Tag Archives: UN

March 13, 2015 · 11:35

True torture

This issue started a while before this. The title “Tony Abbott: Australians ‘sick of being lectured to’ by United Nations, after report finds anti-torture breach” is just an incentive for emotion. (at http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-australians-sick-of-being-lectured-to-by-united-nations-after-report-finds-antitorture-breach-20150309-13z3j0.html).

There are two quotes that need to be looked at: “Mr Abbott’s criticism of the UN follows his attack last month of Australian Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs, in which he called the report she commissioned on children in detention a ‘political stitch-up’” and “The United Nations report, by the UN’s special rapporteur on torture, finds Australia is violating the rights of asylum seekers on multiple fronts under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment“.

I am all for human rights! I think Human rights are important, but what about the people ‘orchestrating’ the message?

Let’s that a look at the message ‘U.N. Urges U.S. To Treat Migrants as Refugees’ (at http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/08/329774643/u-n-urges-u-s-to-treat-migrants-as-refugees). The message seems to be clear, but what is that message? When we consider the quote “The refugee agency is particularly concerned about the large number of unaccompanied children arriving in the U.S. Washington estimates more than 90,000 unaccompanied children will arrive by the end of September“.

This was the news of last year. You see, what we all ignore (especially Labor and Greens) is that this all has a cost, it does not matter whether it is in Australia, Canada or America. When we accept refugees we accept financial responsibility to some extent. This is the not so nice part if us trying to be good and humane, there is a cost and we do not shy away from it, but we have limits, we all do! With every irresponsible act of spending what none have we limit our options and limit those who we allow in as well.

There is however another side, the side from the UN as we see the title ‘Asylum seeker torture report: United Nations special rapporteur Juan Mendez responds to Tony Abbott criticism‘ (at http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seeker-torture-report-united-nations-special-rapporteur-juan-mendez-responds-to-tony-abbott-criticism-20150310-13zrwz.html). The quote “I think we in the United Nations also deserve respect and I wish the Prime Minister had taken my views on this more seriously and engaged with my rapporteurship more constructively” is a defence and a subtitle, also a statement that is not incorrect, but perhaps incomplete. When we see the quote “Among the concerns raised by the report was that escalating violence on Manus Island, and the ‘intimidation and ill-treatment of two asylum seekers’ who gave statements about last year’s violent clashes at the centre was in breach of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” issues come to light. Now, it is important that I am not making any claims of dishonesty or that the claims are lies. There would be no way for me to prove it. In addition, it is nice that we get these ‘verdicts’ from the UN, an administrative group where those ‘voices’ are incomes vastly above minimum wage, an income fuelled by other governments, but guess what, EVERY single one of these nations are in debt, not one excluded! Yet, this is not about money, or the income of some of these comfortable living executives. Let’s take a look at some of the elements.

Let’s restate the phrase: “intimidation and ill-treatment of two asylum seekers“, now, I am willing to blindly accept the following:

  1. There are likely more than 2 victims
  2. Let’s accept that in every case it is always both intimidation and ill-treatment

Now let’s take a look at the information form Amnesty international (at http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/33587/), where they state the following: “There are currently 1,100 asylum seekers detained on Manus Island, all of whom are men who arrived without their families. These men have fled war, chilling acts of torture, threats of death, or profound discrimination. Many of them have made the desperate decision to make a perilous journey from Indonesia and other countries, including Sri Lanka, to Australia“.

Now, let’s be realistic and accept that more than two people have faced certain ordeals, there is no way for me to clearly find (at present) how many faced events. But if we take 20 people, than the issue revolves around 1.8% opposed to 0.18%. 1.8% might be too large, and I would agree with it, but we all seem to forget that a detention centre like that, is a place with constant pressures and clashing cultures, there are uncertain times ahead for many of these people, so pressures will come to a boil pretty fast in a place like that.

I am trying not to trivialise, but the need for better statistics is evidently required before we start a dictionary war between Australian parliament and the UN, whilst we know that the media is ‘presiding’ both sides whilst they enjoy the benefit of the occurring discord.

Yet, in the end, the actual culprit has not once been named. Oh, evil villain, oh master of the dischordian principle that weighs the loom of infinity unto the hands of fate. I have seen thee oh villain and I name thee………. (wait for it)………. Tax-Man!

Yes, in all the issues of emotion, so many forget that humanitarian aid must be paid for. Humanitarian causes require funds to exist, as do immigration centres, because they are a pure cost for any government. Which is one reason why Greece is getting rid of them tout-suit! In addition, they are so broke they are now returning to the need for WW2 reparations from Germany, which I will not condemn, but in reality, their own Tax-Man did not do anything, which covers close to 1/3rd of all their debt. So as they ignored current debts (and irresponsible spending), they go back to WW2. It makes perfect sense, the Greek PM and that finance ‘Rock Star’ have no other options (if they want to remain in power), but this is not about the Greek debt!

This is about refugees and the truth is that many nations (most of them), they are all failing refugees, mainly because of Tax-Man. You see, this super villain relies on the help of its sidekick Mrs. Poli Titian and this sidekick has been overspending, giving tax breaks to large corporations in a whimsy notion that under those condition more money would come in. It was a flawed approach, because they all rely on people SPENDING money. Guess what? They overspend on luxuries and are now paying it off, many have no jobs and many more have been in an income world that resembles the world of Frozen, whilst the cost of living is still rising. All this adds up to empty coffers.

So Mr Juan Mendez, where will these costs come from? This is not my lashing out, this is me actually asking. I remain in favour to help refugees as much as possible, but how? We need to make massive changes to the way of life we now have. Mrs Poli Titian needs to actually instigate massive changes. Not just in Australia, US, Canada et al. ALL nations need to accept certain changes. We need to readdress the way we think and I will admit right here, right now that I am at a loss how to go best about it.

In my view, there is an option, but it is not one you like, not one you will even find acceptable or humane.

  1. Retirement homes are as per now only for those without family. If they have family, they must go there. This needs to be a global change

Yes, you are all upset now. Yet consider, if we unite families we shrink the costs of arranging all this, yet in answer, those funds will ALL go to legal aid, health care aid and refugee aid.

  1. Refugees can come in, but only assigned to volunteer positions for places like Salvation Army, St. Vincent, Red Cross and other volunteer places. For this they receive room and board. It will give aid to other places, work force and support. For that they will receive a place in our community and after 5 years they will get automatic citizenship.

Non-compliance means expulsion from that nation!

This is not even that harsh, the situation could become a lot worse soon enough, then what will we do? As we get all these academic people (and governmental expert consultants) telling us how things will get better soon, hoping that they can avoid actually answering the question in earnest.

The Greek example of their detention centres might have been the most outspoken, but I feel certain that they are not the worst, not by a long shot. Real refugees want to work towards a better future, my solution seems to be less, but it still gives them a guaranteed future for them and their children.

The parliament of Australia site gave me two paragraphs that matter (at http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0001/01RP05).

“Asylum seekers are drawn to particular countries by a range of obvious factors-proximity, family and ethnic community networks, employment opportunities and wage levels, generosity of welfare systems, levels of tolerance within existing societies, and the accessibility of determination systems. In Europe last year 70 per cent of asylum seekers sought protection in just four countries-Germany, Britain, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Acceptance rates are more revealing of a country’s political priorities, or its attitude to migration, or the weight of numbers it has had to deal with, or its diplomatic relations with ‘sending’ countries, than the genuineness of refugee claims” and “Australia is perhaps unique amongst Western countries in its capacity and willingness to remove failed asylum seekers; in other countries most failed asylum seekers simply remain. Australia has however joined other countries in attempting to discourage new applicants. The most minimal welfare payment, special benefit, is provided to illegally arrived asylum seekers even after they have been determined to be Convention refugees; they are provided with temporary visas with no family reunion entitlements; and they are denied access to settlement services tailored for and provided free to off-shore refugees”

In my view refugees would (read: should) willingly go to any place that will accept them, this information gives a slightly different view. It is also interesting that the information is incorrect. The Dutch numbers are going down, whilst the Swedish numbers were going up. Moreover, the Swedish numbers are over 25% higher, yet the premise of the writ is not strongly affected. In this light we will see that the economies of the large 6, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands and Switzerland will soon change stronger and stronger if large changes are not made. Reasoning is that ‘in earnest’ (not in condemnation of any kind), refugees are an economic burden. They often cannot speak the language, the culture is different and there will be other moments that will stop them from becoming an asset to any future (most important their own future).

The solution that I am proposing might seem ‘inhumane’, but they are cast in places where people are less likely to take advantage of them. They will be in places helping their new nation and as such themselves as well and they will get exposed to a strong impulse of skills, language and cultural foundations that will only propel them stronger in future. In that light their children will already be eligible for schools and will help them build even stronger foundations.

Is my plan the best? No, it is not, but by giving it to large industries, who gave a massive part of that to their own members of the board is certainly never going to be a solution. This is not some anti-industry chant. The issue is that life in any environment requires equilibrium. A ‘coalition’ and politicians with their ‘after-elected’ need, as I personally see it, have been uniting for the need of a few and that need has been answered for these few to such an extent that the many are now no longer regarded as essential. We have now entered into the realm of trimming. Not the trimming of the fat, but the trimming of non-consumers and in the short minded view of the industry, those, of whom they think no one needs. But in that same view we will also trim our humanity, reduced to be workers, for the lessened good of consuming.

My view is not a good one, but as I see it, it beats where we are moving towards. In the end, is my view just an exaggerated negative view? I personally wish it was so, but consider the following facts:

External debt and population

  1. Germany – 5.5 trillion – 81m
  2. France – 5.7 trillion – 64m
  3. United Kingdom – 9.5 trillion – 65m
  4. Sweden – 1.1 trillion – 10m
  5. Netherlands – 2.5 trillion – 17m
  6. Switzerland – 1.6 trillion – 8m

Now take the next part in close (but sceptical consideration), one report claims that for the UK servicing the debt costs a mere £43bn, which amounts to the entire defence spending of the UK. The UK collected a forecasted 650 billion in taxation last year, taking 6% of the budget away just to keep Even Steven, so if the UK wants to move forward they need to budget on 90% whilst collecting the 100% forecasted part. It is quite the miracle to make that happen. Now the UK and Germany are doing reasonably well (compared too many other nations), but they too have issues. When we look at Sweden and the Netherlands; that image swifts a lot faster in a downward spiral. Perhaps some will remember the issues Switzerland and their currency had a little over a month ago in my article ‘A seesaw for three‘ on January 18th 2015 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/18/a-seesaw-for-three/)

We now see the picture adding up to a lot more hardship, and add to that the refugees:

  1. Germany 571K – 144
  2. France 210K – 310
  3. United Kingdom – 194K – 319
  4. Sweden – 86K – 106
  5. Netherlands – 75K – 222
  6. Switzerland – 50K – 154

Now the view is almost complete. So for Germany we see 571,000 refugees, which means one refugee per 144 non refugees. The 144 pay for the way of one refugee. We could think that this is easy, but now consider that taxation is down, so the required money is not getting in (for various reasons). Now we see the problem, how can any government continue to support a sliding scale? This is not about fairness, because it is not fair on the refugee. I will be on the first line stating this, but when the bills are due, fairness will no longer be a factor. If we want to resolve the refugee solution, so that we all can continue giving them a future, something must give way. We can hope for a much better economy, but that is a ludicrous fantasy, even if the economy suddenly upgrades by 15%, these nations will still be hurt by the overspending and the consequential bills that became the headache for well over a decade.

So in my view we either change the way the refugee issues are addressed, or soon thereafter Australia will not be the only one sending back refugees, with the consequential nightmare that such actions will bring.

So as I contemplate the words of Juan Mendez, I wonder if Mr Mendez has considered the dangers of true torture when funds run truly dry on a near global basis. We all need to look at how it can be made better as we all should consider such steps, but in addition, no one seems to be looking at the cost of it all, yet the pressures of the rising costs of helping refugees getting a future are not being addressed in this economy, why not?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 10, 2015 · 11:11

Comprehension

Yesterday has been a weird day for France, unlike here in Sydney; they had their dealings with terrorists. You see, I remain in the mindset that what happened in martin Place last month was a crazy person with a gun, the fact that he was a Muslim makes little difference. He was a mental health case with deadly intent, it got him killed, but only after he killed some of his victims. France is an entirely different kettle of fish. Here is the YouTube link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBGVwZyXYlQ (in French with English subtitles), I normally would not add something like this, but it is important to see the difference. This is not some hostage situation asking for a flag, this is almost military precision, it is direct, clean (pardon the expression), kill and get out! A policeman was on the scene and was executed without any consideration.

Here you see directly what Israel has faced on a daily basis; this is what the direct hatred of Jews looks like. Even though this is against a satirical cartoonist, the hatred of these extremists’ remains the same. The Guardian has an article by Jonathan Freedland that covers several parts of what bothers me. The article ‘Charlie Hebdo: first they came for the cartoonists, then they came for the Jews‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-cartoonists-paris-killers-fascist-death-cult) gives us a few views. The quote: “They hated the cartoons, we say. Free speech was the target, we declare. They wanted to silence satire and gag dissent“, this was not unlike my view. I find satire enjoyable, but when you touch religion (any religion), some people tend to get a little off the balanced sane side. Some get abusive, some get a little violent, yet as far as I know, none will act to this degree (although opposites in the India – Pakistan debates might not agree with me). No matter what I think or believe, Charlie Hebdo was in a place with free speech and he was entitled to it. The best comparison I heard was from an American Journalist describing Charlie Hebdo as the French version of ‘the Onion’.

When we see the following two quotes we get to the real stuff: “Then on Friday, a siege at a kosher supermarket, four hostages confirmed dead, the murderers apparently linked to those behind Wednesday’s carnage” and “Perhaps the murderers are bent on killing people not only for what they do, but for who they are“, this is at the centre of a lot of issues behind the objections against allowing Palestine into the UN and other places. I and many others have no hatred for Palestinians however, we will not accept Hamas to be allowed at any table for the terrorist organisation that they are. And so long as Palestine will not disavow Hamas and as long as Hamas calls the shots, there is no future for Palestine as I see it. This is at the heart of the matter, so when you think of these poor poor Palestinians, watch the uncensored shooting in Paris and now realise that this is what Israel faced for many years now, with added rockets and nail bombs!

The next part is actually at the centre to what we tend to feel and also how our civilised minds should be feeling. “For Muslims, that has meant spelling out that these killers speak only for themselves. Note the speed with which a delegation of 20 imams visited the Charlie Hebdo offices, branding the gunmen “criminals, barbarians, satans” and, crucially, “not Muslims”“, this makes sense in regards to the next part “Of course they should not have to do it. The finger-wagging demand that Muslims condemn acts of terror committed by jihadist cultists is odious: it tacitly assumes that Muslims support such horror unless they explicitly say otherwise“, this makes sense. Perhaps we all remember the atrocities of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and white power groups against African Americans. We distance ourselves as Christians, because their acts are not those of Christians at all. They are at the centre of some agenda of hate that the boggles the usual civilised mind. Some cannot grasp the small mindedness of it. Yes, we all hate at times and we hate enough to kill, maim or harm, but that comes in defence of a rational against us, or our family when it is harmed. To blatantly hate is not within our power (it should not be), I will go one further, children when they are born do not have the capacity to hate; it is the one dark side that gets taught to us, which makes it so inexplicable to some.

Now we get to the parts that I do not completely agree with (even though what is stated is not wrong) “Wednesday’s deaths brought a loud chorus insisting that Charlie Hebdo was vulnerable because it had been left out on a limb. That was down, they said, to the cowardice of the rest of the press, lacking the guts to do what the French magazine had done“. The press has been many things (cowardly to some extent as well), when the press (globally generically speaking) started to cater to advertisers and circulation, many papers started to cater to the emotional reader “Flight MH370 ‘suicide mission’” (The Daily Telegraph, March 2014) and “Death Cult CBD Attack” (The Daily Telegraph, December 2014). It is only one of several papers, the public gets misinformed too often, too much innuendo. “Andrew and the under-age ‘sex slave’” from The Daily Mail, implying the Duke of York is just the most recent of revenue claiming headlines. When you rely on income in this way, we see the newspapers as they no longer are, they are no longer informing the people, hopefully setting their minds to a more informed stable position, we are left with groups of people getting angry on implied innuendo. It makes for revenue (but becomes non-informative). So how about we make it a little more clear? How about tax offices change that glossy magazines are not tax deductible as they do not qualify as ‘researchable materials’? The ATO states “Newspapers and magazines, you can claim a deduction for that part of the cost of newspapers and magazines that relates to your using them in researching a topic as an employee journalist“. When we remove glossy magazines and add the Daily Telegraph and sort minded groups on that list, perhaps they will clean up their act?

So as non-violent Muslims fear repercussions for emotional responses, we in general have a duty to shield them, but in my mind we have an equal need to hunt down these extremists. We need to become a lot less tolerant of hate crimes like we are seeing in Paris this week, but they must be held against the real threat, not the threat that some papers perceive to instil. So this is where my view slightly differed from Jonathan Freedland. The French issue should wake us up in other ways too. Not only should we regard the hate attacks Israel has been under for a long time, we need to notice that walk softly and ‘try to reason’ will not work. The policeman had little option but to talk the man into not shooting him, it did not work! I feel for his family, and for the family of other victims, but you all need to wake up now, terrorists are real, they are not some deranged Sheik with delusions of grandeur wanting a ‘Shadada’ flag in a chocolate shop. They are people with guns, with a tactical mind that tells them to kill that what they hate without hesitation or remorse, so as you keep on crying on ‘your’ privacy, whilst posting your ‘nightly’ achievements on Facebook, remember that limiting those who hunt these extremists, might get you or someone you know killed at some point.

Yet Jonathan’s gem is at the very end “Theirs is a dirty little war, a handful of wicked fanatics against the rest of us. And they must lose“, I could not have said it better myself, but with that comprehension comes a change to all our minds, not to our hearts! Our hearts must never embrace the acts and the violence needed; our minds must however accept that some need to do what they do to stop these people, preferably before innocent lives are lost. It must happen everywhere and it needed to start yesterday. So, as you ponder these ‘lost souls’ as they go Jihad in Syria, then also quickly realise that these people come back with the skill, the intent and the reasoning of the extremists that you saw in the YouTube video, so if you are a parent and you wave your hand to your little boy or girl as they go to school, you should realise that they might leave the house the last time that day. What are you willing to do to keep them safe?

I am not trying to quell you into emotion like the press so often does; I need you to comprehend what must be done by professionals to keep you and your family safe. Think it through and cast your vote! You need not act, you are not trained and not qualified to suddenly emotionally react to these extremists. Only the calm mind will know what to do and they must be given the option to win and to make sure that extremists lose, or we lose it all!

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 30, 2014 · 14:42

Fur ball?

OK, I thought I was done for the year, you know, the last article when I threw a little lob ball in a less serious approach to reporting events. However, that part threw me a little fur ball, almost like coughing up the Cheshire cat.

It all started with the Jerusalem Post today, at least that is when I noticed the message. The title states: ‘Israel expects world community to oppose Palestinian efforts at UN, Netanyahu says‘ (at http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-expects-world-community-to-oppose-Palestinian-efforts-at-UN-Netanyahu-says-386058), true, there are issues with the entire UN debacle to some extent; my emphasis is regarding the use of ‘some’. You see, as much as I oppose the entire anti-Semitic approach towards Israel. Having a strong anti-Palestinian view seems equally wrong; however, Palestine has created this issue whilst condoning whatever Hamas did to the largest extent, which is completely unacceptable either, none of those actions make sense. The quote “Israel will oppose conditions that will endanger our future” is very much central into this. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is very correct in that statement. Hamas has always and remains ‘dedicated’ to wiping out Israel, which beckon the thought why the EEC courts would rule against giving Hamas the ‘terrorist’ label. We could argue and speculate on how this is even acceptable. Did this grow out of fear on the Islamic state presence in both Gaza and Sinai? The fact that they are growing in Libya and even in other parts of North Africa is a nightmare scenario coming true (at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/islamic-state-opening-front-in-north-africa/). There have been unconfirmed reports of Islamic State in Algeria, but if so, if they could start getting any level of hold in Morocco, then they are just a footstep away from Spain. That should scare the EEC plenty, they have no funds left to manage any event, and giving up Israel means that they get a little time to ‘clean up’ their border issues. This would be a step that is delusional in many ways. You see, Israel remains essential to balance in the Middle East. The Economic Judges took little notice of that part of the equation; just on the formality of what a terrorist is, (apparently blowing up Sbarro filled with civilians is not a terrorist act). By the way, did anyone notice how there dos not seem to be any paper explaining the formality in that legality? Just the fact that is was ‘a formality’.

The second quote is the one that seems to be a little debatable: “Netanyahu said that Israel and western civilization were under attack from Iran and Islamic radicals, and that this attack also included Palestinian efforts to impose a solution that would endanger Israel’s security and place its future in danger“, one part should be (as I see it): “under attack from extreme supporters within the Iranian government and Islamic radicals“, which would be more correct. I do not believe all Iranian (at present) are like that, yet open support from Iran towards Hamas has been seen, these military elements seem to get some political protection, which proves my point (to some extent), yet I am not certain (or there is at least a decent level of doubt) that it does not blanket all political Iran as I see it. The fact that President Obama announced the possibility of an American Embassy in Tehran is not a bad thing, but these developments should be closely watched, because there is an issue. It is not the fact that this meeting was with Indiana Governor Mike Pence. The act that he is a Republican and that this meeting was absent of Democratic heavy weights might be fuel for speculation were the current Democratic administration stands. Especially as the White house was unwilling to confirm or deny it stance towards Israel. This has all the makings of a political issue that should be a moral one. Israel remains under siege from rockets on a nearly daily basis, it seems that people forget how the US reacted when there was some demolition going on in New York close to the corner of West Street and Liberty street. Let us not forget that this was ONE event. Israel has remained under attack for decades. Israel now has two generations under attack from rocket fire. These events cannot be compared, but perhaps the Americans can remember their anger on September 12th, which is the feeling Israel has had for a long time. It wants to survive plain and simple. It’s neighbour will continue to attack Israel, whilst Israel wants to survive, yet, in fairness, I must look towards the other side too. I believe there can be a Palestine WITHOUT Hamas. That is an option, but Hamas does not want it, it wants to lead and to do that, it must remove Israel. It is not a puzzle, it is a simple equation, one denies the existence of the other solution, so I must side with Israel and as such, as long as there is Hamas, there can be no Palestine. A situation now worsened with the existence of Islamic state in that area.

There is another view that I must bring forth. I am not sure if I can agree with it as there are a few parts that touch on items I never looked at (it is not a small document at http://www.academia.edu/5145129/Gunning_-_The_Conflict_and_the_Question_of_Engaging_with_Hamas_in_EUISS_CP124_European_Involvement_in_the_Arab-Israeli_Conflict), but it has views that are not invalid. As such, I call to attention to the following part “They could, for example, spell out the rewards that would be forthcoming for a new unity government that would share responsibility for delivering basic services and the rule of law in both the West Bank and Gaza“, this is found on page 41. I am not stating that this is happening, but when we consider the events, it is not that far a stretch to see that this might be part of a path that the EEC is currently treading. If so, they will soon see the other side of a terrorist organisation. It remains nice and talkative as long as steps in their direction are made; when that stops when THEY need to show progress there will be delays, miss-communication and other events. Then those big business judges will see innuendo towards ‘give us the rest or else‘, then what? When THEIR ego is in play, what will they decide then? Let us not forget that they are gambling with the existence of the state of Israel. When they are told, there are 10 solutions to this and ‘no’ is not an option, whilst they contemplate what the other 8 options are, when they suddenly realise it was a binary question with a ‘no’ and a ‘yes’, the other 8 solutions never existed in the first place, then what? They might not have pulled the trigger, but they are skating towards the end of Israel for the simple comfort of mind that never existed. You see, terrorists are extremists, they only cater to the view of ‘self’, with no regard of any other view. Israel is trying to survive, plain and simple, a war that continued from 1945 onwards.

Yet, there was also a spark of visibility (in other areas), that gave me pause to consider other dimensions. Not in regarding to what goes boom, but in another direction. In the same way that we look at the EEC decision of Hamas, there is a Jewish issue that the Jerusalem post shows, which gives us another part of this cloak. It is seen at http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Rabbi-Meir-Mazuz-responds-to-Rabbi-Cohens-attack-on-Yishai-385989. As we see a needed separation of politics and Law, we see an equal need to separate state from church (as many have always seen it in the US and other places). The quotes were “Rabbi Shalom Cohen, he should be well, is a great Torah scholar, a righteous man and a great intellectual, but he does not come down to the people and, therefore, he does not understand the common people”, “He has never held public office and served most of his career as a rabbi in yeshiva and a yeshiva dean, not as a halachic arbiter dealing with the questions of Jewish law that are brought to senior rabbis for a ruling” and “Mazuz seemingly referenced one of Cohen’s recent outbursts in which he said during a prayer service at the Western Wall for the welfare of IDF soldiers during Operation Protective Edge that Israel did not need an army because “It is God almighty who fights for Israel.”“. Now I am not debating the issues as they are, I feel not qualified to do so, but there are issues as they have always been in almost any religion. I would not elect a Rabbi to political office, for the same reasons I would not vote for the election of a Catholic in that same category, each having a slight radical, absolute view. A woman’s ‘right to choose’ abortion would end pretty much immediately, also, there would be a diminished view for defence and an increase or humanitarian needs and diplomacy. Yet, Diplomacy without military power could be regarded as either pointless, or useless. Diplomacy requires a stick to fight with when ‘the’ word is ignored. It is counterproductive when we know that the stick remains ignored and the diplomatic view is ignored completely when we know that there is no stick in the first place. This is the damage that Julian Assange created, which too many ignored. The anti-American league had a field day when they saw WHERE the US had made commitments, knowing where the stick was, toppled many American diplomatic endeavour, whilst they remained in the dark where the other sticks were. That view is only emphasised when we see the Jewish elections. How can the people be served without their military need for defence? Is that not counter to the Torah? If we know that the IDF abides by what is seen as “The Torah establishes the boundaries of what is permitted and forbidden in war for both individual and for society“, which gives us how Hamas waged war, yet the ‘legalised’ view of the EEC disregarded that overall view and reacted to, what I regard to be an economic view of judgement, which gives us the escalating issues. The added incentive here is that no one has actually give any visibility on how the ruling was made, on what legal premise is was founded, is this not strange too?

So, as we consider on who makes rulings on how judiciary choices are made, we must consider that the players have their own agenda. Whether we should consider how the law is seen (by some) and when we see how economies ad terrorists make decisions, in a morally biased way how, is any of it regarded as legal? Is there a boundary between those who fell from a rocket and those who fell through economic ‘treason’? How does that reflect differently on the victim? There is a famous quote we see Lee Marvin make in the movie ‘The Big red one’ (one of my five all-time war movies). There he states “We don’t murder; we kill“, I am certain that it did not matter to the one whose live we end, only to our own morality to pull the trigger. A morality a terrorist or a stockbroker for that matter does not seem to have.

You see, the sniper kills (or murders) for the protection of others, the terrorist and stockbroker acts for the wealth (or survival) of self at the expense of (all) others, elements of the same sides of two different coins.

So as the fur ball coughs up a Cheshire Cat, we must worry for the future, we all seem to disregard certain values and adhere to choices of our own survival, even if that requires us to realign our morality, just the slightest. As Saruman the White becomes Saruman of many colours, we see the fading of white, the finding of what was actually right and we lose ourselves into a world where we remove the fences that were there to protect us all. What happens next? I do not know, or even pretend to know, but I do worry, because 2015 is likely to be a year of turmoil, a year where we had to focus on a better economy, a side that might be pushed aside for whatever escalation comes next.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 15, 2014 · 11:44

Facts, Fiction or Fantasy

It is the elementary consideration of the three F’s, when we look at the information in regards to the Ukraine. It is not whether we give value or credibility of the news we see coming from Sky News, the Dutch NOS, BBC, CNN or even Fox News. There is a side that remains largely unspoken by many of them.

We see the news on how it is written on how these poor, poor Ukrainians are getting pummelled back into the anti-freedom group called ‘the Russian Federation’. Is that actually a truth?

Yes, we all notice on how well organised and well-armed these pro-Russian antagonists are, but are we seeing all the information correctly? Consider that not a few or a dozen people are in favour of these so called referendums, no; the people are out and about in hundreds and thousands. Many are singing their ‘old’ Russian songs and anthems. This is at the heart of the missing information. Consider that we see a lot more US involvement, whilst Kiev is now asking for the ‘Blue Helmets’ (UNIFIL) intervention. These people are about to get more support in 2 weeks, then the entire Syrian nation got in three years. I hope you remember that little escapade. It is still going on and the amount of casualties remain rising in Syria.

So, why are we all up in arms about Ukraine? Is it because some in Kiev want the European values and we are so upset about those who do not want to share ‘our’ way of life? Consider that the news has all been about implying that these acts are all orchestrated by the Kremlin and whilst it sounds really fun to hear about some politician who is about to get his assets frozen, nothing real can be done. By the way, can anyone tell me when the American Politicians or Wall street big bosses got their assets frozen?

The Ukrainian mess is blowing out of proportions in two ways. The first was the start of the Crimea and in specific the way the west and others responded to the events. I will always consider the fact that Russia did have some involvement here to some extent. The reason is that not having their fingers on the pulse whilst there is a massive naval base there is just not an option. They might not have intervened, or they remain silent on actions, but they knew what was going on. It was in their interest to pretend to be the non-observant here. Yet, that story does not reflect on the other parts of the Ukraine. A simple look at the map can tell us that. The Crimea was a military power point; the rest of the Ukraine is not. It is so simple for Russia to stand at a distance as see this all go up in flames and then offer ‘humanitarian’ aid.

The part that western news is ignoring is the shouting of the people that they have had enough of Kiev corruption. In their mind this will only lead to even worse times. Can we even blame them? Look at what the IMF has wrought (not through their actions through), Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain and Cyprus. Massive debts, then IMF/EU financial support and after that austerity and continues after it started to choke a population. Government administrations get re-elected, no one goes to jail and some end up with a massive amount of money and favours. Is it such a leap of faith that Ukraine, a nation where corruption is such an issue, a place where now its population is just too scared to see what happens next? Consider the news in the last week, where we read that Christine Lagarde stated that the IMF was no longer forcing structural changes (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/04/13/imf-no-longer-forces-structural-change). Was that just a small illumination of change as fear is gripping certain population groups? Consider the statement that was given last week that ‘the IMF was a victim of US politics‘, it is enough to scare many people. The statements of the IMF, which were also stated by Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey, that the US seems to be playing their own political games on regards to the IMF. None of these issues were raised, even though it is stated in several sources that the Ukraine is about to receive 9 billion in aid from the IMF. Now, I am not objecting in regards to the aid, yet, whilst it is known by all the players above a certain levels (at least 4 levels below Lagarde, Obama and Putin), that the Ukraine has a history and environment of corruption. None of that is properly addressed, so whilst 9 billion will go to the Ukraine, how much will end up out of the hands of the corrupt? Misreading gas meters, government invoices and the list goes on, how much of those will get paid by the 9 billion? Still wondering why the Ukrainian people are so anxious?

None of these matters are looked at (with proper levels of investigation) by the press, which makes for some of these newscasts a negotiable level of ‘pro-western’ advertisements, making the situation worse.

What the press is unwilling to illuminate, is that at the centre of these troubles are the pro-western politicians. They had no issue disposing of its former president, yet when they themselves are rejected by the Crimea and as it seems by the people at large, everyone shouts foul!

That part is an issue, no matter how many journalists ignore it. It is of course also a nice point of light as well; my income might drastically improve if the cold war is back. There is of course the badge of benefits we see with new movies (like a new impossible mission going up against their old adversary), the video games and in my case more data analyses. All those international locations that would need Palantir Government installed, trained and consulted upon.

Is this the reality? I do not know, the pressure between east and west is growing, so it remains a consideration. Consider however the events in Syria and that red line that was drawn (by the US), nothing happened. Is it because US intervention might get some of their oil benefits revoked? Is Syria not an interesting nation? (Which seems odd, as the pressures there would influence their long-time ally Israel.) So what is the press not investigating and what are we not getting told in this instance?

Consider that when you watch the news tonight and listen to what they say exactly, because you will hear suppositions and carefully phrased implied events, but where were the facts and more important, why are we not getting all the facts? That last one is important, as it turns a fact driven newscast into a work of fiction or even fantasy, which is getting the Ukrainians so angry and bothered.

In the end I still ask the question that is at the centre of this all. Why did the EEC not let the Ukraine be? This is not a statements against dealing with the Ukraine as a business partner, but in the light where the economies are down to such a degree, when the EEC is still dealing with the new partners and the overall debt levels are far exceeding acceptable levels in many of the EEC nations, growing is not a solution, it is a sure path to implosion, which will leave most of the EEC in a destitute state. That part is also seen as the two big national influencers, namely the French ‘Front Nationale’ and the British UKIP. When they do get the referendum to fall in their favour, the EEC will be in a mess that they will not be able to fix. Is the adding of as many nations as possible a desperate act to float the EEC at that point? (That was an actual question I am phrasing myself!)

The last one is likely to be a mere speculation (read fiction), from my side. Yet, considering the steps as we saw the EEC change and grow from 2008 onwards, after economic blow after blow. Now Greece is selling bonds again, whilst at present, their economy is in no way ready to deal with the old debts as well as the additional new ones. Are you still surprised to see the Ukrainian actions?

I am not stating that Russia is in such a great state, but there is every indication that they are not in a bad state either (with massive parts if Europe depending on Russian Gas), add to that, the fact that the Middle East is now diversifying by making Russian arms deals and other deals, which should indicate that they will order less from the west. Cars, electronics and other needs are now more and more moved to Asian makers like China, India, Myanmar et al. Some was already there, but slowly the list of migration is growing. Australia will lose massive amounts of jobs as the car industry moves away (not one brand, but all brands within the next 36 months). We see that airlines are slimming down and as the news reaches us day after day, often just after some ‘good’ news reached us, the balance is not looking good. The west is becoming less and less the place to be.

I do agree that the economy is slowly getting better, but it is also changing. Both have an impact on most of us and I still believe that actual economic improvements are not enjoyed by many of us until late 2015. All these factors are linked, as they are told to all. This is because the Ukrainian people are also watching the news, reading it on the internet and the picture shown is not a good one. So, when they felt that they were about to get the short end of the stick, they all rose up, because the devil you know (Russia) beats the devil you don’t (EEC). That part the big bosses all forgot about and when they applied pressure, they lost the Ukraine. Now the escalations there might not be so much orchestrated, but the stories, as they came from their ‘new’ government is sounding less and less honest in their ears. They want the old days back and in all fairness, can we blame them? Moreover, are the involved nations even happy to add another nation who is on the brink of bankruptcy?

These questions have not been dealt with at all. The last one is one we should all ask ourselves. Why intervene in the Ukraine, whilst politicians have no solution at all for those in hardship and dying in Syria? That issue reflects directly on the people of Jordan and Palestine, especially after a second chemical attack, whether we believe these events to be stories of fact, fiction or fantasy. We are witnessing iterations of ‘the cost of doing business’ on a global scale. It is however the local people who pay the bill through taxation and the Ukrainians seem to be very unhappy about the changes and the bill they will get presented with.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 20, 2013 · 14:06

The empty stage

That was the view I had at 05:00 when I woke up switching on Sky News. As I was still dealing with painkillers it was all there was to do. Until the painkillers kick in, whatever I try to focus on will not be successful. It is an anchor weighing me down and in my entire life I have never taken that much chemicals. I will go further in stating that the amount of painkillers used in the last two weeks outstrips the sum of all painkillers used in the past 50 year. My life sucks for now!

Now Secretary of State John Kerry enters the stage.

His speech is focussing on the fact that we all have our own opinions, yet we do not all have our own facts. It is about the evidence of Sarin. The UN report confirms that this was the case. We knew all that. His report is now on the view that it was all the fault of Assad. This is all an emotional speech on how it is all the fault of Assad.

I need another painkiller!

The UN report, as reported by others are all about the fact that Sarin was used, yet the UN report as stated by others did not state WHO was the one that fired these missiles. Am I watching another spin report, all about emotion and posturing? This should still be about removing the chemical weapons, which I agree with is a needed thing. Yet, the theatre unfolding now is about other things. It is about the binding resolution! Should I now see this as a secretary of state throwing the equivalent of a tantrum?

No it is not! Apparently the US side parties involved want to bind this under Chapter 7 so that the resolution is binding. And again China and Russia are possible standing as a barricade in these times that require solutions. It seems that Russia is still playing politics (as a politician would), but this is about a lot more than just the chemical weapons I reckon. Like a chess player President Putin is moving his pieces little by little. Is he keeping his ‘friend’ out of harm’s way, or is he trying to guarantee a multi-billion dollar deal with President Assad? If that is so, he could end up with a 3.75% commission (which is the average commission for a junior salesperson), adding up to an easy $5 million, which is not a bad day’s work. Can I please get a spokesperson position at $250,000 a year?
I need the income!

So we are looking at a play to set the binding resolution through application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII. This part contains Articles 39 to 51. This is the part that Assad would not like. The binding resolution means that President Assad could be taken towards a time line, if ignored, or if stall tactics are shown then a military option opens up as can be read in Article 45 ‘In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.‘

Why am I on the fence? The simple truth is that the Russian claim that the attack was a provocation, fired by the opposition forces is not that unreal. There is supporting evidence of two kinds.

The first is that the locations of the chemical weapon stacks are not all known. For all we know the opposition have been by chemical location for some time. The second part is that I have had my reservations why Al-Qaeda would get involved in a situation where they are on the same side as America. That never made sense. What we know about AQ is that they are about them and their needs. Since when was their position ever on the side of ‘another’ population (read the Syrian people)? I cannot claim mastery of knowledge here, I could be wrong. Yet the tactical position they have to find weapons against Israel and America would be too appealing. The fact that AQ provoked an act that gets America in another war, possible drawing Israel in as well was not that bad a strategy. It seems to have worked. So is the Sarin the baton that is getting passed on and on? Let’s not forget that the AQ is a party of interest in all of this, so whatever we think is going on is less clear then most suspect.

If we know that the Syrian forces had certain equipment, is it a possibility that they had been captured? The part I have an issue with is that with all those satellites, no one is watching the events in Syria, if so, then where is that footage? John Kerry made the quote “There is no indication, none, that the opposition is in possession, or has launched a CW variant of these rockets” it seems to be a reflection on the 122mm improvised rocket. The fact that he speaks of ‘indication‘ means that either he has no INTEL on this (or was handed it), or no one was able to record this. With all those satellites in orbit, this is an issue that I have a problem with.

I reckon that the satellite views do exist, but there is likely not enough information proving which party instigated these fireworks. If so, then it would be out with the press and all to see and judge. It is nice to play this game, but you need evidence, and that is what is lacking on the US side. Yes, Sarin was used, but by who? It is the question that haunting us all and we see again a polarisation of views Russia on the side of their buddy President Assad and the US taking up the other side.

The only positive of all of this is that another nation is joining a non-chemical weapons group, although it is a little late to that party. The only issue remains is whether AQ got access to the CW missiles and if so were they able to syphon any of them to other locations? This is what has Russia spooked most of all. The reason is that there are links going back well over half a decade that AQ has links to Chechnya terror groups. If they end up with only one missile, then the cooking mixture for utter panic in the streets of Moscow will be not far behind. Chechnya fighters have several options for entering Russia and getting close to Moscow.

If there is validity in my approach to these events, then this could mean that Russia will only be ‘cooperative’ for as long as it takes to know whether AQ has access to the missiles and whether they are sending a few on to their ‘friends’. After that Russia is likely to return to a stance that the US would classify as ‘their un-cooperative selves’. These all link together as we the people have been numbed by spin, misdirection and stories of all kind by several sources, many with their own agenda. We are numbed like a patient on too many painkillers. The longer this lasts, the more emotional political presentations get, up to the moment that this approach becomes utterly counterproductive.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

September 6, 2013 · 13:20

The Syrian principle

Syria has been on the forefront of most minds. Some look at it to solve it, some to see stability as a reason and some, or so it seems see Syria as a solution to a second game that has stages in play. So the question from this moment becomes whether Syria is now altered into a stack of dominoes? If we apply the domino principle to certain events in the Middle East, then the question becomes, how fair is that assessment?

First there is the fact that Brahimi, envoy to the UN has been very ‘outspoken’ in getting Iran involved. This is not me questioning Mr Brahimi as to why he wanted Iran to be part of it anyway. The question I have is valid, yet, I will admit that Mr Lakhdar Brahimi has an impressive list of achieved levels of expertise and as such we should regard him as the NHL coach bringing back the Stanley cup more than once. Like Jack Adams and Tommy Ivan. As a true blue Capitals fan, I still think the Red Wings suck (massively). Yet, these two coaches brought home Stanley three times each. They needed the players, but the coaches made it happen. We hate the team, we respect the coaches (it’s a screwed up world, I know). Such is life! Lakhdar Brahimi is in the same league. We do not like, or even care for the players at present, but the mitigation has made it happen in the past and as such we will watch how the play unfolds.

The mentioned play does have a lingering after taste. When Russia set into motion another Nuclear Power plant, when their support to Iran was given and they requested Iran to make certain moves, was this the upcoming play they had started to begin with?

Of course Russia has the resources, the power, the persuasion and the economic interests to make this all happen. It does however bring the question who or what Iran is actually representing? Syria, the Syrian people or just themselves?

Does this reflect on Lakhdar Brahimi?

I do not believe that this is the case. His work for the Elders, his work as a board member for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute as well as his work for both the UN and the Arab League. He is trying to solve an issue and he will use any ethically accepted method to make the members to his party Waltz for peace. The question validly remains what the invitees have in mind. If we see the evidence through time and space that Russia cares about Russia, plain and simple, then their acts are not wrong, or not wanted, yet when the dance is not about the dance but about trademarking the fashion they wear, then who are the real dancers and what do they stand for?

Russia is not alone. We could ask somewhat similar questions of the USA. The UK is out of reach as they started the parliament step. The result is not one they wanted, but they stood by it. It was an admirable step, but not the greatest moment in David Cameron’s career.

Does it matter?

It does, but for different reasons you could imagine. We are all getting in a world that is getting more and more complicated. Like the inefficient use by some managers to hang onto ‘bullet point statements‘ in their memo’s, we genome in an unrealistic way the issues in play. At times a 2000 word document cannot be tweeted in a 144 character statement; the unrealistic approach that this always works will mean that people judge on inaccurate and incomplete information. In case of the Middle East it is not one, but hundreds of documents on that size. A tweet will not get us there and at times we need a person to make the choices to keep the story minimised, clear and correctly complete. Here Lakhdar Brahimi has his work cut out.

This is where the current situation just gets murky. No matter how clean the presiding speaker is, we know that there are dancers like Russia in play. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons still corrupts the idea, the notion and the act. What to do?

I do not know, but I do know that the talks will not just be about Syrian victims and Chemical weapons. It will have attached talks of Iranian nuclear power and a few more non-disclosed points of discussion.

What is an interesting development, which weirdly enough is not getting the level of exposure through the PRESS are the acts of King Abdullah II of Jordan and Pope Francis (the Bishop of Rome, in case you did not know) as they are trying to find solution through dialogue. Yes, I know that many others are in favour of this. Consider that Jordan is currently getting pounded on lack or resources as they deal with close to 1.5 million refugees. Still, His Royal Highness is not hiding behind others, or seeking an easy way out. No, he is hoping that dialogues will bring a solution. THAT is character of the highest level!

I would like that talks will solve is this issue, yet my sense of reality tells me it is no longer an option when two teams are so polarised. I am no standard to be based upon, but people like Pope Francis and King Abdullah II should be heralded for taking such a strong stance of principle, especially when we see what their stance is costing the Jordan government. Consider that we saw European nations back down lately for issues a lot less than that.

The world is a lot more complex for all players involved. We the people must accept this and we must accept the responsibility of knowing a lot more. If we do not, then we do not get to blame our representation and their choices for action, because we did not know. Ignorance is NOT a defence!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 30, 2013 · 14:23

Tactical choices of inactivity

I reckon that many are awaiting the events as they are unfolding currently in Syria. Will we be investing in Boeing Defence stock, should these missiles be used? (At $1.2M a pop that would mean a nice increase of revenue for Boeing). Will we change our investments in oil and gas as the Syrian situation continues?

These are the questions that matter. The hundreds of deaths because of a chemical attack do not seem to matter.

Are you wondering why I have that opinion?

Then read the BBC quote in regards to these attacks. “The United Nations Security Council said it was necessary to clarify what happened in the alleged attack, but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team currently in Damascus, following an emergency meeting on Wednesday evening.” This was published on August 21st.  So there was a chemical attack and the UNSC did NOT demand the immediate investigation in regards to chemical attack deaths. The worse matter was that the bulk of the casualties were all civilians.

But where is the case of what matters?

If we look at the UNSC charter we see the following “The UN Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.”

So clinically we see that they are not an issue. Peace was not an issue in Syria at all. It stopped existing well over two years earlier. The UNSC is set in a charter. They are called the “Provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council” (at http://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/pages/pdf/rules.pdf). They actually do not help that much, only to illustrate certain steps. Yet, this is about the procedures of the UNSC, this will not help at all. So where is their decision making tree? For that we need to take a look at the charter of the United Nations. I took a specific look at Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.

The premeditated crux is set in Article 45 which states: “In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.”

So we need to look at Article 43, which actually does not help us that much. That part is about making available troops “in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security“. I think we can agree that that part is at least two years late, and nothing here gives us a pass to start anything AFTER chemical attacks.

 

Yet we see in that same chapter that Article 51 (partially shown) states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” This is all very nice, but Syria is not a member state, which makes this all a little moot. In addition, this is a civil (local) war, so other member states are not in question.

So let’s take a look at ‘Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules‘ (at http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf).

Rule 11 states “Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. Even the rules of war have some level of distinction, yet for the most; this is all based on the previous Article 51, as is quoted “The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.” Darn! I am caught in some sort of looped program. It reminds me of my very first program I wrote on the Commodore VIC-20 in 1983.

10 PRINT “You are crazy!”
20 GOTO 10
RUN

Ah! The simple old days, how I miss them at times.

The same book lists an interesting part on page 38. “several States invoked the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks in their assessment of whether an attack with nuclear weapons would violate international humanitarian law.9 When the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East in October 1973, i.e., before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, to respect the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the States concerned (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syria) replied favourably.10”

9 See. e.g., the pleadings of Australia (ibid., § 65), India (ibid., § 77), Mexico (ibid., § 85), New Zealand (ibid., § 86) and United States (ibid., § 99).
10 See ICRC, The International Committee’s Action in the Middle East (ibid., § 139).

Yes, I agree that a chemical attack is not a nuclear attack, yet when I was taught the elements of NBC (in army days long ago), we tended to count the Nuclear and the Chemical similar to some extent. The Biological element is one that might be considered to be one worse than that as it can continue its damage and even transcend borders.

So we can now add a look at additional protocol I, especially as Syria was one of the parties who replied favourably. As such, we could see Syria as a party that accepted these rules (to some extent).

You see, these parts underline the part as set in Rule 13 (from the IHL), which states “Rule 13. Attacks by bombardment by any method or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited.”

This my dear readers includes ANY level of chemical attack, as that form of attack that is utterly indiscriminate as well as encompassing the area as one military objective.

Taking into account these elements, why did at that point did the UNSC, as stated by the BBC in the first mentioned article “but stopped short of demanding“. The stopped short in these elements were utterly unwarranted, in my humble opinion.

Now we all watch a political runaway train disaster where politicians stop short of acting in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and France await ‘evidence’ which they can deal on. The one cowboy state (the United States) would be at present the only hope the Syrian population has for now. Are these nations correct in holding of? Well, they do have a case there. However, the evidence as UN investigators were delayed, the possible evidence on how the chemical spread started. If we take the elements we have, then we need to consider the firing mechanism. That part had been made near impossible with 5 days of bombings. Yet, in all honesty, did Assad do this? The question is important for two reasons.

1. If he did not do this, was it an intentional act?
2. What other intelligence has Assad silenced?

The two are related, because the earlier fear the US had is now truly coming to fruition. If these missiles were inadvertently fired by the opposition forces, the theory I have is that as they lack military expertise, they might have known and partially learned how to fire a SCUD, but did they know about the payload? Let us not forget that many fighters are anything but military trained. Even those who had training, it is possible that they had too limited knowledge on how to work and identify these types of equipment.

The danger is that they might have found chemical payloads, so here is the danger. Al-Qaeda is currently helping the opposition forces. We now have a trained AQ with support from people lacking knowledge, and they gave AQ access to a chemical storage area. Here is where it becomes dicey! Assad knows the assets lost, he is playing high stakes poker by keeping these locations a secret. For him it is a win-win. If the opposition figures it out they have a time-bomb they cannot use. AQ will use it no matter what and preferably on Israel. Whichever of those steps happened (when they do), the world would have no option but to remove his enemy for him.

Proving that Assad did the actual firing is almost non-provable. The evidence is scattered and at best we can see that NBC components were used, but by whom is less of an option which will leave doubt.

Time is on the side of Assad and elements stopping activities to attack, whether justified or not will only strengthen Assad’s position. I can side with the politicians when they claim that they do not want another Iraq, yet when we look at the initial quote from the BBC “but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team” we must more actively wonder what it would take for them to get anything done. It should be seen as tactical inactivity of the very worst kind!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,