Today’s quote is from the Christian Science Monitor, which gives a revealing look into the reasons why Africa refuses to reign in Mugabe. This is a matter close to my heart, since I have family in Zimbabwe, and am well aware of the crisis that faces the people in the country.

At any rate, most South Africans look at Mbeki’s so called “Quiet Diplomacy” (or “softly, slowly” approach) in relation to Zimbabwe, and scratch their heads in disbelief: matters have progressively gotten worse with censorship of the press, human-rights abuses and land evictions, intimidation, beatings, a crumbling economy with ever increasing inflation, poverty and unemployment.

And yet, Mbeki has constantly argued for many years, “Together with [Zimbabweans], our government will work persistently and without making the noise of empty drums, to help the sister people of Zimbabwe to find a just and lasting solution to the real and pressing land question in their country.” SA’s Foreign Minister Dlamini Zuma’s elaborated that SA would “never” condemn Zimbabwe “as long as this government is in power” because they didn’t want to “throw [the Zimbabwean] people over the precipice”, despite the evidence that they already are being pushed over it by their own government.

Yet this is not the real reason behind Mbeki’s softly, slowly approach. No, Mbeki was in fact much clearer about it at a March 28 South African Development Community conference in Tanzania, as quoted in the Christian Science Monitor article:

“The fight against Zimbabwe is a fight against us all. Today it is Zimbabwe; tomorrow it will be South Africa, it will be Mozambique, it will be Angola, it will be any other African country. And any government that is perceived to be strong and to be resistant to imperialists would be made a target and would be undermined. So let us not allow any point of weakness in the solidarity of SADC, because that weakness will also be transferred to the rest of Africa.”

Therefore, the real meaning of quiet diplomacy is essentially to support Zimbabwe, which “is perceived to be strong”, through thick and thin because it has been “made a target” by “imperialists”, and the SADC must not show “weakness”.

This is similar to the slogan, “My Country, Right Or Wrong”, and it is likely to have the same disastrous consequences of allowing a thug and a tyrant to stay in power.

Today’s quote comes from the UK Ministry of Defence’s Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre, which recently published a report entitled Global Strategic Trends 2007-2036. The report’s purpose is to analyse a wide range of potential outcomes over the next thirty years, ranging from the impact of globalization, inequality, and poverty, to terrorism, climate change, and future technologies and weapons. There are several fantastic quotes scattered throughout the document, but one of the more interesting ones is this:

The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoplesâ?? attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the worldâ??s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.

I find that particularly fascinating (and promising, in fact). I’ve always found Marx’s works to be interesting and still relevant in today’s society, especially in the fields of sociology and political economy, despite some of my friends still having a chuckle and saying that he has absolutely no relevance in today’s world. In fact, one of the first lines of an economics text I read a while ago said that, with the fall of the Soviet Union, Marx was proved “wrong”, never mind that since the earliest days of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 it was recognised amongst the Left and others that Lenin’s revolution bore no resemblance to Marx’s ideas. At any rate, it seems he may have relevance in tomorrow’s world.

On a related note, this document ties in nicely with another paper I’ve started reading from the Oxford Research Group entitled Global Responses to Global Threats: Sustainable Security for the 21st Century, which argues “that international terrorism is actually a relatively minor threat when compared to other more serious global trends”, such as climate change and resource competition.

(And if you want a summarised version of the Global Strategic Trends report, the Guardian have done an article on it).

Keeping in mind that realism as a political school only appeared when first used by the international relations theorists E. H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau, the basic principles have a rich history. One of the most common historical examples of this tradition is the Ancient Greek historian Thucydides and his History of the Peloponnesian Wars, dating back more than 2400 years.

In a nutshell, Realism is considered to be a set of laws for elites that span both time and space i.e. history and geopolitics. Those laws have common strands threading throughout history. Of course, there are a wide variety of different schools within realism (far too many to cover here) but all of them contain some basic principles.

Continue reading »

Today’s word is “Biopower” (also sometimes referred to as bio-techno-power), first used by French philosopher Michel Foucault to describe how a state controls its citizens, not through negative means (such as the threat of death or physical coercion), but through more positive means such as by promoting a better life, namely by emphasising the protection of life. As the word implies with “bio”, it has a specific biological aspect to it.

According to Foucault, biopower is how capitalist and democratic societies controlled their citizens, and it was “an indispensible element” for the “development of capitalism” because it helped adjust “the phenomena of population to economic processes”.

Continue reading »

Ever wonder how all the money pumped into fighting the War on Drugs is used? Well, here’s one indication from the Associated Press:

The U.N. found that Colombia’s army - the largest recipient of $700 million in annual anti-narcotics and counterinsurgency aid from the United States - had participated in killing civilians in 21 of Colombia’s 32 states.

The U.N. said the numbers of civilian killed in those areas showed an increase over 2005 but did not provide death toll figures.

In many cases, the victims were falsely presented as leftist rebels killed in combat, crime scene evidence was tampered with and the investigation was led by the military’s questioned criminal justice system.

The report said such killings with “characteristics of extrajudicial executions do not appear to be isolated incidents” and may have been prompted partly by the government’s use of combat deaths as a benchmark to measure success against leftist insurgents.

But there is some good news out of all this. The UK is probably making a decent amount of money selling arms to Columbia, after having identified it as one of a few “priority” markets for arms sales.

You can tell a lot from someone’s bookshelf. In fact, when I go to someone’s house for the first time (and if they don’t mind) I always make a point of looking to see what books they have. So it was with interest that I had a read through Jim Lobe’s recent piece on Bush’s reading list. Most of the books mentioned seem to conform to a general pattern of strengthening Bush’s world-view: right-wing and neo-conservative with a dose of Islamophobism thrown in for good measure. Of course, Lobe wouldn’t be able to name every book on Bush’s shelf, but it would be nice to know that he owns one or two that challenged his world-view instead of strengthening it, all things considered.

AllAfrica.com is running a Business Day article on South Africa’s interests at the upcoming China-Africa Forum in Beijing. it would appear that, while South Africa is “keen to see increased aid to” Africa, it is particularly “interested in gaining greater access to the vast Chinese manufactured goods market”, mainly in the form of cuts “in Chinese tariffs on goods to which value has been added” since it is “the only country in Africa that exports manufactured goods to any large extent”.

Furthermore, much like happened when South Africa and China reached an agreement on SA’s textile industry, the article points out that “SA is likely to push for a Chinese commitment to voluntarily restrict exports when local industries are threatened”.

South Africa’s overall thinking was quite clearly expressed by its Reserve Bank governor, Tito Mboweni, who said: “Let’s strengthen our relations with China.” He pointed out that while “The US might still be portrayed by some as the major economic growth engine in the world … in reality that picture was changing”, with China contributing more now (24.5%) to global domestic product than the US (16.3%). This should no doubt worry the US and Western markets, since they are the largest trading partner of South Africa in terms of total trade, with Germany and the UK falling second and third respectively. Historically, South Africa has always been within the Western sphere of influence, but this may change.

From China’s point of view, South Africa is probably the key to the continent, for two main reasons. The first, obviously, is trade related, because South Africa is quick becoming Africa’s new “colonial” power. While SA woos China to try and restrict its exports, SA has not been so kind to the rest of Africa. As the Christian Science Monitor points out, “South African foreign assets throughout Africa totaled about $5.1 billion in 2004, spanning a wide range of sectors from telecommunications to mining”.

South Africa accounts for about 25 percent of Africa’s total GDP and has produced striking trade balances with less developed African economies - a concern to regional leaders.

In Zambia, South Africa has supplanted former colonial power Britain as the country’s largest foreign investor. South Africans have poured about $300 million into Zambia since 1993, according to the Zambia Investment Centre. In 2005, Zambia held a trade deficit of more than $600 million with South Africa. Moreover, nearly half of Zambia’s imports are South African.

As David Robins, Pick n’ Pay’s deputy chairman acknowledged “[South African firms] have kind of moved in with a significant amount of brute force on the African continent.” This has led to the same sort of criticisms against South Africa that have been used regarding China’s threat to local businesses. It would seem, then, that being a favoured ally with South Africa would secure access to the rest of the continent, at least by proxy.

Secondly, South Africa is viewed as a top priority in terms of a possible diplomatic ally on the UN Security Council. Currently, SA holds a two-year, non-permanent seat on the Council, but has been pushing for the inclusion of African and Latin-American countries to have permanent seats on the council and a veto. As the Business Day article noted, South Africa’s Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma held talks on Thursday with China’s equivalent, Li Zhaoxing “to discuss SA’s upcoming membership of the United Nations Security Council”.

Several studies have predicited that “globalization is likely to take on much more of a “non-Western face”", with China and India giving it “more of an Asian look and feel“. South Africa, it would seem, is fast becoming a poster-boy for this global trend, as is Africa as a whole.

In a recent post on the John Hopkins study of 655,000 deaths in Iraq since the US invasion, William Arkin asks: “Is the Hopkins study correct, and can reasonable non-partisan people feel comfortable with the conclusion that Iraq has suffered about 15,000 violent deaths a month every month since the U.S. invasion, about 500 deaths a day? I think not.”

This is just the latest in a long line of statements coming out against the study. Bush, for example, declared that, “I don’t consider it a credible report. Neither does General (George) Casey (top U.S. commander in Iraq) and neither do Iraqi officials”, calling the study’s methodology “pretty well discredited.” Casey commented that the figure “seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I’ve not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so I don’t give it that much credibility at all.” (Although Casey couldn’t confirm where he got his 50,000 figure from). A spokesman from the Iraqi government said, “The report is unbelievable. These numbers are exaggerated and not precise.” UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett was a lot more reserved, saying, “The report gives a figure which is orders of magnitude different from any other source… nobody else has come up with figures on this scale… the report has been criticised by the Iraqi government as unreasonable”, but a spokesman for Blair was more forward: “It’s not [a figure] we believe to be anywhere near accurate”.

What annoys the hell out of me is not that people question the study - that just makes good sense - but that they pick and choose which studies to question. For example, in the Sudan, the press routinely takes estimates of deaths there also generated from studies also using estimates and, in some cases, using very similar methods, without question.

A recent study (by Hagan and Palloni) concluded that around 170,000 to 255,000 thousand people had died in Darfur (but the authors believe it much higher at near 400,000), while a Coalition for International Justice study caused Hagan, in an earlier analysis using the CIJ data, to conclude that the death toll was at around 390,000. The CIJ study, incidently, was “based on semi-structured interviews with 1,136 randomly selected refugees at 19 locations in eastern Chad. … The field data for the 1,136 interviews were compiled using a standardized data entry process that involved the collection and coding of detailed information from each refugee respondentâ??s set of answers. The researchers then used a statistical program to aggregate the data and analyze the results.”

My, that sounds very familiar. As pointed out in the John Hopkins newspaper, “These same survey methods [for the Iraq mortality study] were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions.”

Don’t know about you, but I have yet to read in the press refutations of the figures presented for these countries. Does the press publish columns or articles lamenting the fact that this is impossibly high? That it’s incorrect or too high? Of course not. The Washington Post went on about “Why has the world failed to act?”, pointing out that “Darfur has all ingredients for international intervention”, while citing the Hagan/Palloni study that the death toll was around 200,000 - 400,000. MSNBC also said that Hagan and Palloni’s study was the “first scientifically rigorous estimate of the death toll” and it showed “that the pessimists were right”. And so on. I also note with some amusement that, in 2005, the WaPo concluded in an editorial that Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick needed to “cite better numbers” - referring to Hagan’s original study - because if “his international partners … are allowed to believe that the death toll is one-third of its real level” the killing in Darfur will continue.

The real bottom line is that it’s easy to accept the Sudan estimate because they’re not, strictly speaking, “our” victims, but the Iraqi’s are. Of course the John Hopkins study will not be correct but it is by far the most accurate measurement we have to date; that’s the crucial point. The state of the country at the moment means it’s impossible for there to be any proper way of knowing the real figures (one of the reasons why the Sudan estimates and studies are also likely to be the most accurate assessment of casualties).

Read some sad news today: The renowned Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya was found murdered in a lift on Saturday, the 7th of October, believed to have been killed by a man “in his twenties dressed in a black cap, seen just before neighbours discovered her body in the lift”.
Continue reading »

BBC4 just screened Nahid Persson’s Prostitution Behind The Veil, which was nominated in 2005 for an Emmy award. It also one a Guldbagge in Sweden for best documentary in 2005, and. achieved honours at the Creteil International Women’s Films Festival.

Born in Iran in 1960, Nahid Persson fled the country over twenty years ago and now lives in Sweden where she has studied microbiology. She also founded a radio station there. In 1993 she began studies at Film-och TV Skolan, and received master class education from 2003-2004. (Danish Film Institute)

The film was excellent, if rather shocking. Persson has returned to Iran “make a documentary, but not this one.” In Iran, “she finds the divisions between the classes greater than ever, unemployment has skyrocketed and widespread disillusionment provides a lucrative market for an elderly man, Habib, who sells prophecies on the streets” using canaries to pluck random, written predictions from a box. Deciding to make a documentary about the fortune teller, while filming “she was both shocked and intrigued to discover” Habib shared “his accommodation with Minna and Fariba”, two female prostitutes who are both heroin addicts. As Persson explains, the two “women were happy that someone was interested in their plight”:

“We had a natural relation. We trusted each other,” Persson says. “They even asked me on several occasions to go with them when they were going to meet some of their regular customers, because they were from some police station. But I didn’t do it out of the fear that I had to film someone who wears the uniform of a pasdar [Iran’s Revolutionary Guard]. And it was also better for them that I didn’t do it.”

Both women had become drug addicts due to addicted husbands. Fariba was given it by her husband to treat her kidney pain, and slowly got addicted; eventually “her husband sends her into the street and tells her, ‘Go bring clients.’” According to the film, Fariba had two children, one of which she still had, but the other, a three month old baby, was sold off by her husband. Minna’s story was similar in that her husband was arrested for drug running and more, and she turned to prostitution when she ended up living on the street with her child. She claimed she had no idea of his crimes, but he did get her onto drugs, too. Both women are often forced to take their children with them as they seek clients.

The film reveals how Shia Islam law can be used to “legally” conduct prostitution:

Men in Iran can find a way to buy sex and still comply with Muslim law by way of “Sighe,” a temporary marriage legal in Shia Islam. A Sighe marriage can last from two hours up to 99 years. Both Minna and Fariba participate in this pseudo-marriage with many of their customers

The film is well made, and sympathetic to the characters, and reveals a hidden side to Iran, where an official Iranian report concluded in 2000 that “Drug addiction is the rage among schoolchildren, prostitution has increased 635% among high school students and the (growth) rate of suicide in the country has exceeded the record by 109%.” The film looks at some of the prime causes of this: unemployment and poverty, and the fact that contraceptives were banned after the Iranian Revolution which led, from 1970 to 1990, to an almost doubling of the population from 28.4 to 54.6 million people.

All in all the film is worth watching to try and gain a better understanding of the social issues Iran faces.