Mitt Romney's cold war nostalgia owes much to the 'Reagan revolution' | Simon Tisdall | Comment is free | The Guardian

While Us foreign policy will continue in many ways the same regardless of who is president, I really think the kind of person leading the US does still count. I remember seeing a documentary of how Reagan's 'evil empire' rhetoric made the Russians so paranoid that they assumed the US really did want to attack first, and had their nuclear response on a hair trigger to retaliate, and how once it almost went off through a misunderstanding - so demeanour does matter, and Republican talk scares me, especially with respect to Iran and China...carry a big stick yes, but still tread softly!

Mitt Romney's cold war nostalgia owes much to the 'Reagan revolution' | Simon Tisdall | Comment is free | The Guardian

The philosopher making the moral case for US drones: 'There's no downside'

It's one of the US's most controversial policies; one that resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths overseas. So why does Bradley Strawser see targeted killing as a moral obligation?
The philosopher making the moral case for US drones: 'There's no downside' | World news | guardian.co.uk

My own views are that if the assault itself is justified, than drones are probably a better moral option than normal methods, since reduce heat of the moment passion or error, can be recorded to help accountability, and have should be more accurate given the supporting techonology.
But - this is very easily confused with the morality of the attack, and in particular 'kill lists' of unconventional enemies, which is another matter entirely.
Perhaps the most worrying fact about drones per se, is that the ease,  dispassionate, and removed nature of their use, might mean they are over used, without proper consideration or analysis. if the stakes are high for the aggressor, then more justification, including moral justification, is generally sought.

Extracts from the article :

• One objection sometimes posited is that there is something wrong or ignoble in killing through such lopsided asymmetry. "I share the kind of gut feeling that there's something odd about that. But I don't see the ethical problem. What matters to me is whether the cause itself is justified. Because if the operation is justified and is the right thing to do ? and by the way I'm not claiming all US military strikes are ? then asymmetry doesn't matter."
• Strawser said a third objection, that drones encouraged unjust operations by reducing the financial and political cost to the US, was serious but surmountable
• Strawser says cases where drone strikes allegedly killed innocents would be unjustified, but did not render the technology illegitimate. "If the policy to begin with is wrong then of course we shouldn't do it. It's irrelevant if we use drones, a sniper rifle or a crossbow." He says he considers poison gas and nuclear weapons inherently wrong because they did not discriminate ? unlike drones.
• "The question is whether drones will tempt us to do wrong things. But it doesn't seem so because we have cases where drones were used justly and it seems they actually improve our ability to behave justly. Literally every action they do is recorded. For a difficult decision (operators) can even wait and bring other people into the room. There's more room for checks and oversights. That to me seems a normative gain."
• Straswer says he understands why many shuddered over revelations of the so-called White House "kill lists" but believes it, in fact, shows accountability at the highest level, unlike Abu Ghraib, when authorities pinned blame on lower ranks

For the digital revolution, this is the Robespierre moment | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

For the digital revolution, this is the Robespierre moment | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

I admit I have mixed feelings about 'open government'. While on the one hand I believe the worst possible thing is for an authority not to be open to inspection by citizens, on the other I fully appreciate the need for (at least temporary) privacy to allow policy and practices to be developed (which is why I am also ambivalent with respect to the wikileaks diplomatic cable affair). Pragmatically too, making all documented communication available too soon, will just increase the amount that goes undocumented, forever. So some balance is needed, but with the following points considered :

• the digital revolution means vast amounts of communication will always be recorded and available, and this needs to be accepted - both by ensuring its proper handling, but also by developing an awareness that even if most communication is recorded, there might be a missing fraction vital for context. This  fraction should be acknowledged, but also minimized (reducing its impact)
• responsibility for all government action should be discernible within a timeframe that those involved can be held accountable
• the reasons and processes behind government action should be open to analysis, in the long run, and also for shorter terms in the case of serious events needing to be understood (e.g. inquiry into going to war)
• governments must be able to conduct informal discusssions to develop policies without having to constantly temper what is said to avoid misinterpretation
• the most important (and valuable) element to a democratic society is the feedback loop between government and its electorate, whereby actions have consequences. The use of 'national security interests' etc. to keep information secret should be rarley used, and always with time limits, otherwise the mechanism itself becomes more of a threat to the national interest, than the content being suppressed.

Obama and the attack of the drones

Given that it was its foreign policy which first drew me into about US politics, and that it was above all (but not only) due to George W. Bush's actions abroad that made me so glad to see him and his neocon cohorts replaced by the Obama administration, it is particularly disconcerting to see Obama and his drone policy being described as 'George Bush on steroids' (two recent articles are here and  here ).

Not that I believed that Obama would usher in some dewy eyed peacnik era of US global hug-emony,  since the status quo and existing US interests and activities would only provide any leader with a limited set of practical options, but I had at least hoped, and been led to believe, that there would be some changes, or reversion, to principles, with respect to the Bush era. After the 'bring it on', 'axis of evil' and 'with us or against us' playground rhetoric, there was the promising reasonableness of "We will outstretch the hand if you unclench your fist. ”
While I am (grudgingly) sure Bush was no dunce, and just seemed that way given his swagger, I viewed his policy as coming from the heart (or his beliefs) not the head, and to me this was always more dangerous in the international sphere, where there are no easy good and evil divisions. In contrast Obama, the law professor, represented deliberated rationality.

Above all, I felt that Bush was actually risking his own goals (US security) by (to put it mildly) going round the international system, with a war of aggression (Iraq, which posed no danger to the US) and illegal anti-terror operations (rendition, Guantanamo etc.). Despite the actions being in the name of the the free world and right government, they were opposed to the very essence of those concepts. My view was that if America lost the moral high ground, it would lose the strategic ground as well. Terror would not defeat terror, only invigorate it. Hence how refreshing to hear Obama promise to close Guantanamo, and for all the right reasons.
 
But,4 years later, Guantanamo is still open, and while at least the macro elements of US power (the military, diplomacy, interstate negotiations etc.) seem reasonably restrained, the micro operations, seem to have grown darker and more intense.
Obama has "made it "legal" to execute Americans without trial and expanded their secret surveillance, preserved the CIA's renditions programme, violated his promise to close down Guantánamo Bay, and ruthlessly arraigned whistleblowers" And above all, he has escalated the drone attacks on suspected terrorists. in a previous article on drone warfare I worried about the dehumanizing affect it would have, by making the killer more removed from the killed, and assination almost an automatic process, although ironically in the current wave it seems Obama himself is personally involved in approving kill lists. While this sounds abhorrent, it is at least an assumption of responsibility on his part, and is commendable in that it shows he is prepared to have blood on his own hands and not dilute ownership via some shadowy national security apparatus. It also possibly suggests why the practise of having one leader represent an entire nation is not such a nonsensical idea as I sometimes think it. While one human seems like an incredibly fallible option compared with for example a council of experts, it at least retains a final emotional and moral link in the chain of command, and this is exemplified by Obama in this case. Whatever the rights and wrongs (more later) on bringing the might of the American military machine to bear on inviduals in such an extra-judicial fashion, at least they are in someway still handled as individuals, and by individuals, not a system.

But is the drone policy right? Legally, Morally or Practically?

Legally I would be very surprised if they did not violate both international 'laws' to which America has signed up, and also (with respect to American citizens) US domestic ones as well. Military action within the borders of another sovereign state is I assume not allowed, and in some cases has involved attacking the armed forces of those states themselves (recent killing of Pakistani soldiers). Though while I do not agree with violating even the letter of such laws, since international conventions and agreements need to be respected to be preserved, I would be very disposed to them being modified to preserve their spirit. It doesn't make sense that elements not under the control of a state should be protected by the borders of that state,  and some mechanisms need to exist to handle terrorist enclaves. But while the current system may not be perfect, the danger of having no working system more than outweighs the reasons for taking action outside it, and so in my view these attacks are not acceptable from the perspective of interional law and relations.

However, even at the international level, I would in extreme cases, allow moral reasons to trump legal ones. And while attacking individuals not part of any 'army' with which war has been declared is basically illegal extra-judicial killing, morally I don't see why in the first place why if someone is a soldier, it can then be ok to kill them. While the idea of having 'rules of war' might seem reasonable, I actually think that while it might (sometimes) limit the worst actions, it has the corrolary of facilitating and legitimizing quite bad ones as well. Soldiers seem fair game because they are part of the fighting, but are they really much more culpable than their citizens who don't fight, and yet support them? So why should bombing them be more morally acceptable than bombing the civilians behind? Children may be an acception, but even here it is very hard to find hard rational reasons why (why is 18 an ok age to be killed, but 14 not?). While it may seem practically necessary for wars, which we can't avoid, that someone has to be allowed be killed, and killing an enemy's soldiers leads to ending them, it could be argued that killing civilians might have more direct effect on the will of the nation, which is why both sides soon turned to it in WW2. Or to take the most famous example, was it better to kill 200,000 civilians via atomic bombs, or try to kill the 6 million man Japanese army?


So ultimately I don't see major moral differences between killing soldiers, and killing civilians, but of course only if there is a morally and pracically justified case for killing in the first place. Thus bombing cities could be seen as a direct means to an end, since, if the population had influence on its government, this might end hostilities. So if the people targetted in the drone strikes are involved in the forces the US is fighting (and this includes people sheltering them etc.), than if it is deemed acceptable to fight them on the battlefield I have no problem with fighting them off it.

The real problem , which ultimately influences the morality of it, is the practicality. While I consider it ok to kill someone directly involved in the conflict, it is not ok to inflict collateral damage, or hit the wrong person due to incorrect information, and the problem wit drone strikes is they are very conducive to such errors. Killing children who were not targetted, even as part of a general campaign against civilians, is murder, as is killing someone who was put on a hit list by a tip off from an informant with a grudge. And even if the correct person is hit, and only hit, there is the nebulous definition of how they are in conflict with the US in the first place. In the case of a war, then it is clear, but in the case of indirect terrorist planning, then it is much more vague. Who is a valid target? the would be suicide bomber - yes, his trainer - yes, but his ideoligical mentor who is not directly involved? or someone in the group whose concerns are with local foes (like the Pakistani government). While in principle there might be a valid line of practical reasoning that would be morally acceptable, in practise it is unlikely, and hence as a strategy I would consider morally wrong.

Finally, even if not morally ok, is it effective? I think the history of insurgency and counter insurgency has repeatedly shown that killing people amongst their supporters, and with significant collateral damage, never works. No matter how vicious, how extensive, the attacks, they can only kill some people, not the movements, and through fear and harm, generally only help to foster them.

So it is saddening to read about Obama pursuing this strategy, since it is not only wrong, but stupid, and I thought he was smarter than that.

Should Ireland say yes or no in its EU treaty referendum? | Conor Slowey and Vincent Browne | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The Irish referendum explained (The Guardian)

Should Ireland say yes or no in its EU treaty referendum? | Conor Slowey and Vincent Browne | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

I must admit I have mixed feelings about the Irish referendum. While I think there is a valid argument about loss of sovereignty (which I support as part of further political convergence which I think is a sensible goal in the modern age, even if it takes longer than that!) was always going to involve some sacrifices on that front (more worrying is the lack of democratic process across the EU as a whole with respect to such measures). A more appealing 'No' point to me would be the argument that a fixed 3% cap might be the wrong thing in when stimulus needed, and risk entrenching neoliberal policies. For me problem is not the deficit countries run up in bad times, but how they wasted their surpluses in good times! Of course when country is booming very hard for politicians to push the long view that that is exactly the time when need to control finances, but neither it is  imp[ossible, since that is largely what the germans managed to do with their wage suppression and efforts to boost competiveness, without it must be pointed, sacrificing the principles of their social system. It is illustrative that the countries which are most affected by the crisis (Portugal, Greece, Ireland) are often those in which salaries rose most dramatically in the last decade.

However, rejecting the treaty might lead to real problems. The bottom line is really the bottom line, and Ireland is bust and needs financial support, and like it or not it has to extricate itself from the mess it finds itself in by whatever means possible, however unpalatable. I am very wary of the austerity agenda, because I believe they disporportionately affect the most vulnerable, while sparing the most culpable, but there is a general hope rising that the worst of this may be tempered even within the EU rescue mechanism, a mechanism which is really Ireland's only hope (exit of the Euro and devaluation is probably less of an option given Ireland's reliance on multinationals, and their reliance on Ireland as a way to launder profits).  And it is a very valid point that loss of power by Irish governments is not necessarily a bad thing, given how incompetent that have been with that power.

So overall I would favour No in principle, but unfortunately Yes in practice. Yes seems to be the only way out, given the game as it is. But I am also convinced that a lot of the problems come from governments and the EU being blinded by the rules of the (market's) game, without realising they have some power to change it, and some creative and innovative move is needed. But as long as the game stays the same, then the likes of Ireland probably need to abide by its rules and strategies, since they could lose, even if they don't play.

Summit fever

The secrets of political summits | Politics | The Guardian
Always amazed how in this complex modern world, so many international issues may rest not on the discussions of experts, but on the late night personal dynamics of leaders, most of which would have been chosen for their domestic policies, not foreign policy skills. And of course it is the international issues which normally matter most.  Definitely not a reassuring system, especially when read the following, and think of those studies which show different types  of decisions (eg by judges) taken when tired or hungry. Maybe it is a good thing that such decisions are generally more conservative and biased to the status quo, since means less risk of hot headed action, but on the other hand, maybe explains why these summits rarely produce the creative breakthroughs crises , such as the current euro one, often demand:
"I often used to ask myself why summits would only conclude at three or four in the morning rather than a more civilised hour. The reason is, of course, that the chair likes to leave the really difficult points until late at night so that the different sides will give up in exhaustion. It also helps those who have to back down; they can tell their national press that they have battled for the point through the night rather than given up at teatime. One of the best levers to bring a negotiation to an end is hunger, particularly when negotiating with Chancellor Kohl. As the lunch hour drifted past he would become increasingly anxious and then rush to conclude a point."

Mein Kampf to be re-released with notes countering Hitler's arguments

When I heard that Mein Kampf was to be allowed be published again in Germany (due to the copyright, currently held by the German government, lapsing) while not being exactly cheered by the news, overall thought a necessary evil, since simply banning the book would I believe be the wrong approach (fueling the oxygen of parnoic conspiracy arguments). But it is actually refreshing to read the details behind the story, namely that the Germans are publishing it themselves precisely to counter the inevitable surge in readings once it leaves copyright.

Mein Kampf to be re-released with notes countering Hitler's arguments | World news | guardian.co.uk

"Academics are working on producing an annotated version of the book which will include commentaries on the text that will seek to dissect and rubbish Hitler's arguments. A separate, more simplified version for schools is being produced together with academics from the Munich Institute for Contemporary History, which Bavaria's finance minister, Markus Söder, said was necessary, as more people would be reading it. The expiration of the copyright in three years' time might well lead to more young people reading Mein Kampf," he said, adding that he hoped the school version would help to demystify the book – which lays out the Nazi version of Aryan racial supremacy – and emphasise the "global catastrophe that this dangerous way of thinking led to", he added.
" 

Surely this is overall the best approach with despicable books, don't ban or bury them, but hold them up to the 'market place of ideas' and make the case against them, since it is often the case they achieve more through mystique and fame, than meaning and fact.

Balancing the oxygen of publicity with the free air of democracy

While secret, closed door trials are going too far (even if not on principled grounds then on pragmatic ones like pre-empting conspiracy theories of cover ups etc.) , it is disgusting how the trial of the guy responsible for the Norwegian massacre (who doesn't even merit naming) gets such detailed media coverage. It's not simply that equality under the law entitles him to a platform, it's how we as a society react. If principles demand he be allowed speak then so be it, but we do not need to listen,  and the news organizations should responsibly limit their coverage to the bare facts. Not of course through censoring, but through sensitivity to what we want to hear,  which is then our responsibility to shape.
Anders Breivik is a terrorist, so we should treat him like one | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian
As Freedland says:
"What, then, is the right way to bring such people to justice, whether Breivik or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The cost of the Norwegian approach is that, by treating Breivik like any other defendant, the courts have given him that global megaphone. That represents a perverse reward for his actions: he would never have got such a hearing had he confined himself to ranting on a blog. More alarmingly, the Oslo trial has surely supplied an incentive to any would-be Breiviks: kill as he killed and you too will get the attention of the world.
And yet, by trying Mohammed behind closed doors, the US too has handed the forces of terror a kind of victory. They have declared there are limits to the open society, that the rule of law is not strong enough to cope with every eventuality. In a small way, they have conceded ground to the terrorists' view of the world. How much more appealing is the message of the Norwegian PM last summer, who declared his country would respond to Breivik with "more democracy, more openness and greater political participation".

Whichever approach we take to such crimes, Oslo's or Washington's, one duty is surely clear: we have to be consistent. We cannot apply different standards to terrorists depending on whether they are fanatics of the white supremacist or jihadist variety.

And yet we do just that. Scott Atran, an eminent anthropologist who has briefed American officials on the nature of terrorism, explains that we adopt radically different approaches depending on whether we believe the threat is from within or without.

Outside attackers, like the 9/11 hijackers, are treated only in terms of the impact and consequences of their actions; those who come from "our side", as the Norwegians see Breivik, are examined for their intentions, what made them act the way they did"

Greece burns, but not its German arms contracts

Definitely it does sound hypocritical for the Germans to be demanding such social austerity in Greece, while at the same time maintaining massive arms contracts.  While of course Greece was profligate and would need help anyway, it needs to be highlighted when countries like German and France are imposing tough conditions, to lend money which will be used to pay bills owed to them! Furthermore it is a valid question as to whether inner core countries have been able to reduce military spending partially due to relying on (poorer) peripheral countries who have to maintain the border. Of course there is some sharing of resources in the EU, but psychologically there is more drive if one is on the perimeter. And of course military spending is often accompanied by corruption, so will always appeal to the government/elite who can profit from it, and in border countries the psychology may again enable them to convince the public to pay for it (and worth noting even some German companies have been fined/settled out of court with regards to corrupt deals with Greece).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/19/greece-military-spending-debt-crisis?INTCMP=SRCH

America's deadly devotion to guns

"All the domestic controversies of the Americans at first appear to a stranger to be incomprehensible or puerile," suggested the 19th-century French chronicler Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America. "And he is at a loss whether to pity a people who take such arrant trifles in good earnest or to envy that happiness which enables a community to discuss them."
America's deadly devotion to guns | World news | The Guardian


While this might be taking it a bit far, when it comes to guns, I have to agree with Tocqueville. Surely there can be no more nonsensical concept in the modern day, than that citizens should be armed to keep the government in check. The whole point of modern democracy is that people have yielded this right in return for the benefits of a working modern society; otherwise it is mere temporary pause from anarchic feudalism.  How to differentiate between the terrorists, the Timothy McVeigh's etc, and justified cause? Why when have a democracy which can vote out politicians could it ever be the only option? And finally, how could it ever work, since surely no matter how many assault rifles the average joe has, if it ever came to an actual conflict the US army would decimate them. Unless of course private air forces and perhaps nuclear arsenals are formed. Lunacy, utter lunacy.
The only halfway reasonable argument is ironically the ability to defend oneself due to lack of government rather than too much - i.e. when under threat in one's own home, but even then I am convinced that arming both sides increases the risk, since the stakes are so high for the burglar, and the facts are it doesn't work as a deterrant. And of course despite being pragmatically against the interests of the average citizen, the willingness to tolerate as necessary cost the annual collateral damage of dead and disabled kids is disgusting.

Maybe the deep problem is that, as is evidenced by calls for 'small government' and endlessly lower taxes, the US still has trouble as viewing itself as a society at all, an evolved and chosen insitution where government is overall a benefit, and reason to discard the tools of our primitive past. As the article says :
"Ultimately it comes down to whether you trust other people or not," says one gun control activist. "We do, they don't." The ideas that the government might protect you, that the police might come, that if nobody had guns then nobody would need to worry about being shot, are laughed away. "By the time you call the police it could be too late," says Britt, who has never had to pull a gun on anyone but has had to make it clear he might a few times. "All they can do is write the report." When the breakfast is over I tell Britt that I am heading into town to see some people. "Be careful," he says. "St Louis is a very dangerous place."

The European Citizen's Initiative

"The European Citizens' Initiative (ECI),  -  Hailed as the first transnational instrument of participatory democracy in world history, it allows members of the public to call for new European laws on issues of their choice, provided they have a million supporting signatures from at least seven member states. But despite its stated aim of bringing the EU closer to its citizens"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/09/eu-citizens-initiative

BUT - while there is obviously a risk that a body such as the EU ends up being ruled by a kind of 'elite' of bureaucrats, I am also slightly sceptical about referendum/petition based politics. On the one hand they do provide help raise ignored issues, and give a voice to a perhaps too often paternalistically ignored public, but on the other they are very prone to populism, and the 'tyranny of the majority'. The problem is, apart from those affecting disenfranchised minorities (which by definition cannot result in such tyranny), often the topics which get people most exercised about, are those which are aimed at the behaviour of others (moral issues, social friction issues), and this is what is most dangerous about populism. And of course there is the risk of manipulation by well funded special interests. So overall while the EU needs more public involvement, I am wary of such initiatives unless properly balanced and controlled.

Portrait of Israelis...and secular settlers...

A brief collection of profiles of some example Israelis....from settler to secular.
Israelis: Portrait of a people in tense times | World news | The Observer

Perhaps the most interesting comment was how secular the settlements can be :
"Barkan is a mainly secular settlement. "It's very important to say that," says Natalie, "because people think once you cross the Green Line everyone is a religious fanatic. People don't know that a third of the [Jewish] population across the Green Line is secular."

What this suggests is that probably a significant section of settlers are so for economic reasons, taking advantage of the space and cheaper prices to better their lot. While they must still bear the moral responsibility for using such "stolen" land, the real blame lies with the government policies which must basically subsidize the settlements . I.E. many settlers are obviously manipulated by economics to bolster the settlement ideals of smaller factions. This might suggest that, since economic choices might underlie a large part of the settlement movement, it is not as intractable as it might otherwise be if based solely on fanatical beliefs.

The other interesting point was the study suggesting only 80% of Israelis believe in god. In a region beset by the results of religious fanaticism on both sides, lack of belief is grounds for hope!

Netanyahu keeps the war drums beating

While have no time for notions of 'Jewish conspiracy' it is still amazing, and real, the power the Israeli issue holds over US politics, as evidenced by the political participation at the recent Aipac meeting:
"More than half the members of the US Congress were in attendance, a reflection of Aipac's influence on Capitol Hill where it has been a driving force in pressing for stronger sanctions legislation against Iran and upping the rhetoric"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/06/netanyahu-iran-nuclear-weapons-israel
I personally think rather than any manipulation of the US by some shadowy 'lobby', or even that the 'Jewish' vote is a large and coherent enough bloc to be worth pandering to  to such an extent, the real reason that the Israeli issue has such a tenacious hold on US opinion and politics is somehow because its story, and what it is spun to represent, captivates the American mood and spirit. Apart from wilder fundamentalist theologies involving Armegeddon (but given that 80% believe in a 2nd coming, 20% within their lifetime then maybe this isn't as fringe a belief as it sounds ) there is something perhaps quasi-religous to it, or at the very least some emotional, non-rational, narrative that binds the US to Israel no matter what the realities on the ground.

Whatever the reasons, it is still exceedingly scary that the US could be  railroaded into a serious conflict by the beligerent and unilateral actions of a state to which it provides so much support. If Israel attacks Iran then the US will be seen by most in the region as at the very least approving and at worst complicit, and would inevitably be a dangerous and difficult development for the US itself to deal with. A closing of the straights of Hormuz, inflamed attacks on US interests in the region and beyond, an oil crisis wtih econmoic shockwaves, all these are real effects which will cost the US dear if it's 'friend and ally' ignores its please for calm and launches a preemptive strike. And of course the important point is that it's not that the US is trying to sacrifice Isreal for its own good, rather it is trying to prevent Israel from doing something which is worse for it itself.
No conspiracy, but crazy nonetheless...

Iran: false nuclear fears cloud the west's judgment

I personally think that while a dangrous development, a nuclear armed Iran is not the nightmare scenario it is often claimed to be,and rational analysis of the real dangers and likelihoods is needed, both in public and political discourse. So agree to a large extent with this article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/16/iran-false-nuclear-fears
After all, the cold war subsided without armageddon, and that was a much worse situation. One valid point however is that the mechanisms that were developed between the US and USSR to prevent 'accidents' (misunderstandings which could lead to reaction and counter-reaction) aren't in place between places like Iran and Israel , and if Iran did have nuclear weapons then the lack of such a diplomatic safety apparatus would make it a very very dangerous situation. As the documentary 1983, Brink of Apocolypse showed, even with these mechanisms, the world could and did come frighteningly close to accidental annihilation during the cold war.

update : this following article also lists several reasons why a nuclear Iran might be containable :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/21/nuclear-alarmism-iran

drones, and a dangerous disconnect in war

While use of drones has been going on for a while, there seems to be more discussion of the topic recently, which is definitely a good thing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/30/deadly-drones-us-cowards-war?mobile-redirect=false

For me the biggest concern is the potential disconnect between the aggressor and his/her victim...the more removed and unreal the target, the less emotionally involved the attacker, surely the greater the risk of inhuman attitudes. Of course it could be argued that it is precisely human weakness, fear, overreaction etc that leads to some of the unnecessary brutality in war, and the collateral damage, since a panicked soldier is an unstable one, but I think the following quote from the article is more pressing :
 
"Citing the Germanmilitary theorist Carl von Clausewitz, it [UK Ministry of Defence] warns that the brutality of war seldom escalates to its absolute form, partly because of the risk faced by one's own forces. Without risk, there's less restraint. With these unmanned craft, governments can fight a coward's war, a god's war, harming only the unnamed..... The danger is likely to escalate as drone warfare becomes more automated and the lines of accountability less clear. "

The dogs of war are bad enough, but at least if kept on a leash they drag their owners with them and make them part of it. The drones of war fly a bit too freely...

sanctioning bad behaviour

I have to say I barely read anything by Simon Jenkins anymore, since I don’t find his arguments at all convincing or well put, and in fact find his style rather vacuously rhetorical. Maybe his intentions are good, and I did agree with him in his arguments against the Iraq war, but looking back I think I may just have accepted poor reasoning since I agreed with the goal. However he does raise an important, and complicated topic in this article on the looming new round of sanctions against Iran.

His arguments seem to be both of practicality and of principle. So for example he claims sanctions were not only useless in achieving their aims in other countries (citing Iraq, Libya and Serbia) but have already long been tried to no avail against Iran itself, for the last 33 years in fact. Furthermore, he claims that sanctions actually lead to the war and conflict they are trying to avoid, since they create an embattled regime whose leaders not only are the ones least affected by the sanctions, but who can use these external aggressions as scapegoats to actually strengthen their power, and in doing so foster in an even more hardline and irresolvable position. Beyond these arguments as to why sanctions needn't be used, he also argues why they shouldn't be, claiming that the sanctioning countries are in fact meddling in areas which don’t concern them, in the case of the UK due to some post-imperial delusion, and in the US as political pandering to the pro-israeli lobby.

Before discussing the practical problems (regardless of the commentator all such points deserve attention, if only to be discounted once and for all) I would like to first reject the idea that it is not the ‘business’ of countries like the UK and the US.  Even in basic economic terms, there is I believe a moral justificaton for being involved, since in the interconnected world, especially on important trade routes and in oil supply countries, then the militarization of regions is very much everyone's  ‘business’ because the rippling economic effects influence the lives of millions in all countries. A global crisis sending developed and developing countries alike into miserable recession is something worth avoiding on humanitarian grounds as well as material ones. Participation in world affairs for economic reasons need not be solely viewed as trying to maximize exploitation; just trying to keep the game we’re all playing going doesn’t mean one is trying to win it by cheating.

Furthermore, and more importantly beyond economics, other countries’ actions are always the moral ‘business’ of other countries, just as the actions of other people are the moral business of individuals. While neutrality and disinterested isolation are perhaps better than active malicious actions, omission of action is as morally reprehensible as action itself; laissez faire is to accept the status quo, and hence to approve of it, and to be morally neutral is in fact to be morally bankrupt (although sadly not financially bankrupt, as the case of Switzerland in WWII shows). Also, and more practically, as in the social situation, there is the precedent that can be set through inaction. At an individual or international level, if someone is seen as ‘getting away with it’ then it will encourage others to do the same. So involvement is justified, indeed required, especially with respect to a state which has claimed it will wipe another off the face of the earth.

But there being a moral case for action does not mean that any action will do, and especially in world affairs there is perhaps nothing more dangerous than 'the politicians syllogism' (We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this). When it comes to Iran I don't even pretend to have an answer to the question, and all I think I can contribute to the debate is the general suggestion that any solution will have to involve dealing with the realities of the situation, and taking into account all perspectives. The basic fact is that Iran is an islamic state, with traditions and values which in oe areas diverge from that of the west, and also a powerful one. Historical and diplomatic reasons, and some mistakes on the part of the west have resulted in a near pariah status, but this wasn't and isn't an inevitability. In addition it is brute fact that if it wasn't acquiring nuclear weapons then it should be. Apart from conventional enemies in a very volatile region, it already has a nuclear armed foe nearby in Israel. And of course it is being lectured on the inadvisability of nukes by a country which retains the right to first atomic strike, and has recently invaded its neighbour. Nothing is going to change these facts so they have to be lived with, but the successful defusing of the cold war, which brought the word so close to self-annihilation, shows that such situations can be resolved. Mutual Assured Destruction may still be best described by its initials, but it did work, and might be the only option. There may be suicide bombers in many domains, but that doesn't meant there are suicide states. Even those under dictatorial rule have a supporting elite with a self-preservation instinct (for example the generals etc.), and anyway Iran is no Libya or Zimbabwe.
 
But, leaving aside what better ways there are to address the Iranian question, some things can be said about the general approach of sanctions. Jenkins refers to Iraq, Libya and Serbia as failed examples , but these are all countries where the end result has been achieved, albeit with additional military (internal or external) intervention and it is not easily ruled out that the sanctions weakend the relevant regimes, militarily and politically. And of course the sanctions, did in all cases probably result in the containment of the problem, if not the immediate solution to it. Indeed it is claimed (e.g. here )  that sanctions were actually very effective in Libya, Yugoslavia and Liberia, and I tend to accept this. Similarly there are many examples of long term sanctions which haven't led to war, and are in no likelihood of doing so by themselves (for example with North Korea).

Also, from a moral perspective the appealing thing about sanctions is they are a relatively civilized way of dealing with disputes, since they are in affect a suspension of normal relations with entities which don't abide by accepted rules. Indeed, in my view, what is often the problem is not too many sanctions but not enough of them, or their inconsistent application, since there are many odious regimes and individuals who are tolerated for no morally good reason. A bit more practice is needed rather than less preaching. And in a rather limited set of options, the withholding of the carrot of material benefits is surely better than the stick of war.

Where Jenkins does have a point, and where sanctions do become problematic, is when they hurt the wrong people. When dealing with non-democratic regimes, where the peope at large have little influence, there is little point in making those people pay. And of course, public misery is easily manipulated to foster a defensive cohesion against an outside aggressor. And of course the classic example of sanctions going wrong in this way are the Iraq sanctions where corruption and incompetence led to starving the population of necessities while feeding the elite with luxuries That said, in well connected and relatively developed countries like Iran, but not perhaps in places like North Korea, there are ways in which that elite, which has interests and influence, can be squeezed. Of course if this is not working, or having undesirable effects, then the approach needs to be re-examined.


So I don't agree either with Jenkins' moral dismissal of involvement, or the outright rejection of sanctions. Something must be done, and if sanctions are the only way, and they are for sure a better alterntive to war, then so be it. But they need to be done in the right way, in a manner that is both pragmatically and morally correct. Boycotts work, but only if we hold back from demonization. The point is not to to ostracize states or people for the sake of it, or them forever from the social fold, , but to scold them into returning to it. It could be sanctions aren't suitable anymore for the Iranian problem, or at least not on their own, but they still can't be dismissed out of hand just because they haven't always worked before. More important is to have realistic and achievable goals, which in this case might not be a nuclear free region, but a stable and secure one, even with nuclear weapons.

I still believe if we can recover from the situation where thousands of nuclear weapons were primed and pointed at each other all over the world, we can recover from a situation where a few not yet existing nukes are planned in one small part of it.