Category Archives: Uncategorized

US-Saudi Arabia’s endless militarism

To hit Iran and Syria in the future?
Why is Saudi Arabia already the 3rd or 4th largest military spender on earth?
The Gulf Cooperation Council 10 times bigger than Iran?
Is NATO setting itself up in the Arab world?
And why is Denmark’s ambassador Ms. Merete Juhl in the United Arab Emirates the main coordinator of helping NATO expand into the Middle East=?

Aljazeera’s explanation of Syria and its commenting policy

AJ.jpeg

Wrote a comment this morning under its explanation – in film and text – of the Syrian war here:

Then waited the whole day only to find that Aljazeera’s moderator must have decided that it wasn’t worthy being published.*

Here it is:

“When we try understand a war it is very important to distinguish between the underlying conflict(s) and the violence that grows out of them. Your film as well as the text is focused only on the violence – and violence is never anything but a symptom of underlying conflicts. Violence is abrupt, conflict are longer-lasting – have been simmering for years often before they blow up.

It’s the same as with diseases – a doctor who listens only to the patient’s symptoms but cannot say what the cause(s) is, is a bad doctor.

Media has war and violence reporting – but no conflict reporters and no peace-reporting.

Secondly it is very problematic – actually impossible – to understand anything of a war and conflict if we focus on individuals. With due respect, there is no way that a boy’s spraying words on a wall can explain one of the world’s and history’s most complex conflict and most destructive wars.

And there is also no way it can be explained by one man – al-Assad’s – policies. It’s the same irrelevant media focus as with Milosevic in Yugoslavia, Saddam in Iraq, Gadafi in Libya – it just doesn’t explain what needs to be explained.

Conflicts are about incompatible goals, wishes not fulfilled, promises not held, conflict ignored or mishandled – about history, traumas, grievances, economic deprivation – and here it is, to a high degree, a consequence of about 100 years’ of foreign influence – from Sykes-Picot and onwards.

I would urge Aljazeera to try to re-think the way all these conflicts and wars are covered.

This approach does not help your viewers and readers understand the breadth and depth of these tragic processes.

Your approach does – surely unintended – everything to help everybody play the blame game and prevents us from discussing the only thing that really matters to humanity, including the Syrian people (all those who have never touched a weapons) namely: How can some kind of peace be re-stored?

If we keep on focusing on the violence and ignore underlying conflicts, there will be no peace.

Like a patient’s problem will not be solved until doctors do something about the underlying causes. When we understand the conflicts, and begin process of conflict-resolution, peace may have a chance. That means that violence will be reduced and finally end.

Kind regards

Jan Oberg, dr.,
peace and conflict researcher, mediator
http://www.transnational.org
Sweden
oberg@transnational.org”

* There are other comments that I would believe violate Aljazeera’s own policies and guidelines such as people telling you how to earn money every day.
It is also strange that an article which is 8 hours old can have comments under it which are almost a year old.
Finally – when trying to send a comment bot to “Contact us” and to “What do you think?” it doesn’t work, the “Captcha has expired” at both places and repeatedly.
Perhaps there is something for Aljazeera to fix here?

Snak om Syrien på en måde der fremmer fred!

En “meta”-kommentar i Arbejderen til den dødfødte måde man diskuterer konflikter på, især Syrien.

Diskursen kommer aldrig frem til at sige noget væsentligt om fred – og den gavner ingen i Syrien, mindst af alt de uskyldige, der lider frygteligt i disse år.

Man kan faktisk snakke om tingene på en anden måde. Se hér!

(Kommentar i Arbejderen, 28. februar 2017).

arb

Anvender DR og DIIS screening?

Hvis ikke hvorfor er alsidighed så ophørt på udenrigspolitikkens område?


DR’s dækning af forsvar, sikkerhed og udenrigspolitik bør diskuteres langt mere

Der skal nok være nogen, der tror at jeg har fået DR på hjernen. Men jeg skriver ofte – og ugerne – om DR’s behandling af forsvars-, sikkerheds- og udenrigspolitikken fordi det:

a) handler om eksistentielle ting, om krig og fred;

b) dækningen er mere ensidig end nogensinde i de fire årtier, jeg har fulgt den og

c) der er en voksende symbiose mellem DR, forsvaret som institution og de eksperter, der indkaldes som alle enten er militære selv – og altså partiske eller objektive – er fra DIIS eller fra et af de efterhånden mange militærforskningscentre, Danmark har oprettet i de senere år.

Man skal huske på at DIIS er delvist finansieret af Forsvarsministeriet og har en chef, der nok har forskningsbaggrund men har gjort karriere i NATO og forsvarsministeriet. Det kunne f.eks. sætte sig spor i valget af forskningsemner.

At DIIS skulle forske i ting som ikkevoldelig konfliktløsning, ned- og afrustning, afskaffelse af atomvåben, alternativt forsvar, fremsætte forslag til fredelig løsning på nogle af verdens alvorlige konflikter, udgive en fundamentalt kritisk analyse af dansk militær udenrigspolitik eller udvikle alternativer til NATO og NATO-medlemsskab  er i det nærmeste utænkeligt.

 

En farlig symbiose som gør fri meningsdannelse og debat stadigt sværere

Med andre ord – en symbiose mellem den første politik på de nævnte områder og dem, der i et eller omfang skulle tilsikre en alsidig behandling og levere viden baseret på uafhængig forskning. Men ikke gør det.

Lidt tilspidset kan man formulere det sådan at DR fungerer som informationsorgan for den militært aktive udenrigspolitik uden at stille spørgsmål af nogen art omkring den og at DIIS’ og andre forskere fungerer som det præsteskab, der skal udlægge teksten og overbevise de bekymrede sjæle, der jo også skal betale.

Og aldrig stille principielle spørgsmål eller præsentere mulige alternativer til den første politik og specielt ikke problematisere krigsdeltagelse.

Sådan har det ikke altid været.

 

Det er så galt at man kan frygte at der er tale om screening og/eller selvcensur

Styrken og omfanget af denne symbiose er vokset hastigt i de senere år, ikke mindst efter at Danmark er blevet en bombenation, dvs. fra 1999 og især i og med besættelsen af Irak 2003-2007.

Spørgsmålet er om den vedvarende mangel på alsidighed, som DR står for, er konsekvens af en eller anden form for screening – altså at man Continue reading

NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Obsolescence

NATO defence ministers meet on February 15-16 and we will see and hear the same mantras as during the last 5 or so decades.

I was pleased to comment a bit about it a day before.

Will Ukraine hold referendum on NATO membership?

Commenting on news that President Poroshenko intends to hold a referendum on NATO membership for Ukraine now he feels sure that a majority of the Ukrainians want that.

However, if you look up the poll from November 2016 you’ll find that it was made by a Ukrainian research institute “on behalf of the US-based International Republican Institute, IRI.”

Read more about IRI on its homepage – and you’ll find that it is highly political and promotes U.S. democracy everywhere and has an international advisory council where, among other, Vitaliy Volodymyrovych Klitschko – the famous Ukrainian boxer and Kiev’s mayor – is a member. He is very close to the President and, for a period, headed the Poroshenko Bloc.

The IRI is financed by, among others, NED – The National Endowment for Democracy – that is believed to be partly financed by CIA and by USAID that is known to promote US interests.

Senator John McCain is chairman of IRI’s board of directors and is seen on this link presenting Speaker Boehner with the IRI Freedom Award for having spoken up against the Russian “aggression” in Ukraine.

One would be surprised if this institute would not help produce an opinion poll that proves that in a few years the pro-NATO attitudes in Ukraine has increased enormously – as reported by The Telegraph.

“”Four years ago, only 16 percent (of the Ukrainian people) favoured Ukraine’s entry into Nato. Now it’s 54 percent,” he (Poroshenko) said. “As president, I am guided by the views of my people, and I will hold a referendum on the issue of Nato membership.”Indeed an impressive growth…

Click on the image to see the interview

namnlo%cc%88st

 

On the Syria ceasefire talks in Astana

There are strong reasons to be sceptical; there has been no interest in peaceful solutions to Syria’s problems since the violence broke out in 2011.

Hard to see what a trilateral monitoring can do without a UN or similar presence on the ground. What if you monitor a ceasefire violation and can do nothing about it?

That said, this is a new constellation with Russia, Iran and Turkey as guarantors and the RIOTs – Rebels-Insurgency-Opposition-Terrorist – have lost Eastern Aleppo.