to be or not to be

DSC03943

Shakespeare was right when he put such a question, long time ago.

about:blank

Should plotiticians control their reactions?

Joe Wilson, of South Carolina, breached Washington etiquette by calling Mr Obama a liar as he addressed the joint houses of Congress last night.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. If applied to politicians, it means politicians become dull in the eyes of the public if they continue looking ceremonious all the time. There is no harm if they appear in their true colours and say in public what they say in private. At least if politicians aren’t effective, they can be a source of entertainment through what they say. There will be less needs of shows like Tonight Show where artists strive to imagine what a politician might have actually said to the amusement of the public.

Many politicians from heads of states to low key politicians are known for using rude language towards one another. The famous case was the exchange between Hugo Shavez, Venezuela president and Spanish king, Juan Carlos who asked the first to shut up when he accused former Spanish PM Jose Maria Aznar of being fascist.

In Morocco, there are cases in which politicians exchange rude language, especially in parliament. Some threaten to sue their opponents in court for defamation.
On the whole, in many countries, politicians turn rude when there are elections. They use whatever means to defeat their opponents.

Politicians should be direct and frank but whatever they say should be based on truth and not just mere accusations. Actually, a boisterous parliamentary session is more attractive to watch than a session filled with civility, making the viewers want to have a sleep.

What can be really rude about a politician is attacking the background of another politician concerning his/her colour, race religion or family roots or using vulgar language that is beneath what a politician should use.

Should the pictures of dying soldiers be published?

Afghanistan Death of a MarineOn August 14th AP photographer Julie Jacobson took a photo of Lance-Corporal Joshua Bernard, 21. They were both in Afghanistan and he’d been hit by a grenade and his leg was very badly injured. Despite the efforts of those tending to him, he died hours later. His parents and the White House asked AP not to publish, but AP went ahead. Was it right to? This article covers the arguments from AP and from the US government.

 

 Actually wounded or killed soldiers shouldn’t be paraded before the cameras, out of respect for them and their families. In their griefs or graves they don’t need to attract public pity. people already know about the horrors of war through the previous wars archives like the WWII.

 The picture at hand can have the adverse effect as it will be celebrated by the Taliban as a further example of what they see as a heroic act. While the soldier’s family and comrades are lamenting his death, the Taliban will be dancing over the picture.

During 1991Gulf War, the UK government complained to Iraq when the Iraqi television showed two captured British pilots whose plane had come down. That was considered against Geneva Convention. Recently, a mass grave of British soldiers who had fought in WWII was found in Germany. The skeletons of the soldiers weren’t shown on TV screens out of respect for them.

The point is it’s no use trying to shock the public about a war when they already know what it is about. At least the press should have pity on members of the public who get sensitive when they hear about the death of a soldier, let alone they are shown the circumstances in which s/he died.

Should men care about how they look?

Men tend to care less about their appearances. They don’t mind going unshaven for a while contrary to women who in most cases can’t be outside without cosmetics. As Lubna said, a man feels his worth through his achievement and personality. A fat man can still be adorable and affectionately looked upon as funny. But unfortunately, a fat woman is looked on as ugly or unattractive. It is somewhat sad that many women consider their bodies as their main “capital”. If they don’t look glamorous they think they have little chance to be appreciated and to advance in their careers.

It will be frightening if men start to emulate women by undergoing aesthetic surgeries or using cosmetics to look “bright”. It’s better for a man to look slightly “ugly” than look effeminate.

In some countries, like the Middle East, men and women wear large robes. In them they hide their fat waists and tummies. Perhaps that’s the best answer to forgetting about one’s body if it can’t get slim and to move on to doing something more important..

What’s the use of history?Does it tell the truth?

President Dmitry Medvedev recently announced the setting up of a commission to counter the falsification of history. He said this was becoming increasingly “severe, evil, and aggressive”.

The Second World War has somewhat redefined the political landscape of Europe with the emergence of new countries like East Germany and the prevailing Cold War which was an era of mutual suspicion between the Capitalist and the communist blocs. The lessons learnt from WWII is that differences should be settled diplomatically through cooperation and integration instead of coming to a bloody conflict culminating in millions of deaths and irreparable damages.

There was a case reported by Alistair Cook in his famous “Letter from America”. In the USA, a teacher asked his student who were US allies in WWII. His reply was they were Germany and Japan. After WWII, sworn enemies became close friends. France and Germany became closer after their bloody wars from German unification in 1871 going through the WWI and WWII. People in Europe feel more European through concrete actions like the EU.

Each country’s history is written according to an ideology. Each regime tries to depict it as it sees fit. There is the official line which tries to justify an action in the past. There is the example of Turkey which still categorically denies any genocide in Armenia and no Turkish historian can publicly say the contrary without being prosecuted.

It can be difficult for a country to protect its history totally as long as there are controversial sides in it which are seen from a different prospective. There isn’t a single version of a major historical event. What is seen by some an act of defence is seen by others as aggression.

There always remains a dark side in the recent history of many countries as long as it is enshrouded with secrecy or there is the absence of hard evidence .So it remains open to different interpretations rightly or wrongly.

Was the welcome for Al-Mergahi offensive?

The Libyan man jailed in Scotland for blowing up a US airliner over Lockerbie in 1988 has returned to his home in Libya  after being set free. This sparked angry reactions among the relatives of the victims of PAN-AM flight as well as from different political figures

The release of Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi is the best gift for Colonel Gaddafi who is going to celebrate his 40th year in power. (He came to power on September 1st, 1969).

 Actually, as the bereaved have the right to vent anger at his release, the Libyans also have the right to express joy for the release of their countryman. Some expected a subdued return. But from the start his release was spectacular as he was returned to Libya on Gaddafi’s private plane which was allowed to land on Scotland.

 From the start, it was said that he was going to Libya to meet his family. In the Libyan context, all the Libyans are his family. After all, it seems ridiculous to give importance to the welcome Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi received when his conviction has become a closed chapter. Now, he is a free man and the Libyans are free to reserve him whatever welcome they consider as fit.

The release of Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi was a golden handshake for the Libyan regime. It is the reward for what had been going behind the scenes. It was a kind of give-and-take arrangement. So why should the jubilant popular celebration in Libya be seen a slap in the face of the world? It is like being angry at a person receiving pardon for a (heinous) crime and going to a pub to celebrate his release with his friends.

Was it right to release the convicted Lockerbie bomber?

The convicted Lockerbie bomber has been flown home  to Libya after being freed from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds. Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, was jailed in 2001 for the atrocity which claimed 270 lives in 1988.  

 Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi was just an instrument in the Lockerbie affair. He was used to carry out the bombing, and then he was surrendered by Libya to stand trial in favour of normalizing its relations with the West. Now he is going to be released not to allow the relations between Libya and UK turn sour.

 His release is a compromise for the two parties. For face-saving, he served his incomplete sentence in Scotland and he is going to die in Libya. Very few people would look back at his death if he died in prison. Politicians will have to look forward. The USA killed more than 200,000 Japanese through its nuclear bomb during the Second World War. The two countries had to go ahead. Libya allegedly killed 270 people. It offered compensations for their relatives. Now, it is going to offer lucrative investments to the UK. That is the cynical aspect of politics.

 The question is not whether it is right or wrong to release the Lockerbie bomber, but what is the right thing to do, to miss out on economic opportunities or to keep relations between UK and Libya a hostage of people who died and a bomber who’s going to die. In politics, generally, there are not feeling but high interests.

 

Maybe the relief for those who oppose his release is that he will die soon and with him will be buried a sad chapter. Life has to go on for those who survived the Lockerbie victims.

Does America need to treat visitors with more respect?

Shah Rukh Khan was detained at Newark airport in New Jersey for between 1-2 hours, he was only released when the Indian embassy got involved, and he’s made it pretty clear he was less than impressed with his treatment.

AP reports that US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is saying it was part of routine screening.

 The US shouldn’t become xenophobic and paranoiac due to 9/11 attacks. Visitors shouldn’t be suspected just because of their look or name. They too should get ready for any treatment they can receive in the land of the free as long as they are willing to be there.

 The US is already imposing draconian measures on nationals from different Arab and Muslim countries. It warns its nationals, from time to time ,not to visit certain countries only if it is imperatives. People wishing to visit the USA who feel they can be subjected to “humiliating” screening” shouldn’t come unless it is imperative. For tourism, there are many breath-taking areas around the world where visitors are welcome as long as they have valid travelling documents.

The US has the right to open or close its doors to whomever it wants. People who are sensitive about their dignity should avoid it as long as they feel unwelcome.

 Last year, a former Moroccan minister who is also a close friend of the King of Morocco was detained at Charle De Gaulle airport because he was travelling with an ordinary passport. When he told the custom officers who he was, they grew even more suspicious of him. It was only when he contacted the Moroccan embassy that they released him and subsequently received an apology  from the French interior minister.

 There was also the story of a Moroccan baby who was refused entry to the USA two years ago because of the name he bore was on the watch-list. It was only after legal action that he was allowed to join his Moroccan parents.

 In short, there are curious and nasty incidents not only in US airports but in others in so many countries around the world.

Should the Lockerbie bomber be freed on compassionate grounds?

Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie plane bombing, is expected to be released on compassionate grounds.

 Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was only a scapegoat because the attack was planned and financed by the Libyan regime. The victims were compensated and the affair is closed at the diplomatic level. Now Libya has normal relations with the US and UK.

Ali al-Megrahi’s sentence now should be his terminal illness which is in a way a “divine” punishment. He can be freed from prison. But it’s unlikely that he can be freed from his illness.

 Criminals, if they act with intent and give a bad example for their acts, should serve their full sentence if their crimes cause great damage to individuals and society.

As the law is meant to be applied, compassion shouldn’t rule over objective judgement. Fair judgement means the criminal has exhausted all the legal procedures and the punishment fits the crime.

 In the case of a collective crime, it doesn’t make sense to punish an individual on behalf of the rest of the group that is left free. The case of the Libyan agent, Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, is a case in point. He wasn’t alone in the terror act. A whole regime was behind him. He was a scapegoat for political reasons. It is known that war criminals are those who give orders for cruel crimes, not soldiers who are rarely tried. Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi was just a “soldier” carrying the orders of his “generals” in Libya. It seems absurd that a case of this magnitude should be close by compensating the relatives of the victims and surrendering a Libyan agent. This was done for political convenience, but on the face of it, it remains absurd.

  Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi should be freed. He was a mere instrument throughout the process of the Lockerbie attack. The Libyan regime used him for the attack, and then surrendered him to the British authorities as a step for normalizing its relations with the West. The fiasco shouldn’t continue. Ali al-Megrahi should be returned to his country.

Should the US military operate out of foreign countries?

Colombia’s planning to do what Ecuador decided it wouldn’t, and allow America access to the facilities at some of its military bases. Unsurprisingly, next door in Venezuela, the plan has gone down with Hugo Chavez about as well as a dinner to celebrate the Bush presidency.

 

Morocco is a close ally of the US. It has been given the status of non-NATO ally by Washington, which has praised its support for the US-led war on terror. So far it has no military basis in the country. The two countries have regular military manoeuvres.

It is still a sensitive issue in Morocco for the US to have a military base or to operate out of it. The majority of the Moroccans will view this as a kind of being servile to the US military at the expense of Morocco’s sovereignty.

 

Morocco is one of the countries faced with the danger of terrorism. Geographically, it is close to the areas where terrorists networks are operating, especially in the African Sahara. A joint military operation can be acceptable if it benefits the two countries. But it will be unacceptable for Morocco to be a land from which the US military operates for its own interests, leaving it to put up with the consequences at home and abroad.

 

There are many countries that need US military presence for their protection and survival. Gulf States, because of their huge wealth and relatively small native populations, need US presence to protect them from invasion. Kuwait would have become part of Iraq if the coalition forces -led by the USA -hadn’t intervened to free it by operating from Saudi Arabia.

 

Bahrain would have become a part of Iran if half of its territory wasn’t a military zone where the US have a military presence. The biggest US military base in the Middle East is in Qatar. Maybe, it will be replaced by Iraq where there are over 120,000 US soldiers. Without these bases, the US military would have great difficulties shipping its forces and equipments inside Iraq.

 

In short some countries have to accept the US military presence -for manoeuvre and operations- to ward off the domination of a neighbour country. Bahrain, for example, is more than happy to be a close ally of the US, giving it all military facilities, than become a simple a province of Iran.

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.