I sometimes wonder if the Sudanese government isn't trying to win a prize for "country with worst human rights record". They would certainly be in with a chance.

The recent violence in the Darfur region of western Sudan is a case in point. Government-backed militias are committing ethnic cleansing and genocide against the native people of Darfur.

(Some background notes: Sudan is an ethnically-mixed country: the area around the capital, Khartoum, is populated by Arab Muslims; Darfur is inhabited by black African Muslims; and in the south of the country -- where there's been a civil war with the Sudan People's Liberation Army -- there are Christian and animist black Africans.)

In its war against the south, the Khartoum government has been accused of openly permitting slavery and of using starvation as a weapon.

Clearly the Sudanese government's record is atrocious. So, what should the West do? More particularly -- since I'm European -- what should Europe do? One thing that is off the cards is regime change, Iraq-style. Whether this would be a good thing is neither here nor there, since they would be no stomach in the West for taking such a course.

However, there are things the west could do, that would put pressure on Sudan. The simplest thing wqould be a trade embargo. Another would be to fund opposition groups ihn the South and East of that country. Sudan is a poor country, and government forces have limited resources to buy weapons, so it would be feasible for Europe to arrange for resistance groups to have better weapons than the government.

Europe could also seek to persuade some of Sudan's neighbours to allow resistance groups to use their territory for bases; as an incentive, Europe could offer arms and military training to the countries that agreed to this. For example, Uganda would probably take up this offer, because Sudanese has backed the Ugandan rebel group the Lord's Resistance Army.

One of Sudan's main exports is oil. If Europe helped Sudan's neighbours to enlarge their air forces, they could gain air superiority over Sudanese territory and end Sudan's oil production, which would drastically limit Sudan's ability to buy more war materials. Since the Sudanese Air Force's fighter arm consists of about 15 Chinese J-7 aircraft (a copy of the obsolete Russian MiG-21), gaining air superiority over it would not be difficult.

If Europe went to the Sudanese government, and made credible threats to do all the above, it's likely that Sudan would back down. Europe's demands could include referenda for independence for the Darfur region and southern Sudan, would would be monitored by international observers. (I suspect that most residents of these areas would be happy to be rid of a country whose leaders are trying to kill or enslave them). If Sudan instead chose to fight, the war would cost few if any European lives, and in terms of money would probably cost around a billion Euros -- or to put it another way, about half an hour's wages for everyone in the EU. Would you be prepared to give half an hour to help end slavery and genocide?

Update: Wikipedia has some good articles on Sudan, Darfur and human rights issues.

Categories: Africa, warfare

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

I've written before about opinion polls in Iraq (here and here). Previously, Iraqi opinion about the Coalition was mixed, but broadly favourable to it: for example, most Iraqis distrusted the motives of the Americans, but wanted their troops to stay until security was improved.

However, a more recent opinion poll suggests that Iraqis have changed their minds over the first few months of this year; in particular, they want occupying forces out immediately. The poll in question was done in late March and early April, just before the recent increase in violence, and before the pictures of Iraqi prisoners being mistreated were published; one can therefore assume that Iraqi opinion is even more against the Coalition now than it was then.

Getting on to the findings of the poll; the occupation is unpopular:

In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.

The Iraqi Coverning Council are almost as unpopular as the occupiers:

Those polled were broadly divided on who should appoint the interim government that is supposed to take over limited power from the occupation authority at the end of June. The largest group, 27 percent, said the Iraqi people should appoint the new leaders, while 23 percent said judges should. Only one-tenth of 1 percent said that the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council should name the government, which is supposed to run Iraq until elections are held next year. None said the occupation authority should.

Safety is a bigger problem than it was:

The proportion of Baghdad residents who reported worries about safety has steadily increased: In the new poll, 70 percent named security as the "most urgent issue" they faced, up from 50 percent in January, 60 percent in February and 65 percent a month later. Overall, 63 percent of those polled said security was the most urgent issue facing Iraq.

Lots of Iraqis back Moqtada Sadr:

A large proportion of Iraqis from the central and southern parts of the country said they backed [Moqtada Sadr], with 45 percent of those in Baghdad saying they support him, and 67 percent in Basra.

Another poll found that Iraqis wanted foreign troops to leave immediately:

The poll's findings appeared consistent with one taken about the same time in Iraq by USA Today, CNN and Gallup, which found that 57 percent of Iraqis wanted foreign troops to leave immediately.

The Washington Post article quotes an American general as saying that Iraqi opinion towards the USA is an issue that needs to be worked on:

How to . . . win the hearts and minds of the people [in Iraq] is one of the things that we really have to work at," Army Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, head of Army intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week. "I mean, that is the key to solving not only that problem but the rest of the problems in the Middle East."

I think as far as the occupation is concerned, it's too late for that. The Coalition will be handing over to an Interim Iraqi Government on the 30th of June, and it seems to me that the only plausible way out is for the Coalition forces to reduce their military presence as fast as possible, and hope that the Iraqis manage to produce as stable, liberal and democratic society as possible given the circumstances.

The other route would be to attempt to continue the occupation. This would harden Iraqi attitudes against the occupiers, and eventually the USA would decide it has had enough and go home. Because there's only two ways an occupying force can behave: it can either not oppress the occupied at all (which means allowing them self-government and independence as soon as they want it), or it can oppress them properly, for Nazi values of properly, which isn't an option since US public opinion wouldn't allow it (and if it did, the USA would rapidly find itself running out of allies). The Neo-Con dream was a compliant puppet state in Iraq with American military bases from which the USA could threaten Iraq's neighbours. That dream is dead.

I don't think it's likely that Iraq will become anything like a western-style democracy, at least not immediately. If the occupation had been well-run, that outcome would be significantly more likely, and it would have been a good thing for the people of Iraq and for the wider world. Nor do I think immediate democracy is necessarily the best for Iraq: there is too much violent crime, and there are reports of undernutrition among poorer Iraqis.

I'll leave the last word to Riverbend:

Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can - while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We'll take our chances - just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go.

(Link from Juan Cole)

Categories: Iraq, USA, Britain

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

According to the BBC, the USA has instituted economic santions against Syria. The USA is accusing Syria of "continuing to occupy Lebanon and pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missiles", according to the report.

Of course, the USA isn't occupying any countries, particularly in the Middle East. Nor is it developing missiles, or weapons of mass destruction. I'm surprised the USA didn't also cite Syrian abuses of human rights, such as detaining people without trial, or torturing captives, because the USA doesn't do those things either.

On a less sarcastic note, this is clearly not the way for the USA to persuade anyone in the region that it has honourable intentions. Either US foreign policy is being run by people who are just plain stupid, or they don't much care what people think. I suspect it's a bit of both, and if America's leaders were less arrogant the occupation of Iraq would have gone a lot better -- both for Americans and for Iraqis.

So what should the European response be to this? I'd send a trade delegation to Damascus right away. I'd also tell President Assad - who is probably fearful of an American or Israeli attack - that if he cleans up his human rights act, he can buy some shiny new European weapons. Heck, if he asks nicely, we might even give them to him. They'd probably be more effective than the Russian junk the Syrian armed forces are currently using.

Categories: Middle East, USA, Syria, Europe

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

I think the government may well introduce proportional representation for elections to the UK parliament. Here's why...

Labour will likely win the next general election, expected to happen in 2005. Although Tony Blair is looking tarnished, not to say dishonest and untrustworthy, the Tories still haven't shaken off the image of being the "Nasty Party" which has hurt their popularity from the early 1990s. Also, the electoral system is working in Labour's favour -- if Labour and the Tories each get the same number of votes, Labour will get more seats (and will quite possibly have an overall majority in the Commons). And the Tories are starting from a low point: 2001 was one of their worst elections, and they have a lot of gorund to make up.

Then there's Michael Howard. He's improved the Tories' fortunes since he took over as their leader last year, but he is still a figure from the past, associated with Thatcherism -- something many votes haven't forgotten, and which Labour's election strategists are capitalising on.

For all these reasons, I expect Labour to win in 2005, albeit with a reduced majority. But what about the election after that, which will happen in 2009 or 2010? By then, it'll be two decades since Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister; some voters won't have been born whren she was in power, and many votes won't remember her. The Tory benches will be full of fresh faces, who will have been elected for the first time in 2005. They'll probably have a new, fresh-faced leader, who will appear a refreshing alternative to Labour (which by this time may be led by Brown not Blair).

So, what's a ruling party to do? If Labour look set to lose the 2009/2010 election, they could change the electoral system. PR is already used in many UK elections, for example to the European Parliament, for the Scottish, Welsh, Northern Ireland, and London assemblies. By 2009 it will perhaps be in use in local elections in Scotland. If Labour introduce PR for Westminster, they might do a backstairs deal with the Liberal Democrats to enter a coalition with Labour after the election (it's likely that between them, they'll get more votes than the Tories, and probably an overall majority, if past election results are anything to go by).

A Gordon Brown who has just become Prime Minister in 2007, and is looking at opinion polls predicting a Tory victory in the next election, might find PR very appealling. Certainly more appealing than the prospect of going down in history as a half-a-term Prime Minister, a footnote on the Blair years.

Categories: Britain

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

According to the BBC:

Libya's leader has called for sweeping legal changes including the abolition of a special revolutionary court criticised by human rights groups.

It looks like Colonel Gaddafi is preparing to improve Libya's human rights record. Or at least, wants to appear to be doing so.

I don't know if anything will come of this, but it deserves watching.

Categories: Africa

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

French foreign minister Michel Barnier is decidedly lukewarm about Turkish entry to the European Union:

There is no question of Turkey's accession in the current circumstances or in the short-term

But he acknowledges that denying Turkey entry would be playing into the hands of al-Qa'ida and other Muslim radical groups hostile to the West:

If we reject [Turkey], if we slam the door in its face as some would like to do quite quickly, there is a risk that it will turn to another model.

The French people, on the other hand, seem to have less problems withn Turkish entry: in a poll, 51 percent of respondents favoured Turkey joining the Union and 39 percent opposed.

I'm surprised that Barnier takes this point of view. It's been a theme of French policy to make the European Union into a superpower that can counter American hyperpuissance. Turkish entry into the Union would further that goal - Turkey's population and economy would make a sizable addition to the EU, and its location in the Middle East would increase European influence in that area.

Categories: Europe, Middle East

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

According to the BBC, it appears that Prime Minister Tony Blair has now accepted the case for a referendum on the European Union's new constitution.

If this is true, it'll be a big U-turn for the government, and will no doubt be because calls for a referendum, from the opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, have struck a chord with the public.

If there is a referendum, it'll put me in a quandary. I'm in favour of the EU, and want to see European countries co-operating moree closely in appropriate areas - for example foreign policy and defence - but there are specific proposals in the constitution I oppose.

The constitution calls for a President of the Council, to be chosen by the national governments. I think that any President of the Council should be directly elected by the people of the EU, and should also chair the Commission. Similarly, if there is a European Foreign Minister, he shouldn't be chosen by the Council. Perhaps he could be the president's deputy and running-mate?

I'd like to see included a proposal for EU laws to be decided by referendum, if enough European ciitzens petition for one, or if substancial minorities in the Council or European Parliament call for one.

The constitution calls for greater EU powers in the field of criminal law. I oppose this: each state should decide for itself on what actions are crimes and what to do regarding extradiction to other EU states. Co-operation on criminal matters should be up to voluntary agreement by nation states. There is no advantage in attempting to pursue harmonisation in fields where there is no payback to co-ordinated action.

The constitution should contain measures for common defense, including a mutual defence clause (which shouldn't be controversial since most EU countries are in NATO) and common procurement of weapons. Since some member states have traditionally been neutral, member states should be allowed an opt-out to this if their people want it.

So, should I vote for a constitution that is insufficiently democratic, or vote against a measure that will increase integration?

Categories: Britain, Europe

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

I touched on relations between China and Taiwan in a previous article. The article "Taipei Calling?" (from A Fistful of Euros) goes into more detail on the subject. War between these countries is getting more likely, the article states, because:

Taiwan sees itself as an "independent, sovereign country." China, with a national fixation over a century long on achieving territorial unity, has staked the legitimacy of its regime on not allowing Taiwan juridical stature as a sovereign country.

China's bullying tactics towards Taiwan have changed the mood in Taiwan against their large neighbour. (Which was entirely predictable: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar).

Scott Martens has a solution:

The EU should decide that Taiwan has the right to proper political independence if that's what its people want. We should break with the "one China" policy. Better for the EU to do it now when it has very little trade with China and can do this without threatening any immediate interests.

The US has too much money riding on China to ever make such a decision. Europe doesn't. China is eager to develop political and economic relations with the EU as a counterweight to the US. Now is the time to do it, before the EU is just as stuck as America is.

I think this ties in rather well with my idea of making European arms sales to China conditional on China's acceptance of Taiwan's independence for as long as the Taiwanese want to be separate.

Categories: China, Europe

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

A fifteen year old girl has been charged with sexual abuse of children - the child in question being herself: She posted sexually explicit photos of herself on the net.

Time for the decriminalisation of victimless crimes, I think.

(Link from The Crazy Finn )

Categories: USA

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

Randy McDonald has an excellent article about France's Muslim population.

It debunks the rather silly theory that France will be overrun with Muslims, who will go on to turn France into an Islamic state.

Categories: Europe

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

Shanghai Daily thinks the EU will lift its arms embargo on China, which was imposed in 1989 following the suppression of pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. According to Shanghai Daily, the decision will be made on the April 26th, and that China would like to buy German submarines and French Mirage jets.

Radio Free Europe, on the other hand, thinks the arms embargo will stay, because Europe is not satisfied with the state of human rights in China. RFE quotes Prodi's spokesman as saying "if the Chinese were to make further positive moves towards improving the situation on human rights in China, that would be seen as a very positive sign in the European Union".

RFE thinks the decision on whether to end the embargo will not be taken during Ireland's Presidency, which ends in June, but that matters will come to a head in October, during the EU-Chinese summit.

The USA is lifting the embargo, citing concerns for Taiwan's security. (Of course, as I've noted earlier, there's no reason the EU couldn't sell arms to both China and Taiwan. I expect European arms firms would favour this solution.)

Amnesty International is against the embargo being lifted, saying it would be a slap in the face for human rights activists in China.

So, will the embargo be lifted? I think it's 50-50, and that China's posture on human rights will have an influence on the decision. China may feel it's worth making concessions in that area to secure closer relations with Europe.

What Europe should do is offer to end the embargo, but tie the offer to improvements in China's human rights record, and Chinese acceptance that Europe will also be selling arms to other countries in the region, including Taiwan. Europe and China should also agree that reunification of China and Taiwan should not be pursued by force, but should be based on a voluntary desire of the two peoples to join together -- just as the European Union is a voluntary joining together of the peoples of Europe.

If China accepts these proposals, Europe should then be prepared to end restrictions on arms sales to China, including the most advanced weapons, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter aircraft, and the Aster and Meteor missiles.

It's possible that the USA would object to Europe selling China weapons even if China modified its positions on human rights and Taiwan; if this happened it would be because the real reason the USA favours the embargo is that it wants to keep China militarily weak so the USA could more easily threaten it.

If this happens, the EU should ignore the USA's requests to keep the embargo, unless the USA was prepared to agree to a reciprocal agreement that it would not export arms to anyone the EU doesn't want it to. (Of course, the USA's present leaders would be unlikely to agree to any such undertaking; their prefered solution would be more like "we'll do what we want, and you'll do what we want, too").

Categories: Europe, China, warfare

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

Just come across this, which demonstrates why recent political events prove that I am right.

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

Some recent events in Iraq:

• In Falluja, four American civilian contractors working for a private security company are killed by Iraqis and their bodies desecrated.
• The USA seals off Falluja and launches an offensive to "pacify" the town.
• Eight US soldiers die in fighting in the Sadr City area of Baghdad. American fighter aircraft and helicopter gunships strike at Sadr City.
• In Basra, supporters of Moqtada Sadr occupy the governer's building for two days.
• The Coalition Authority has issued a warrant for the arrest of Moqtada Sadr
• US senators warn of a possible civil war in Iraq.

It appears that violence is escalating in Iraq and events are moving out of control. A lot of the current wave of violence is formented by Moqtada Sadr, a young firebrand Iraqi cleric whose power base is among the Shi'ite poor and disaffected. Sadr probably isn't the most popular figure in Iraq, not even among Shi'ites -- Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is probably more popular as is the SCIRI Party led by Abdel Aziz Hakim.

However, if the violence gets worse, with more ham-fisted reprisals carried out by the American occupiers, then Iraqi opinion will increasingly turn against the occupying forces. Particularly if innocent Iraqis are hurt in the crossfire; armies of occupation are usually not given the benefit of the doubt. As Iraqi sentiment becomes more anti-American, attacks on US and Coalition forces will increase, American violence against Iraqis will increase, in turn making the Americans even less popular.

Eventually the USA may be left with a choice between a long-term Vietnam-style occupation to prop up an increasingly discredited Iraqi puppet regime, or leaving and letting the country fall into the hand of a radically anti-American government. We may be seeing the beginnings of this now; hence the "slow-motion train wreck" of the title.

In retrospect, the US government have made a number of serious mistakes in their handling of the invasion of Iraq:

• Soon after the invasion had succeeded, they abolished the existing army and police force in Iraq. This had two main drawbacks: it left a security vacuum and it lead to an increase in the number of unemployed and impoverished young men in Iraq.
• They've overlooked the importance of peacekeeping functions for the US army, taking it as an article of dogma that peacekeeping is bad.
• they have uncritically supported the Sharon government in Israel in their campaign of (as Arabs see it) murder and theft of land against the Palestinians.
• The occupation wasn't well planned. if planning had been done early enough, there could have been democratic election in Iraq by now. This would have lead to an Iraqi government with real authority which it would be a lot harder to portray as lackeys of the occupying forces.

While I supported - with serious reservations - the British decision to join in the attack on Iraq, I would have preferred it if Blair had made his support of Bush's war conditional on changes in US policy on some or all of these issues.

Categories: Iraq

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

I've released version 0.6.0 of my Easibox utility, which makes archive files. Changes in 0.6.0 include:

• Easibox now has a User Manual
• The "easiunbox" program has been renamed "unbox"

See also:

• The Easibox home page, from where you can download Easibox.
• The Easibox page on Freshmeat.

Categories: Easibox, open source

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |

A report by labout think-tank the Institute of Public Policy Research, entitled "What Is Religious Education For?", suggests that children should be taught to think critically about religious beliefs, not to blindly accept them:

"Pupils would be actively encouraged to question the religious beliefs they bring with them into the classroom, not so they are better able to defend or rationalise them, but so they are genuinely free to adopt whatever position on religious matters they judge to be best supported by the evidence."

I bet the fundies won't like that idea.

(Link from Pagan Prattle)

Categories: Britain

| permalink | comment | Search: Google - Google News - Feedster - Bloglines |