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 »

Great article on BBC’s “Our Correspondent” website covering a recent US conference trying to see whether there was still anything in common with Europe. Apparently not:

“The West is an outdated concept,” declared one supremely self-confident senior American official at a lunch where he was the guest of honour. “And if there is still a West, then it includes Australia, Japan and South Korea. We have a global vision now” […] Seen through American eyes, it seemed the era of fixed alliances was over.

[…]

The name of the game would be selective and loose commitments: “Like an open marriage,” said one former US official […] “In my experience an open marriage tends to work only for one side,” [said] a British academic, “and I suspect it is the Americans who will benefit.”

When all’s said and done, there’s no real change in outlook. You’re still either with US, or against US.

Some recovered history here, one of my favourite pieces: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It’s nothing “new” if you follow these things, but it’s worth writing down. Anyway, the “official” doctrine for many years had it that the USSR invaded long before the CIA began funding their opponents that later went on to become the Taliban. In fact, the CIA’s own website still refers to the invasion as being an “intelligence failure”: “Earlier intelligence reports on activities by the Soviet military units had not been accompanied by warnings that this activity might indicate Moscow’s intent to launch a major military intervention.” It goes on to say that:

“while the United States continued strict adherence to [US] President Carter’s injunction against direct US assistance and the use of US weapons to support the Afghan insurgency, the CIA did consult with the Pakistan Government on its support to the opposition forces”

The reality was very different, however. According to Eric Alterman, writing in The Nation, “former Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates [revealed] in his 1996 memoir From the Shadows, the $500 million in nonlethal aid was designed to counter the billions the Soviets were pouring into the puppet regime they had installed in Kabul.”

According to Gates’s recounting, a key meeting took place on March 30, 1979. Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe wondered aloud whether “there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, ’sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.’” Arnold Horelick, CIA Soviet expert, warned that this was just what we could expect.

National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski also revealed that, on the 3rd of July 1979, “President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul”, which in Brzezinski’s opinion would “induce a Soviet military intervention”.

We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

All of this is rather amusing when you then go and read The Scholarship Editions’ “Afghanistan” declaring that “Soviet officials had made extensive efforts to frighten [Aghanistan’s Prime Minister Amin and the Revolutionary Council] about an imaginary danger directed at Afghanistan.”

But the Soviet government as well as the Karmal regime have fabricated stories contrary to this conclusion. In December 1979 Soviet officials told Amin that the �??revolution�?� was in danger from the United States, which was about to launch a massive assault from the Persian Gulf. To meet the assault, Afghanistan should be prepared militarily.

That’s not to say that the US were about to launch an assault from the Gulf, but their fears were hardly “imaginary”. (Oh, and I couldn’t find any reference to Brzezinski’s admission, either). The irony, of course, is when Brzezinski was questioned as to whether or not he regretted laying the Afghanistan trap, he answered:

Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. … What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? … It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Oops. Bet he forgot ever saying that. In fact, John Pilger reported that Brzezinski denied that this strategy was the beginning for al-Qaeda and terrorism; he said it was the Russian’s fault. Nevertheless, this was arguably the beginning of militarizing Islam to use as a US geo-political tool, something that continued long after the Soviets left Afghanistan.

In a recent report, Human Rights Watch condemned Hezbollah’s practice of packing their rockets with “hundreds of metal ball bearings that are of limited use against military targets but cause great harm to civilians and civilian property. The ball bearings lodge in the body and cause serious harm.” It’s worth looking at this point, to illustrate exactly why Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel are the same.

The accusation that this is a war crime is entirely legitimate, and is routinely mentioned and described in press reports. For the example, the BBC reported about casualties in the Israeli city of Haifa, commenting that “Many of the casualties have been wounded by some 14kg of ball-bearings packed into the missile warheads, designed to cause maximum damage.”

Alan Dershowitz, whom I’ve mentioned before, has referred to this terrible practice, stating that “Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides” by “deliberately [operating] military wings out of densely populated areas”, “[launching] antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian casualties”. He concludes that “Israel must be allowed to finish the fight that Hamas and Hezbollah started, even if that means civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon. A democracy is entitled to prefer the lives of its own innocents over the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter group contains many who are complicit in terrorism.”

Firstly, it is highly questionable that Hezbollah do, in fact, use Lebanese civilians as shields. In a recent article for Salon.com about this “myth”, Mitch Prothero reports that “Hezbollah fighters — as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers — avoid civilians … This is not for humanitarian reasons … but for military ones”, namely because they’re afraid of collaborators that can betray them.

“Israel” Prothero adds, “has chosen to treat the political members of Hezbollah as if they were fighters. And by targeting the civilian wing of the group, which supplies much of the humanitarian aid and social protection for the poorest people in the south, they are targeting civilians.” In comparison, this is the same as Hezbollah targetting and bombing all groups supplying “humanitarian aid and social protection” for people in Israel, something which no doubt would be condemned but, for Israel, it is considered entirely legitimate.

Secondly, as I’ve stated before, even if Hezbollah are using civilians as shields - a terrible act - this does not remove the character of the civilian population under international law, yet Israel clearly disregards this, viewing civilian infrastructure as a legitimate target and that the killing of civilians is morally legitimate, too. Since both Hamas and Hezbollah consider the targeting of civilians as legitimate, the terrorist tag is equally applicable to Israel. In comparison, it would be laughable to consider reading in the press no criticism over Hamas and Hezbollah’s claims that their attacks on civilians in Haifa in Israel are “morally justified” because they had “warned the civilians and gave them enough time to leave, and that the civilians who remained chose, themselves, not to leave” before raining rockets down on them (quotes from Professor Asa Kasher, the author of the Israeli Defense Force’s code of ethics). It’s also worth asking, if all the transportation networks had been destroyed preventing Israelis to leave Haifa, would the media also have no comment about whether or not they could actually leave?

Thirdly, if we are to condemn Hezbollah’s practice of filling their missiles with ball-bearings and use this as evidence of their terrorism and barbarism seperating them from the Israelis who do “everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties” (Dershowitz), what are we to make of the accusation made by the General Manager of Ambulances and Emergencies for the Ministry of Health in Gaza, Dr. Muawiya Hassanei, that “The Israeli forces are using internationally prohibited missiles that contain chemical materials and burning metals and in addition, have shrapnel in the shape of nails”.

He pointed out that the injuries received in the hospitals as a result of these missiles are very dangerous because the human tissues and muscles are torn and in addition, the injured suffer from severe bleeding, loss of limbs and broken bones.

The International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC) gained interviews with several doctors working in different hospitals in the Gaza strip, and all confirmed the use of non-conventional weapons. One of the doctors, Dr. Saeed Jodah, said, “When the Shrapnel hits the body, it causes very strong burns that destroy the tissues around the bones. When this shrapnel enters the body, it burns and destroys internal organs, like the liver, kidneys, the spleen and other organs, and makes saving the wounded almost impossible. As a surgeon, I have seen thousands of wounds during the Intifada, but nothing was like this weapon.”

The latest case that matched these symptoms was Muhammad Muhra, 17, from Al Bureij refugee camp. He was killed on Thursday. His body arrived at the hospital in an almost unrecognizable condition.

This went unreported in Western media, and a search on Google News showed this mentioned only in the International Middle East Media Center (see also Google Cache).

Where are the voices of condemnation from Dershowitz and others who (rightly) complain about Hezbollah’s “antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel” being designed “to maximize civilian casualties”? And, since Palestinians voted in a democratic election (but are still under occupation) and the Lebanese voted in a democratic election, while Israel clearly supports terrorism against Lebanese and Gazian civilians, does this then justify Hamas and Hezbollah in using Dershowitz’s argument to say they “prefer the lives of its own innocents over the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter group contains many who are complicit in terrorism”?