Syrian Rebels in Aleppo Reject UN Peace Effort
Perhaps understandable but tragic. When all this began in Syria some of us – a clear minority and without any media interest – suggested an arms embargo on all sides and involvement of the UN.
But “Friends of Syria”, hot-headed politicians and media people knew that arming the opposition and never talk with Al-Assad was the only way. We he opposed it were considered ‘naive” and ‘unrealistic’.
Today we see the results: Weapons embold people. Such people believe they can win – somebody else paying the price, but do they care? – and say no to each and every mediated solution.
And, so, the killing, suffering, and displacement of innocent Syrian citizens – squeezed between the ruthless government and the ruthless rebels – will go on.
When will the world norm change and arms traders be put on trial as the war criminals they are – civil as well as governmental arms traders who “weaponize” conflicts so they cannot possibly be solved?
Posted in International law, ISIS, Media criticism, Mediekritik, Mellemøsten, Middle East, Militarism, Peace proposals, Syria, Terrorism and fearology
Tagged Al-Assad, Al-Nushra, Friends of Syria, ISIL, ISIS
Iran’s FM Zarif: “Any deal with P5 1 would cover all issues”
I agree with the foreign minister and point out how a-symmetric this conflict is. I believe also that historic mistrust should have been dealt with before technicalitites.
Then I ask how on earth it could be better for Israel if there is no deal than if there is one – as PM Netanyuahu argues and will say in the U.S. Congress in a couple of days.
I finally point out that the U.S. position on sanctions is counterproductive.
Posted in Atomvåben, International affairs, International law, Internationalt iøvrigt, Iran, Israel-Palestine, Mellemøsten, Middle East, Militarism, Nuclear weapons, Peace proposals
Olof Palme – murdered today 29 years ago • Wikipedia
A politician who willed a better society, to whom politics was a calling – working for justice, international law, nuclear disarmament, against big countries bullying small countries, a person who made Sweden stand ut. Then.
And it was the Palme Commission on Common Security that broke the ice towards the end of the Cold War with the idea that we can only be sure together with the other side, not against the other side. That was 1982. As relevant today as then – think Ukraine!
I met him twice – the first time to criticise him for Swedish arms exports. The second for an hour-long lunch in which he constantly asked me questions about peace, nonviolence, peace research and alternative defence – and I did not get a chance to ask him a single of all the questions I had prepared…
A rare combination of intellectualism and curiosity, vision and passion, self-confidence and humility – so sadly missed in today’s political world.
Posted in Atomvåben, Ethics and values, Fredsforskning, International affairs, International law, Irak, Iran, Media criticism, Mediekritik, Militarism, Nonviolence, Nuclear weapons, Peace, Peace proposals, Peace research, Svenske perspektiver, Sverige, Sweden
Tagged common security, Olof Palme, The Palme Commission 1982
What the War on Terror Has Wrought: More Terrorism
My text for TFF PressInfo re-prited in CounterPunch – a “popular political sources in America, with a keen following in Washington” (The Observer). I’m proud to be re-printed there!
TFF PressInfos are spread all over the place. You can get them by e-mail: write to PressInfo@transnational.org
TFF PressInfo reprinted
Posted in Freedom of expression, International affairs, International law, Internationalt iøvrigt, Israel-Palestine, Media criticism, Mediekritik, Mellemøsten, Middle East, Militarism, Terrorism and fearology
Tagged Counterpunch, Washington's political elite
Deadline – DR tog i aften Iran og kærnevåben-diskussionen op.
Det er da godt for sagen kan blive afgørende for hele Mellemøsten og store dele af verden i år.
Men for at have den iranske vice-udenrigsminister med så må man – politisk korrekt – før og efter interviewet have en saglig, lavmælt herboende iransk analytiker med, der efterlader det indtryk at Iran a) har en interesse i at anskaffe kærnevåben og b) ikke er til at stole på for Vesten fordi hverken præsident Rouhani eller udenrigsminister Zarif har den fornødne magt i f t den øverste religiøse ledelse og c) han er ikke optimist hvad angår en aftale.
Der siges intet om vor anklagelserne om Irans skumle planer om atomvåben kommer fra tilbage i historien.
Indslaget indledes med Netanyahu der siger at verden ikke kan stole på Iran; det nævnes ikke at han på det groveste bevidst vildledte hele verden om Irans atomprogram fra FNs talerstol i 2012 – heller ikke at han truer Iran og at Israel har 200+ atomvåben.
Indslaget siger heller ikke noget om det militære styrkeforhold mellem de to lande (eller koalitionsmuligheder mod Iran i regionen) eller at Israel og Saudi-Arabien nu samarbejder om – om nødvendigt – at indlede krig mod Iran.
Intet om at USA konstant har truet Iran. Intet om kongressmedlemmer i USA som vil indføre nye sanktioner og dermed torpedere den vigtige aftale. Intet om det konkrete indhold i konflikten siden CIA/MI5’s kup imod den demokratisk valgte Dr. Mossadegh i 1953 mellem USA/Vesten/UK og Iran.
Og ingen spørgsmålstegn ved det retfærdige og humane i sanktioner, der kun rammer civile uskylige iranere, eller om det rimelige i at USA vil opretholde dem i et vist omfang også efter at en aftale måtte være indgået.
Kun få kunne af indslaget få anden opfattelse – også selvom det netop ikke blev hamret ind men var ret subtielt – at Iran er en farlig stat som nok har velargumenterende repræsentanter men som alligevel er den skyldige, der skal bevise sin uskyld.
Tænk om redaktionen eller Adam Holm havde udtænkt på bare ét spørgsmål, der så sagen fra Irans side som f.eks: Kan Iran kan stole på Vesten?
Mossad contradicted Netanyahu on Iran nuclear programme – Al Jazeera
PM Netanyahu repeatedly speaks and acts in bad faith with the aim of getting some kind of war started on Iran.
A leader of a nuclear weapons state suffering from obsession and having such bad aims and political judgement is a threat to us all.
With a population roughly 10 times bigger than Israel’s, the two have about the same military expenditures. Israel spends 6,0 % of its GDP on the military, Iran 4,1. Israel can count on major militarist cuntries such as NATO – 60% of the worlds military – and Saudi Arabia for an attack on Iran.
Iran has no nukes, has not occupied or invaded anybody for more than 200 years. The threat from Iran is Netanyahu’s own psychologial projections.
Could the EU and/or Washington please help this man to come to his senses before it is too late. The war he has on his mind will be nothing less than a world catastrophe.
Posted in Atomvåben, International law, Iran, Israel-Palestine, Media criticism, Mellemøsten, Middle East, Militarism, Terrorism and fearology, Zeitgeist
Tagged Israel-Iran, military expenditures, Neetanyuahu projects his own dark sides, Netanyahu, Netanyauhu angerous
TFF PressInfo # 310: Terrorism – small dot in a larger picture
What is terrorism? Why do we talk much more about that than other types of deaths? Why is the word misused?
What has nuclear weapons – that politicians and media hardly ever talk about – got to do with terror?
Why should we all be careful not to exaggerate the phenomenon of terror?
Posted in Danmark, Denmark, Ethics and values, International affairs, International law, Irak, ISIS, Media criticism, Mediekritik, Mellemøsten, Middle East, Militarism, New Cold War, Nuclear weapons, Terrorism and fearology, Terrorisme & frygtologi, Ukraine, Zeitgeist
Tagged 9/11, causes of violence, death by car accident, deaths by domestic violenc, gun laws, Iraq, revolver violence, September 11, statistics about terrosim, terrorism statistics, U.S. domestic killing, war on Afghanistan, War on Terror