They've only gone and elected a black president. Maybe the USA isn't a total disaster after all...
It's been a long time since I posted and a lot has been going on with Russia and Georgia. Perhaps the greatest threat from the Iraq-Afghanistan invasions is coming to the fore with the generally limp wrist response from the West to Russian actions.
It isn't that the West didn't pour troops into Georgia at the drop of a hat, after all, it isn't possible to get militarily involved in every satellites wars. Yet, it was known amongst the whole world, that if it had got to that point the West was toothless. American and British forces are stretched to the point where further expeditionary adventures of any size are simply not possible. Other European states might have the military capability but not the political will to take any potential losses.
Russia can now sit back and call the shots in a country that threatened to leave its orbit. Although there is a pro-western government in power it is up to the Russians whether that government stays or goes. Russia also has the power to simply decide to grant a Kosovo style autonomy to the regions.
There are two ways of looking at this; either that the West's failure to admit Georgia into NATO established it's fate, or, that the NATO saved itself getting involved in an essentially local problem. Sensible policy would seem to be to keep supporting pro-western democratic movements and to then protect those that join the 'fold' as it were. A cooling of relations between Russia and the West can be considered against the greater reach and influence of more allies around Russia itself. A managed competition now would be a good deal more stable than a free for all later on when Russia is fully re-established as an independent global force.
Those clever people in Westminster have decided that actually we don't need the right not to be deprived of our liberty without due process. Apparently all we need is a Judge (who are notorious for not giving police more time...) and one of several vague conditions to be met. Why do I have a sneaky suspicion that a 'complex' individual case will simply be whenever it isn't possible to dig something up within time?
Seems a lot like a dodgy Labour government trying to look tough...
P.S.
I know that it has it's share of racism, idiots and paranoia inducing politicians but it's still better than the UK.
In a pretty weird opinion article on the BBC Alex de Waal makes it clear that he doesn't think that the Peacekeeping mission in Sudan has a role beyond patrolling DP camps.
It's this breed of thinking within security studies that gives it a bad name. The insistence that the solution is political and therefore cannot have a significant military component (if it all) is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, it's based on the premise that military and political solutions cannot co-exist, which is in turn based on the idea that the awfulness of war robs it of any utility. To make peace the end in itself is as distorted as making war the end in itself.
The example of Chamberlain and appeasement may be hackneyed but it still holds relevance here. Peace and security sometimes require nations to go to war to defend their interests. The goal of peace in itself hampered the ability to choose an appropriate policy response. The issue doesn't even need to be looked at it in terms of a clash of values per se. Seen in terms of nations protecting their own interests it would still have made sense to prevent Hitler from invading other countries. For liberal countries it is a matter of self interest for them to oppose states with extreme views of one side or another. This kind of self interest leads to benefits in the long term. The cold war would have been very different indeed had the goal been peace. Of course the self interest itself needs to been through the objectives of value-based policy.
Back to Darfur, it is in the interests of the west to exert some serious influence there, halting the war. For the west to pick a side and back a winner could lead to longer lasting peace and a pro-Western government in the region. Where the west has a direct influence in picking the winner they also have a direct influence in the following government. Where they fail to engage then they are left to skulk around in awkward embarrassment such as Rwanda today. This means that Kagame can pretty much run elections how he likes and no one can stop him. Kagame 1, People of Rwanda - 2.
According to the BBC there is to be a new database for companies to carry out background checks on potential employees. If you're accused but then not convicted of a crime it can listed on the database and every subscriber to the service will know about it. The potential for abuse is mind boggling as all it takes is one cross boss and you're stuffed for life. You can appeal but how can you prove that an accusation was unfounded beyond the fact that you were never convicted?
Not only that but apparently the protection will be an 'encrypted password' system. Hotmail, phpBB and GMail are all protected by an 'encrypted password' system. Given the wealth of data on the database it isn't likely to be long before someone socially engineers their way to a password.
The moral to the story? It's more than references at stake when you're planning an exit strategy from a rubbish workplace.
