, tensions have increased, distrust has become entrenched, mutual fear ingrained and ultimately, hatred has snuffed out any flicker of understanding and tolerance. More wounds, bigger pain, greater losses are the fruits of this folly.
"An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind", said Ghandi. Yes, but even worse is the blindness of those who still have eyes but refuse to see. A momentary lapse of reason has brought us to the edge of a perilous precipice. Who will have the courage to open our eyes and lead us away from disaster?
05 August 2006
The value of a life
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Article 1 of the UN Charter of Human Rights.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Article 3 of the UN Charter of Human Rights.
In the current war of attrition that is being fought in southern Lebanon, the UN official count of dead Lebanese civilians stands at 548 confirmed deaths. On the other side of the Lebanese border, 19 Israeli civilians have been killed in rocket strikes by Hezbollah. The stark difference in civilian deaths on each side of the border brings into question who poses the biggest threat in this conflict: Israel or Hezbollah. These numbers also cast a dark veil of suspicion over the tactics of Israel and the mentality that underlies these tactics.
The Israeli strategy in southern Lebanon has so far been similar to the US tactics during the second invasion of Iraq: Maximum force through air strikes. This strategy is fraught with gross misjudgement and consequent heavy civilian loss. It reeks with blatant hypocrisy that borders on reckless. Why hypocrisy? Because Israel, a member of the UN and by implication a consignee of the UN Charter of Human Rights, makes a farce of Articles 1 and 3.
As stated at start of this post, all humans are regarded equal and therefore have equal right to life and dignity. Lebanese civilians are as rightfully deserving of dignity and life as Israeli civilians. Yet, it would seem a moot point lost on the Israeli military and political leadership. Apparently regarding their own civilians of more than equal in their rights, this leadership chooses to send in air strikes with devastating yet indiscriminate results. In most cases so far, Lebanese civilians paid with their lives.
Instead of sending in ground troops that can confirm where Hezhollah fighters really are located before engaging the target, Israel opts for armchair warfare. This strategy is therefore not only hypocritical, but also reckless. The political leadership of Israel, lacking the necessary integrity, is not willing to respect Lebanese civilians by sending in ground troops in the first place. The risk for the political fall-out over undeniably higher death toll amongst Israeli soldiers seems to outweigh the obligations of Israel under the UN Charter of Human Rights.
But herein lies the folly of war of any kind. One side will always minimise the risks of war to its own and in doing so invariably leave the bill for that choice to the other side.
In a guerrilla war, which in reality this war is, one may not escape engaging the enemy any other manner than on foot. When the enemy has embedded itself into the civilian population, there is no other responsible option but to risk ground troops in order to avoid civilian casualties. Area bombing against suspected guerrilla strongholds is both reckless and in violation of the Geneva Convention.
But such a view assumes an inherent respect for all life, including the other side.
Lebanese conflict sources: ABC, BBC, Google
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Article 3 of the UN Charter of Human Rights.
In the current war of attrition that is being fought in southern Lebanon, the UN official count of dead Lebanese civilians stands at 548 confirmed deaths. On the other side of the Lebanese border, 19 Israeli civilians have been killed in rocket strikes by Hezbollah. The stark difference in civilian deaths on each side of the border brings into question who poses the biggest threat in this conflict: Israel or Hezbollah. These numbers also cast a dark veil of suspicion over the tactics of Israel and the mentality that underlies these tactics.
The Israeli strategy in southern Lebanon has so far been similar to the US tactics during the second invasion of Iraq: Maximum force through air strikes. This strategy is fraught with gross misjudgement and consequent heavy civilian loss. It reeks with blatant hypocrisy that borders on reckless. Why hypocrisy? Because Israel, a member of the UN and by implication a consignee of the UN Charter of Human Rights, makes a farce of Articles 1 and 3.
As stated at start of this post, all humans are regarded equal and therefore have equal right to life and dignity. Lebanese civilians are as rightfully deserving of dignity and life as Israeli civilians. Yet, it would seem a moot point lost on the Israeli military and political leadership. Apparently regarding their own civilians of more than equal in their rights, this leadership chooses to send in air strikes with devastating yet indiscriminate results. In most cases so far, Lebanese civilians paid with their lives.
Instead of sending in ground troops that can confirm where Hezhollah fighters really are located before engaging the target, Israel opts for armchair warfare. This strategy is therefore not only hypocritical, but also reckless. The political leadership of Israel, lacking the necessary integrity, is not willing to respect Lebanese civilians by sending in ground troops in the first place. The risk for the political fall-out over undeniably higher death toll amongst Israeli soldiers seems to outweigh the obligations of Israel under the UN Charter of Human Rights.
But herein lies the folly of war of any kind. One side will always minimise the risks of war to its own and in doing so invariably leave the bill for that choice to the other side.
In a guerrilla war, which in reality this war is, one may not escape engaging the enemy any other manner than on foot. When the enemy has embedded itself into the civilian population, there is no other responsible option but to risk ground troops in order to avoid civilian casualties. Area bombing against suspected guerrilla strongholds is both reckless and in violation of the Geneva Convention.
But such a view assumes an inherent respect for all life, including the other side.
Lebanese conflict sources: ABC, BBC, Google
01 August 2006
Mincing words
The most difficult word to pronounce for the leaders of the West seems to be "immediate". Undoubtedly, the English vocabulary of at least some Western leaders stretches to include this word. Yet, in recent days, it proved quite beyond these leaders to put that rather necessary adjective to proper practice in the following direly needed phrase: immediate ceasefire.
The diplomatic wrangling continues as the Lebanese death toll reaches 800, of which 30% are children, not Hezbollah militants. On the Israeli side, about 50 people have died since the madness erupted 2 weeks ago, including a number of soldiers. The best the EU could muster was a call for an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire. This call was bluntly dismissed by Israel who immediately intensified the assault on southern Lebanon by sending in more troops and tanks. One may rightly ask: Has international law lost its voice?
In its narrowest context, the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon can be exposed by at least three narratives. The first narrative is from the original inhabitants of the Middle-East, specifically Lebanon and Palestine. The second narrative is from the Israeli side. The third narrative is that of the international community as represented by the UN. Depending on the chosen narrative, international law can deliver quite different verdicts over the conflict and the participants. These narratives run parallel without much hope to intersect at any point soon, unless decisive international mediation intervenes.
Article 51, as contained in the UN Charter, provides for the right of a country to defend itself when there is a clear demonstration of a threat or an actual attack against it from another country, or a faction harboured by another country. Israel resorts to Article 51 as justification for its devastating incursions into Lebanon over the past two weeks. Such defensive action may continue until the UN Security Council steps in to take command of the situation. No threat there to Israeli plans - very conveniently, the US will most likely stand ready with its veto power to ensure Israel all the room it needs to cause as much devastation as it pleases.
The capture of two Israeli soldiers and killing of three more by Hezbollah were audacious and provocative, but also in violation of the UN imposed Blue Line that separate Lebanon and Israel, not to be crossed by either party. Yet, the disproportionate Israeli response amounts to carpet bombing or area bombing, quite clearly demonstrated by the high number of civilian casualties as well as wholesale destruction of public and domestic infrastructure in southern Lebanon over the past two weeks. Carpet bombing is explicitly prohibited under the Geneva Convention, 1977 Additional Protocol 1.
Hezbollah rockets fired at more than a hundred a day into Israel is a similar violation of the Geneva Convention, for such firing also amounts to a form of area bombing.
Neither side is on the right side of international law. Neither narrative has the full perspective or absolute claim over the historic truth of the matter at hand. Neither party seems capable of initiating reconcilliation by itself. Decisive international intervention is needed - immediately.
The urgency for intervention is necessitated by further narratives, far more ominous and powerful in their content and extent, that threaten to play into this conflict. One such narrative is the current US world view and another is the simmering Shia-Sunni confrontation that is building up steam in the Middle-East.
The world is facing a historic pivotal point. History will not judge kindly over indecision at this point in time.
The diplomatic wrangling continues as the Lebanese death toll reaches 800, of which 30% are children, not Hezbollah militants. On the Israeli side, about 50 people have died since the madness erupted 2 weeks ago, including a number of soldiers. The best the EU could muster was a call for an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire. This call was bluntly dismissed by Israel who immediately intensified the assault on southern Lebanon by sending in more troops and tanks. One may rightly ask: Has international law lost its voice?
In its narrowest context, the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon can be exposed by at least three narratives. The first narrative is from the original inhabitants of the Middle-East, specifically Lebanon and Palestine. The second narrative is from the Israeli side. The third narrative is that of the international community as represented by the UN. Depending on the chosen narrative, international law can deliver quite different verdicts over the conflict and the participants. These narratives run parallel without much hope to intersect at any point soon, unless decisive international mediation intervenes.
Article 51, as contained in the UN Charter, provides for the right of a country to defend itself when there is a clear demonstration of a threat or an actual attack against it from another country, or a faction harboured by another country. Israel resorts to Article 51 as justification for its devastating incursions into Lebanon over the past two weeks. Such defensive action may continue until the UN Security Council steps in to take command of the situation. No threat there to Israeli plans - very conveniently, the US will most likely stand ready with its veto power to ensure Israel all the room it needs to cause as much devastation as it pleases.
The capture of two Israeli soldiers and killing of three more by Hezbollah were audacious and provocative, but also in violation of the UN imposed Blue Line that separate Lebanon and Israel, not to be crossed by either party. Yet, the disproportionate Israeli response amounts to carpet bombing or area bombing, quite clearly demonstrated by the high number of civilian casualties as well as wholesale destruction of public and domestic infrastructure in southern Lebanon over the past two weeks. Carpet bombing is explicitly prohibited under the Geneva Convention, 1977 Additional Protocol 1.
Hezbollah rockets fired at more than a hundred a day into Israel is a similar violation of the Geneva Convention, for such firing also amounts to a form of area bombing.
Neither side is on the right side of international law. Neither narrative has the full perspective or absolute claim over the historic truth of the matter at hand. Neither party seems capable of initiating reconcilliation by itself. Decisive international intervention is needed - immediately.
The urgency for intervention is necessitated by further narratives, far more ominous and powerful in their content and extent, that threaten to play into this conflict. One such narrative is the current US world view and another is the simmering Shia-Sunni confrontation that is building up steam in the Middle-East.
The world is facing a historic pivotal point. History will not judge kindly over indecision at this point in time.
30 July 2006
Bloody Sunday: Carnage at Qana
They were hiding for their lives from the bombs. In a basement of a multistory house, several displaced families were asleep in the desperately naive believe that they were save there. But they were not. During the early hours of this Sunday an Israeli bunker buster bomb destroyed the house on top of these poor souls. Their shelter were shattered with their bodies and their lives.
According to ABC (US) and BBC reports, at least 54 civilians died - of which 37 were children. The outrage that is unfolding in Lebanon is a travesty, destroying in two weeks what has been built painstakingly since 2002. It is not the vestibules of Hezbollah that are being destroyed. Rather it is the infrastructure, the nationhood, the very fabric of the Lebanese society that are being pummelled into submission. In one fell swoop, Israel has blown to shards the last remnants of goodwill and whatever respectable reputation might have remained amongst the Arab nations and many Western nations for itself.
For all the sweet talk over how civilians are warned of imminent attacks and how precision strikes are aimed at Hezbollah targets only, the carnage amongst the civilian Lebanese has reached over 400 dead and more than 600 000 displaced, refugees in their own country.
All the ostentatious harangue about eternal Jewish morals and humanism, the bombastic pounding of southern Lebanon turns into a cynical farce in the pantomime of Zionism. The outcry of an unjustly punished society is met by the tentative and bewildered indecision of the West.
Images of the broken Kosova of the 1990's jump to mind. Where is the international leadership to put an immediate end to this futile destruction? Once the emotions have settled for a brief moment before the next scene of devastation, one may contemplate just what the basis for such leadership might be.
Richard Calland of the Mail & Guardian argues that merely learning from examples of successful resolutions to deep-rooted conflict presents no evidence of any progress in those unresolved conflicts such as the Middle East. Rather, the pivotal question is whether the historic tide has changed against the status quo of injustice in the Israel-Palestine affair. More practical, moral weight should be gathered against the injustice and brought to bear upon the protagonists of injustice through sanctions and firm diplomatic pressure.
Tony Leon, leader of the Democratic Alliance of South Africa, is reported in a later addition of the Mail & Guardian, to have said that the best approach to the Israel-Lebanon conflict would be "rights-based". He warns against a simplistic, Manichean world view of good versus bad in which one is forced to align with one of the two poles - good or evil. The Middle Eastern conflict is complex far beyond such naive classification, according to Mr Leon. On that point, Mr Bush might take note. His axis of evil approach has not reaped him any good of lately and brought immense destruction to Iraq. One inevitably wonders who's next to go on his proclaimed axis.
The impunity with which Israel misbehaves in Lebanon is evidence of the lack of real influence that Europe, Russia and Asia have in one of the most acute ongoing international crises of all time. If the US is for us, who can be against us? That seems to be the mentality of the Israeli government and large sections of its political support base.
The lack of real influence also demonstrates how perilous the current international situation has become what with only one real superpower that can do as it pleases. What leadership exists at the head of this muscle-toned crusader leaves the world even more gasping with bated breath. But as history has shown us, the wheel always keeps turning.
As energy and commodities continue to increase in importance, the rise of new superpowers on the international block, such as China, Russia and India, are waiting in the wings. It is only a matter of time before the gauntlet is flaunted for a re-balancing of international power. The change of leadership will come with a change in the status quo at the UN Security Council.
Perhaps the massacre of 54 Lebanese civilians may still lead to more radical changes in the international power play. Perhaps the rest of the world can be shocked out of its indecision. Perhaps real leadership will arise to take us on a road of rights-based international justice. As Bloody Sunday of 30 January 1972 was in a sense a pivotal point for the Northern Ireland conflict, so the carnage in Qana may still prove similarly decisive.
According to ABC (US) and BBC reports, at least 54 civilians died - of which 37 were children. The outrage that is unfolding in Lebanon is a travesty, destroying in two weeks what has been built painstakingly since 2002. It is not the vestibules of Hezbollah that are being destroyed. Rather it is the infrastructure, the nationhood, the very fabric of the Lebanese society that are being pummelled into submission. In one fell swoop, Israel has blown to shards the last remnants of goodwill and whatever respectable reputation might have remained amongst the Arab nations and many Western nations for itself.
For all the sweet talk over how civilians are warned of imminent attacks and how precision strikes are aimed at Hezbollah targets only, the carnage amongst the civilian Lebanese has reached over 400 dead and more than 600 000 displaced, refugees in their own country.
All the ostentatious harangue about eternal Jewish morals and humanism, the bombastic pounding of southern Lebanon turns into a cynical farce in the pantomime of Zionism. The outcry of an unjustly punished society is met by the tentative and bewildered indecision of the West.
Images of the broken Kosova of the 1990's jump to mind. Where is the international leadership to put an immediate end to this futile destruction? Once the emotions have settled for a brief moment before the next scene of devastation, one may contemplate just what the basis for such leadership might be.
Richard Calland of the Mail & Guardian argues that merely learning from examples of successful resolutions to deep-rooted conflict presents no evidence of any progress in those unresolved conflicts such as the Middle East. Rather, the pivotal question is whether the historic tide has changed against the status quo of injustice in the Israel-Palestine affair. More practical, moral weight should be gathered against the injustice and brought to bear upon the protagonists of injustice through sanctions and firm diplomatic pressure.
Tony Leon, leader of the Democratic Alliance of South Africa, is reported in a later addition of the Mail & Guardian, to have said that the best approach to the Israel-Lebanon conflict would be "rights-based". He warns against a simplistic, Manichean world view of good versus bad in which one is forced to align with one of the two poles - good or evil. The Middle Eastern conflict is complex far beyond such naive classification, according to Mr Leon. On that point, Mr Bush might take note. His axis of evil approach has not reaped him any good of lately and brought immense destruction to Iraq. One inevitably wonders who's next to go on his proclaimed axis.
The impunity with which Israel misbehaves in Lebanon is evidence of the lack of real influence that Europe, Russia and Asia have in one of the most acute ongoing international crises of all time. If the US is for us, who can be against us? That seems to be the mentality of the Israeli government and large sections of its political support base.
The lack of real influence also demonstrates how perilous the current international situation has become what with only one real superpower that can do as it pleases. What leadership exists at the head of this muscle-toned crusader leaves the world even more gasping with bated breath. But as history has shown us, the wheel always keeps turning.
As energy and commodities continue to increase in importance, the rise of new superpowers on the international block, such as China, Russia and India, are waiting in the wings. It is only a matter of time before the gauntlet is flaunted for a re-balancing of international power. The change of leadership will come with a change in the status quo at the UN Security Council.
Perhaps the massacre of 54 Lebanese civilians may still lead to more radical changes in the international power play. Perhaps the rest of the world can be shocked out of its indecision. Perhaps real leadership will arise to take us on a road of rights-based international justice. As Bloody Sunday of 30 January 1972 was in a sense a pivotal point for the Northern Ireland conflict, so the carnage in Qana may still prove similarly decisive.
21 July 2006
"Jaw-jaw" is better than "war-war"
This posting is entirely inspired by and dedicated to Matt Frei of the BBC, author of Washington Diary. His latest posting on the recent G8 meeting is simply brilliant. No further musings from Anduril is required. Over to Matt... The Big Brother G8
18 July 2006
"Stop this shit"
The casual tone of Bush caught by an open microphone at the G8 meeting belies the gravity of the unfolding tragedy in Lebanon [1]. His careless remark to Tony Blair smacks of his simplistic and superficial attitude towards sensitive and complex international conflicts. His high school-boyish attitude leaves one shuddering in dismay. This man is the leader of the primary superpower in the world. He displays all the flair of a rodeo horse in full rambunctious bucking.
While these leaders are relaxing over a sandwich, 230 Lebanese, of which 200 civilians, suffer death at the hands of brutal Israeli retaliation for a Hezbollah incursion into northern Israel to snatch two Israeli soldiers. Since Wednesday, Israel claims, 700 Hezbollah missiles have landed in Israel. This missile bombardment is given as further motivation for the ongoing destruction by Israeli forces of southern Lebanon. Yet, for all these missiles fired onto Israel, only 25 Israeli people have died - of which 13 are civilians. Such figures show that the missile attack is of low affectivity. By comparison, Israeli attacks are viciously effective, but seem to strike vastly more civilians than Hezbollah militants [2], the alleged target of these attacks.
Israel is flatly ignoring calls for proportionate and restrained response to the kidnapping of its soldiers and the threat from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Instead the Israeli government and its army are destructing southern Lebanon with impunity. All the while, the world stands by with barely a voice of opposition. Mild, half-hearted expressions of concern over the situation are issued where instead the world should be putting an ultimatum to both parties, Israel and Hezbollah: Stop this shit right here, right now, or the UN will send an international army to enforce a seize-fire at once. Only France and Russia have had the nerve thus far to express firm opposition to Israel’s reckless retaliation in southern Lebanon.
It would appear as if the misguided snatching of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah has been seized by Israel as a golden opportunity to provoke the direct involvement of Iran and Syria, long-time supporters of Hezbollah, thereby handing on a silver platter to the US the excuse militarily to engage both those countries. The escalating situation is super-nutritious fodder to the extremists in the Middle East.
The world has not been this close to World War III since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. If anyone should stop this shit, to use Bush’s words, it is he, his megalomaniac clique and his cocky little brother-in-arms, Israel. Ghandi once said: "An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind". We seem set to find out very soon just how blind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)