Obama Goes Negative

77 per cent of Mr Obama's ads in the past two weeks have been negative compared with 56 per cent of Mr McCain's, according to a University of Wisconsin analysis.

And it's working.


OBAMA WIPES OUT MCCAIN'S FLORIDA LEAD

BARACK Obama has gained ground on John McCain in key battleground states, wiping out the Republican's lead in Florida and trailing by just one point in North Carolina, according to a new CNN/Time poll.

The poll comes as other surveys show Mr Obama regaining his national lead over Mr McCain as the impact of Sarah Palin's selection as the Republican running mate appears to fade.

The CNN poll puts Mr Obama ahead by two points in Ohio and by three in Wisconsin, with Mr McCain leading by six points in Indiana. It shows the two candidates in a dead heat in Florida, with 48 per cent each.

Mr Obama's poll surge follows days of aggressive Democratic campaigning aimed at portraying Mr McCain as out of touch on the economy, which voters identify as the most important issue in the campaign.

A University of Wisconsin analysis found that 77 per cent of Mr Obama's ads in the past two weeks have been negative, compared with 56 per cent of Mr McCain's.

The two campaigns clashed yesterday over a Spanish-language ad in which Mr Obama linked Mr McCain's views on immigration to those of right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance," the ad's announcer says as a picture of Mr Limbaugh appears on screen with quotes of him saying, "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out".

"John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families."

Mr McCain's campaign hit back, pointing out that the Republican braved the hostility of his party's base to back comprehensive immigration reform while Mr Obama backed Senate amendments that killed a bipartisan immigration Bill.

The McCain ticket came under friendly fire yesterday when Nebraska Republican senator Chuck Hagel said that Ms Palin lacked foreign policy experience and called it a "stretch" to say she was qualified to be president.

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Mr Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald.

"You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

From The Irish Times

The Front Fell Off

Senator Collins, a member of the Australian Parliament, appeared on a TV news program to reassure the Australian public.

This actual interview is so funny, you'd swear it was a skit on 'Saturday Night Live' or something by Monty Python.

Enjoy!

South Africa's Human Rights Reputation Tarnished

By Carroll Bogert

Published in The Sunday Independent

September 7, 2008


Supporters of human rights around the world watched in joy 14 years ago as apartheid ended and a new era of democratic governance began in South Africa. But many of us are now watching in dismay as the country's foreign policy often aligns with global enemies of human rights.

The South African government's unwillingness to confront President Robert Mugabe on his extremely abusive governance of Zimbabwe is well known to South Africans, and justly controversial.

Less well known are the many other important international issues on which the South African government has sided with reactionary rather than progressive forces.

As a member of the United Nations security council for two years, South Africa has had many opportunities to speak out forcefully for human rights - or to join those speaking out against them. Again and again, it has chosen the latter course.

Burma is the best-known case. With Russia and China, South Africa has blocked efforts to condemn the military government's lethal crackdown on peaceful protesters last year.

Perhaps the department of foreign affairs has forgotten that, when Burma was still democratic, it demanded that the evils of apartheid, including the Sharpeville massacre of 1960, should be brought before the security council.

The international solidarity movement against apartheid constantly confronted the argument that what happened inside a country's borders was none of the rest of the world's business. That is precisely the argument that the South African government now makes frequently at the security council. It narrowly defines what constitutes a "threat to international peace and security", and insists that all other matters be taken up at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Meanwhile, in Geneva, outside the limelight, South Africa has demonstrated a similar pattern - failing to support key resolutions condemning human rights abuses in countries from Iran to Uzbekistan, and aligning itself with countries whose human rights records are, by anyone's standard, abysmal.

At the UN this month, a diplomatic struggle is shaping up to be South Africa's lowest moment yet. The issue is Darfur, and more specifically the request by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president. The accusation: genocide and crimes against humanity, the world's most serious crimes.

News of the warrant request was greeted with joy among the millions of Darfuris who have been driven from their homes by government forces acting in concert with janjaweed militias. Tens of thousands of Africans have died in this civil war, most of them civilians, and most of them as a result of Sudanese government actions.

The Sudanese government has begun a concerted campaign to evade justice for these crimes and the South African government has become its accomplice. Together with Libya, also on the security council, South Africa has been leading an effort to suspend the International Criminal Court's request for the next 12 months.

Suspending the request for an arrest warrant would send a clear signal, not only to the Sudanese government, but also to tyrants everywhere that they can continue to cheat justice through international political machination.

I was present at the negotiations on the treaty for the International Criminal Court 10 years ago in Rome, and listened with admiration to the speech of Dullah Omar, the South African justice minister, in ringing support of this important new human rights institution. Achieving a strong treaty at those talks was an uphill battle, but we won. Only the steadfast leadership of South Africa, along with a handful of others, overcame the opposition of major powers such as the United States, China and Israel.

The International Criminal Court is not an anti-African institution, as some have alleged. It is a pro-African institution: pro-civilians in Darfur whose villages have been burned to the ground, pro-women in the Democratic Republic of Congo who have been raped in wartime, pro-children in northern Uganda who have been abducted as child soldiers. It is opposed to government and rebel leaders responsible for such crimes, no matter where they live.

The prosecutor has also been looking into situations in Colombia and Afghanistan, as well as crimes committed in the Russian-Georgian armed conflict.

It is truly heartbreaking to see South Africa preparing to abandon the court at a critical juncture in its history. Sadly, it appears to be part of a trend that is putting Pretoria's foreign policy on the wrong side of history.

Perhaps only a fervent and sustained outcry from South African society can restore the country to its rightful path and begin to repair the damage that has already been done to its reputation.

Carroll Bogert is Associate Director of Human Rights Watch

Denver Prepares For The Main Event

Check out the best reporting on the Democratic National Convention from Campaigns and Elections Blog live from Denver

CNN DNC Coverage

Article taken from Irish Times be Reuters

Democrats prepared a grand celebration today for Barack Obama, who will accept a historic presidential nomination with a speech that spells out his vision for change in America.

Mr Obama, the first black presidential nominee of a major US party, will deliver the address in Denver's open-air football stadium before 75,000 supporters on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech - a landmark in the US civil rights movement.

The televised speech by Mr Obama, who was formally nominated yesterday, will give the first-term Illinois senator his biggest national audience until he meets Republican rival John McCain in late September in the first of three face-to-face debates before the November 4th election.

In an unannounced appearance in the hall at the end of yesterday's national convention program, Mr Obama said he shifted the event to the football stadium as a tribute to the grass-roots energy of his supporters.

"We want to open up the convention to make sure that everybody who wants to come can join in the party," said Mr Obama (47) who appeared on stage after the acceptance speech of his newly minted running mate, Delaware Senator Joe Biden.

National conventions are often the first time voters start to pay attention to a presidential race. Opinion polls show many voters are still unfamiliar with Mr Obama and concerned about his readiness for the job.

Republicans, who hold their own convention in St Paul, Minnesota next week to nominate the veteran 71-year-old Mr McCain, hammered on their theme that Mr Obama is unprepared and his soaring speeches mask a lack of substance.

"The question for Obama is 'What have you done and what have you run?'," Minnesota Govenor Tim Pawlenty, named as a possible running mate for Mr McCain, said on ABC's Good Morning America . "He has good oratory but when you shut off the teleprompter there's not much there," he said.

Speakers at the Democratic convention have addressed those concerns, led by rousing testimonials for Mr Obama from former rival Hillary Clinton, her husband former President Bill Clinton and Mr Biden.

"Barack Obama is ready to lead America and to restore American leadership in the world," Bill Clinton told flag-waving Democrats.

Mr Obama is running even with McCain in opinion polls. The back to back-to-back nominating conventions will give voters a chance to compare and contrast.

Mr Obama's senior strategist, David Axelrod, told reporters the speech would focus on Mr Obama's vision for the country's future.

"He's going to lay out a case for change. He's going to set the stakes of this election, the risks of continuing down the road we're on which is plainly what Senator McCain is offering," Mr Axelrod said.

Democrats tie Mr McCain's name to that of the unpopular President George W. Bush, whose eight years in power are associated with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and an economic malaise.

Some Democrats have said Mr Obama needs to be more specific about his priorities as president, and draw a sharp contrast with Mr McCain. Mr Axelrod said both elements would be included.

Republicans, seeking to draw attention away from the Democrats on their big day, tried to build up anticipation over Mr McCain's vice-presidential pick. A party official had said yesterday Mr McCain had made his choice, but the senator denied in an interview with KDKA NewsRadio in Pittsburgh today he had yet made a decision.

He did say, however, that two men considered potential running mates would join him at a rally in Ohio on Friday, his 72nd birthday, when the announcement is expected. They were former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge.

If elected Mr McCain would be the oldest first-term president to take office.

Mr Obama was formally nominated on Wednesday in an emotional show of unity after Hillary Clinton, his vanquished rival, appeared on the convention floor to ask Democrats to suspend their roll call of the states and make Mr Obama the nominee by acclamation.

Former Vice President Al Gore will speak to the convention before Obama today. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Hispanic, will also make an appearance. Hispanics are a fast growing segment of the U.S. electorate and a potentially vital voting bloc.

The last presidential candidate to accept the nomination in an open-air football stadium was John Kennedy, who spoke to the Democratic convention at the Los Angeles Coliseum before 80,000 supporters in 1960.

Twitter icon

Musharraf Announces Resignation In TV Address

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has announced his resignation during a live TV address to the Pakistani nation.

The former army chief and firm US ally has seen his popularity fall over the past 18 months and has been isolated since his allies lost a February election.

Read on here

Watch televised address here

Georgia: Russian Cluster Bombs Kill Civilians

Stop Using Weapon Banned by 107 Nations

(Tbilisi, August 15, 2008) – Human Rights Watch researchers have uncovered evidence that Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs in populated areas in Georgia, killing at least 11 civilians and injuring dozens, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch called upon Russia to immediately stop using cluster bombs, weapons so dangerous to civilians that more than 100 nations have agreed to ban their use.

'Cluster bombs are indiscriminate killers that most nations have agreed to outlaw. Russia’s use of this weapon is not only deadly to civilians, but also an insult to international efforts to avoid a global humanitarian disaster of the kind caused by landmines' says Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch.

Read on here

Russia Wants More Security For Georgian Troop Pullout; How Georgia Opened The Door To Nostalgia

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has signed a French-brokered six point peace agreement to end it's conflict with Georgia over the breakaway region of South Ossetia.

"The president informed participants of the security council meeting that he had just now signed the six-point plan," said the Kremlin's chief spokeswoman, Natalia Timakova.

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia will pull out troops from the conflict zone in Georgia once additional security arrangements are put in place.

The ceasefire agreement signed by Russia and Georgia states that Moscow's troops will continue to implement additional security measures on a temporary basis pending the arrival of an international peacekeeping mechanism.

"The (Russian) president issued an order to the relevant authorities to start the adoption of extra security measures envisaged in the six-point plan," Mr Lavrov told reporters.

"As these security measures are implemented, the withdrawal of forces sent to carry out this reinforcement operation will be carried out."

Mr Medvedev and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili have now both signed the French-brokered peace deal, but Mr Lavrov said the document signed by the Georgian leader was missing a key introductory part.

"The document signed by the Georgian president differs from the one which was agreed," he said. "It totally omits the introductory part saying that these principles are supported by Russia and France and calling on all sides to sign them."

He said Russia was discussing the matter with Georgia and that it would be settled through diplomatic channels.

Mr Lavrov said Russia had started consultations at the United Nations on international efforts to end the conflict.

"Additional numbers of monitors should observe the security zone. We will carry

out our obligations under the deal, depending on how other parties carry them out," he said.

Russia received a copy of the ceasefire document signed by Georgia this morning, according to the Interfax news agency.

The Ministry said the document, sent by the United States, was identical to the one signed already in Moscow by leaders of the separatist regions at the heart of the conflict, Interfax reported.

Russia has denied continuing military operations in the country. Georgia's Interior Ministry claimed this morning that Russian troops had blown up a railway bridge about 45 km from the Georgian capital Tbilisi.

Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said troops had destroyed the bridge in the Kaspi region west of Tbilisi, "paralysing the Georgian railway network".

However, Russia's General Staff denied the accusation.

"We are now in peacetime. Why should we be blowing up bridges when our job is to restore ?" Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the General Staff, told a daily official military briefing.

"This therefore can only be yet another completely unverified statement. We are not conducting bombardments. I can say with full responsibility that this cannot be the case."

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will privately meet US, Russian and Georgian ambassadors today to discuss the cease-fire accord agreed yesterday.

Mr Ban has been unable to reach President Medvedev after earlier speaking with his Georgian counterpart, according to a report by AFP, citing Farhan Haq, a UN spokesman.

The UN estimates the number of people displaced by the conflict is approaching 115,000, according to a statement on its Web site yesterday.

Two days ago, the UN children's fund, Unicef, put the number of refugees at about 100,000. The latest figures show that 30,000 people uprooted from South Ossetia remain in Russia, while as many as 15,000 fled south into undisputed Georgian territory, the UN said, citing data provided by Russian and Georgian officials.

About 68,000 refugees are displaced in the rest of Georgia, according to the statement. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres will visit Georgia and Russia next week to discuss the ongoing operations.

Human Rights Watch said in an Aug. 14 report that both sides made ``indiscriminate attacks'' on civilians.

A doctor at the main hospital in South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, told Human Rights Watch that the clinic handled 44 corpses and 273 wounded between Aug. 6 and Aug. 12, including civilian and military casualties, the New York-based group said.

"Human Rights Watch cannot definitely attribute specific battle damage to a particular belligerent, but witness accounts and the timing of the damage would point to Georgian fire accounting for much of the damage described'' in Tskhinvali, the report said.

Russian and South Ossetian officials earlier said as many as 2,000 civilians died in the fighting. Human Rights Watch reported seeing houses that had "clearly just been torched" in South Ossetia's ethnic Georgian villages.

The group said in a separate report on Aug. 15 that its researchers uncovered evidence Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs in populated areas of Georgia, killing at least 11 civilians and injuring dozens.

No country has recognised South Ossetia or Abkhazia since they broke away from Georgia in wars after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia has had peacekeepers in both regions since then and expelled all Georgian forces from the territories in recent fighting.

"Unfortunately, after what happened, it's unlikely that the Abkhaz and South Ossetians can live in a single state with Georgia," Medvedev said.

"Or some absolutely titanic efforts must be made to resolve this conflict."

He met Aug. 14 in Moscow with South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity and Sergei Bagapsh, the leader of Abkhazia, and told them that Russia would support the regions' decisions about their future status.

From Irish Times by Bloomberg, Reuters

________________________________

But what has been the aim of Russia's involvement in Georgia? I am not sure it is just about Russia exerting 'power' in the region. In a sense it is but not purely for the sake of exerting that power. President Bush says the "territorial integrity of Georgia must be respected". Many might correctly say it is now a bit too late for that, after the carve-up of the former Yugoslavia by the Americans, ably assisted by elements within the EU. Kosovo, of course, being the latest in Western-backed declarations of independence.

It is Mr Bush, his predecessor and their disciples in Europe who have let the separatist genie out of the bottle. And once genies get out, they rarely, if ever, go back. Surely, the Russians have the right to protect the South Ossetians and assist them in their quest for self-determination. Of course, am I not being devilishly naive to suspect that situations mirror one another in terms of democratic self-determination. When it suits us, you say. How are the Spaniards doing in recognising Kosovo (difficult one that for them)?

The players in this game are all too similar. South Ossetia as Kosovo, it's separatist fighters as a KLA, Georgia as Serbia, and an energetic Russia acting as NATO. Of course, the similarities might not be perfect but the parallels to be drawn are striking.

President Bush stated that 'bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century. Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations, or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation'. In the same speech he explains how 'Georgia has sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to help others achieve the liberty that they struggled so hard to attain'. If you are somewhat confused you should be. Democratic nations are free to do what they want because they are democratically elected and thus serve in the interests of the majority of their population. But the will of the nation being attacked is ignored, provided that they are not a democracy, which means they have no right to be heard. Puzzled? I certainly am. Rhetoric and propaganda are starting to take root in a serious way and I'm feeling a little nostalgic for the Cold War. Times were simpler then and we always had an enemy to blame (or at least knew who the enemy was). The post-Cold War era has been far too confusing for my liking and often actions of supposed allies seemed questionable given the changed security paradigms. Global Jihad was hot for a while providing us with some common enemy but its form was far too intangible to grasp (not to mention being notoriously difficult to target with our own WMDs). With the slow emergence of China as a great power and the thunderous reawakening of Russia I can look forward to a time in which things once more become black and white.

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Re-introduction Of Third Level Fees

The political maelstrom that has precipitated in the wake of Education Minister Batt O'Keefe's suggestion that Third Level Fees are back on the cards is wholly laughable given his statement on the matter yesterday. Mr O’Keeffe said yesterday the introduction of third-level fees for better-off families was being considered but today said any new fees would target millionaires and those with “excellent salaries”.

What baffles me is that the very small minority that he refers to is hardly going to solve the chronic under-funding of Irish universities. He is yet to draw a limit at which people have to start paying for their fees but from the statements made so far this is to be set quite high. What would the point of having 3-5% of students pay their fees?!? Of course, the argument is that the limit can be decreased and that there will be pressure to do this as time goes on. But to be perfectly honest, the Irish third-level sector is in serious trouble and in need of proper funding, which cannot just come from government. Private investment must be secured. The CAO system also feels somewhat broken.

Personally, I feel radical changes need to be brought to the whole area of Irish Third Level education. Fees may not be such a bad thing but then Irish banks need to grow up in that culture and begin to offer good packages to students (which they don't have to start paying back immediately upon graduation). I will write of the CAO system tomorrow as all those Leaving Cert-ers will be getting their results in the morning. Good luck to them all!

To read more on this story go here

Is The Race Really As Close As We Think?

From Campaigns and Elections by Doug Daniels

With our voracious appetite for 24/7 cable news and online coverage of the presidential race, everybody seems obsessed with scrutinizing every shred of polling data out of the race for president. Daily tracking polls, national averages, and even polls of polls have become standard metrics by which pundits and politicians alike steer the political discourse.

And in a political climate that is universally viewed as terminally grim for Republicans, the fact that Sen. Barack Obama has been unable to pull farther ahead of GOP rival Sen. John McCain has many wondering why the presumptive Democratic nominee isn't doing better.

The latest Gallup tracking poll has Obama with a 3 point lead over McCain-46 percent to 43 percent. Rassmussen's latest tracking numbers have Obama ahead by 2 points. A recent CBS News poll gives Obama a 6 point lead.

But despite the media frenzy over the surprising tightness of the race, Obama's campaign has avoided, at least publicly, exhibiting any sense of panic. Maybe that's because Democrats claim to see plenty of promising data in the state-by-state polling.

"Remember, in the primary there was a lot of talk about how the white, non-college educated vote would not go to Obama in the general election, but those voters have come back to him," says McMahon. "Plus, he's still ahead in all the states John Kerry won in 2004, and ahead in three or four of the states Kerry lost, so the playing field still tilts to Obama."

On Sunday, former presidential advisor and George W. Bush political guru Karl Rove suggested Obama should be much farther ahead than he currently is in national polling. On CBS' Face the Nation, Rove said the Illinois' senator's slim lead suggests that far too many voters have doubts about his ability to lead the country.

But Obama backers counter with the numbers that they say really matter on Election Day-those measuring the race in key battleground states-which appear to offer Obama a somewhat brighter picture. The latest Rassmussen poll has Obama up by 4 percentage points in Michigan and seven points in Wisconsin.

Most polls out of Ohio have Obama with a slight edge in that state, and the latest Quinnipiac numbers out of Pennsylvania have Obama up by 7 points.

Of course, history suggests that both candidates should be cautious in reading too much into any of these numbers, since the national summer polls have traditionally been an unreliable predictor for what will happen on Election Day.

Even former vice president Walter Mondale actually led President Reagan by a handful of points in a Gallup poll in February of 1983, only to suffer a crushing defeat in November. Reagan won the most Electoral College votes of any candidate in history that fall.

And four years later, in July of 1988, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis lead George H.W. Bush by a similar margin, only to lose in a landslide in November.

And don't forget polls back in the summer of 1992 that showed Ross Perot defeating both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International, says summer polls aren't necessarily unreliable, simply snapshots of where the electorate stands before voters really engage in the campaign.

"You start to see public opinion solidifying more after the conventions or after the debates, and there are people who don't make up their mind until the last week of the campaign," Zogby says. "Most people are doing more important things right now than following every detail of a campaign, like keeping their job or putting food on the table."

Still, Zogby says he's not surprised by the closeness of the race, despite the damaged Republican brand. "Structurally the country is still competitive," he says. "If you subtract George Bush from the equation you still have two parties that are pretty close, and if any Republican can run away from Bush with some credibility, it's McCain. And so I think those factors, along with Obama's race and perhaps his inexperience, are keeping it close. But there are still enough undecided voters out there who may feel more comfortable with Obama the more they get to know him."

Political Cartoon Of The Day

For Edwards, An 'F' In Crisis Management

From Campaigns and Elections by Shane D'Aprile and Doug Daniels

Now that former North Carolina senator and two-time presidential hopeful John Edwards has admitted to an extramarital affair with a former campaign staffer in an exclusive interview with ABC's Nightline, one prominent political strategist, who specializes in crisis management, says Edwards handled the allegations in just about the worst way possible.

"The good news for the Democrats is that [Edwards] isn't the nominee right now," says Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic strategist who has done crisis management for numerous politicians including former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, who admitted to a gay extramarital affair in 2004.

"He really handled this badly," Sheinkopf says of Edwards. "Truth is always the refuge of politicians who want to survive, and he didn't tell the truth."

According to ABC News, in an interview that will air tonight, John Edwards told correspondent Bob Woodruff that he did have an affair with 44-year-old Rielle Hunter, but denied that he is the father of her child. The admission of the affair comes despite repeated denials over the past year, and throughout the course of his presidential campaign.

Last October, the National Enquirer ran a story that Hunter, responsible for producing some of Edwards' presidential campaign spots, had given birth to his child, forcing Edwards to publicly deny any romantic involvement at the time.

According to Edwards, his wife was made aware of the relationship back in 2006, and rumors began swirling within the blogosphere. But the mainstream media, reluctant to put much stock on the Enquirer's unnamed sources, largely avoided reporting the story at all.

The admission from Edwards may very well end the former senator's political career and likely nixes any speaking invitation at the Democratic National Convention in Denver at the end of this month.

Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, was rumored as a potential number two for Sen. Barack Obama, but that was probably a long-shot to begin with.

As for what advice Sheinkopf would have given Edwards after the initial report from the National Inquirer some months back: "First I would have found out the truth. Then I would have told him to go public with the truth," says Sheinkopf. "In politics these days, if you lie, you're a dead man."

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day

For The Daring Investor...

Brochure shows idyllic properties for sale - in Iraq

IRISH PROPERTY investors have developed an international reputation for being daring and decisive -but are they ready for holiday homes in Iraq?
Frances O Rourke reports

The brochure for Tarin Hills, a resort to be built near Erbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdistan region of northern Iraq, comes with the usual idyllic images: swans gliding on a lake in front of red-roofed houses, snow-capped mountains rising in the distance . . . and not a soldier in sight.

Developer Damac Properties, which has an office in Dublin, also highlights that Tarin will be a "fully gated community with security fence, checkpoints, high-tech screening at entrance gates, numerous internal monitoring points and around-the-clock security patrols".

For sale are "Mediterraneanstyle" villas, townhouses and apartments with facilities that include a spa, sports centre, 18-hole golf course, and lots more. So far, no prices have been announced - but Tarin is likely to attract cash buyers only. (Don't bother asking your bank manager for a loan.)

Damac, which is based in Dubai, has signed a €2.5 billion deal to build a new community in what is currently dusty foothills, home to a few families and shepherds.

It is the biggest investment contract signed in Iraq since the start of the Iraq war, according to Kurdistan regional government spokesman Jamal Abdullah. Due for completion in 2010, the new community will have apartments, houses, primary and secondary schools, a medical centre, a lake, hotels and a golf course.

There will also be a children's play area, shopping mall, water and theme park, and hotels.

Erbil is more than 300km from Baghdad, but just 100km from the border with Turkey where Kurdish militants are active. But the regional government is hoping that terrorism will be the past, tourism the future, in this part of Iraq.

From The Irish Times

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Summer sales see inflation rate dip to 4.4%

Inflation dropped to a four-month low in July as falls in the price of clothing and household goods during the summer sales offset rises in fuel and housing costs.

The annual rate of inflation declined to 4.4 per cent from 5 per cent in June, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) said today.

Continue reading here

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Direct Democracy and Judicial Activism

The recent referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland has produced a bizarre marriage of convenience in the rhetoric used by those campaigning against Lisbon. Cries of the success of direct democracy are fused with a firm commitment to the very antithesis of direct democracy, a Supreme Court ruling. The particular ruling, which has become the darling of the ‘no’ campaign, is the Crotty judgment that saw the Supreme Court rule that in the event of any major change within the European Union (EU) that would impact upon the Irish constitution, the government would be obliged to seek the approval of the Irish people for that change.

Ireland was the only country in the EU whose citizens were given the opportunity to vote on the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. Subsequently, many of those on the ‘no’ campaign have used the fact that the rest of Europe denied their citizens the right to express their opinion through referendum to discredit their ratification of Lisbon as nothing other than ‘undemocratic’. They argue that three million freedom-loving Irish were thus voting on behalf of 500 million European Union citizens who were denied their rights!?

Of course, what this ill-informed position does is argue that there is only one way for democracy to operate: Direct Democracy.

The reality is that there are many forms of democratic political system. One major difference is that which exists between Presidential and Parliamentary systems, with executive and legislature separated in one and fused in the other. There are also many forms of electoral system and these can be discussed in terms of (i) Electoral Formula, (ii) District Magnitude and (iii) Threshold. Please allow me a short explanation of the differing types of electoral system, which I believe is necessary as many believe that their system is the one universal standard. For instance, Ireland, which employs the Proportional Representation – Single Transferable Vote system is joined in doing so only by Malta. If you would rather skip Politics 101 then please feel free to skip on a little bit but if you do not know that other systems do exist or how they do then I would advise just persevering on for a few paragraphs.

Electoral Formula:
There are three types of electoral formula used: (i) Plurality, (ii) Majority, (iii) Proportional Representation (PR). In a plurality (first-past-the-post) system a candidate needs only to have more votes than any other candidate to be deemed elected. This system is perhaps the simplest but it is found to be lacking in certain respects. While plurality can be used in multi-member districts, the norm is for plurality to be associated with single-member districts. The plurality system tends to punish small parties and generally leads to a two party system as the only seat in the district will go to the candidate with the largest vote, who generally is the candidate of a large party. As I will discuss later this can often lead to unfavourable results in a highly divided society. The majority system, as is implied in the name, requires that any candidate gains at least fifty percent of the vote. If this does not happen on the first count then a runoff election can be held, usually between the top two candidates or those who have gained a certain percent of the vote in the first election. There are certain systems that negate the need for a runoff election such as the alternative vote system, in which candidates are rank ordered. If no candidate reaches the critical 50% share then the second preference votes are tallied. Majority systems seek consensus and thus they tend to elect those politicians of the centre, often as a compromise when voters are forced to choose the ‘lesser of two evils’. PR seeks to address the imbalances in transferring votes to seats that are created by both the plurality and majority systems. By definition, PR can be used only in multimember districts, for it is obviously impossible to distribute a single seat among many parties. The two major types of PR are the List system and the Single Transferable Vote (STV). The List system is the predominant type of PR system while the STV is used only in Ireland for legislative elections and Malta. The List system provides the voter with a ballot on which they indicate their preference for a certain party but usually not for particular candidates. There are certain countries in which the voter may indicate a preference for a certain candidate but this rarely affects the parties proposed list ranking. This system has been criticised because it takes power from the voter and leaves it with the parties as they decide the order that candidates are placed on the list. The STV on the other hand gives the voter the power to rank candidates irrespective of party. The system has been criticised for creating intra-party competition, thus the argument that it leads to clientelism.

District Magnitude:
Most studies of electoral systems find that the district magnitude (M), the number of seats to be filled in a constituency, is an important aspect to any election. Single member districts (SMD) are usually associated with plurality and majority systems. The basic concept behind the SMD is that it provides a representative who is easily recognisable to constituents and a high degree of accountability exists. If the electorate is unhappy with the performance of the government, or their politician, the choice of who to punish is simple as there was only one candidate representing the constituency. The problem when M=1 is that an election outcome can result in the possibility of a large percentage of the population being unrepresented. An extreme example in a SMD in a plurality system with five candidates yields the following results: A=25%, B=20%, C=18%, D=20%, E=17%. Candidate A wins the only seat in the constituency with 25% of the vote. The remaining 75% of voters remain unrepresented. The highly disproportional results of such a system can be devastating for the legitimacy of democracy in an ethnically divided society such as that of Kenya, for instance.

Threshold:
Some electoral systems introduce the notion of thresholds which must be attained in order to be considered for a seat so as to prevent the advent of small and perhaps extremist parties. Thresholds really only apply to PR systems and in particular to those with high magnitude districts, which produce highly proportional results. In order not to make it too easy for small parties to win election all countries that use large or nationwide districts have instituted minimum thresholds for representation, defined in terms of a minimum number of seats won in the lower-tier districts and/or a minimum percentage of the total national vote. It is not in the interest of proportionality for a very high tier to be established. If such thresholds exist, a higher tier can serve to give a bonus to larger parties.


Returning to the question that this post sets out to address, we must question the contradiction that exists between fighting for direct democracy on the one hand and for judicial activism on the other. The Supreme Court exists to monitor and ensure that legislation is consistent with the constitution but it should keep out of the political realm and defer to the political branches or public opinion. If the Court begins to delve into highly controversial areas such as abortion it is in danger of deepening divisions in society. Ultimately it may lose its legitimacy. We must remember that the Supreme Court is comprised of unelected officials, which is in stark contrast to those elected officials who occupy positions in parliament. The very essence of representative democracy is the idea that we are electing individuals to make decisions on our behalf and to govern in our interests. We may not be in favour of those politicians that we have elected but the option is there to punish them by removing them in the next election.

The argument will of course be given that our politicians are not in tune with the electorate but I am not arguing against direct democracy. Instead, what I am pointing out here is the bizarre contradiction of direct democracy and judicial activism working hand-in-hand.

Ultimately, the arrogance displayed by certain persons by labeling as ‘undemocratic’ the decisions by other states in the EU to ratify the Lisbon Treaty through their democratic processes is truly laughable given their ironic appreciation for their own unelected officials' power.

Of course, those caught in this situation will argue that they are not in favour of unelected officials interfering with their right to direct democracy. Only in situations where it suits them. The double standards on display are reprehensible. But then could anyone expect any better?

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Do We Really Care?

‘Compassion Fatigue’ is the popular concept that suggests that the compassion felt for victims of certain misfortunes (wars, famines, natural disasters, etc.) reduces over time as the media saturates the story to such an extent whereby the audience becomes numb to the emotional impact that these stories would have held at an earlier date.

This notion fosters the media’s infatuation with crisis journalism, which is used in an attempt to capture an audience believed to hold acutely short attention spans and little interest in international events with little or no impact on their own lives. News items, therefore, must be dramatic and this leads to sensationalistic and simplistic stories. As a result of the dramatisation process, each story must be seen to be more sensational than the last. A greater number of deaths, explosions, homes destroyed and ever more devastating pictures must follow to keep an audience tuned in. The spectre of ‘compassion fatigue’ thus acts as an impetus for the selection criteria of stories deemed newsworthy. This means that even if the event is not yet over news coverage of the story might come to an end prematurely if it is believed that story has become boring for an increasingly ADD-ridden public.

‘Compassion Fatigue’ presupposes that the public holds a short attention span. That certain stories may elicit a strong emotional response from the public despite the passage of time is argued by organisations such as Oxfam who have claimed that donations to their organisation in the aftermath of certain crisis have not slowed down as a result of the saturation of media images of suffering.

The reality is surely to be found somewhere in the middle. Many people will suffer from 'Compassion Fatigue' but not everyone. Some prefer to focus on issues closer to home, while others are distracted by abuses they see as more brutal that are taking place abroad. Ultimately, we must talk about degrees of compassion as to feel nothing for those that you see suffering greatly would truly make you nothing more than a machine.

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Israeli Prime Minister to step down

'Dogged by corruption scandals, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced today he would resign after his ruling Kadima party chooses a new leader in a September 17 internal election.

Olmert's decision to step down throws Israeli politics into fresh turmoil and may cast into limbo peace talks that he launched with the Palestinians and Syria....'

Continue reading here

Banning Political Donations

Below is a letter published in The Irish Times a few weeks ago. Vincent Browne wrote in Wednesday's Irish Times about the potential to ban private political donations. I have been somewhat busy of late but I will give you a taste of the arguments that will be added to this. Apologies to those of you who have already seen this.

Madam, - James Moran's suggestion (July 1st) that political donations should be outlawed in favour of a system whereby taxpayers fund election candidates seems sensible on the face of it, but is in fact highly undesirable.

I find it difficult to accept that a taxpayer who strongly disagrees with the political philosophy of a party or individual could be forced to fund their electoral ambitions. I would be loath to imagine any of the tax I pay being spent on politicians whom I consider extreme in their views, whether they be far-left or far-right, and there are certainly parties represented in Dáil Éireann that I could never contemplate funding. Extreme views can only be allowed a stronger voice if such a law were to come into force.

All citizens should have a right to donate to the political party or group of their choice given that a sensible limit is set for any donation. What is required is the proper enforcement of this limit. It should be mandatory for all political parties and political groups to produce a list of all contributors and the size of every donation. This scrutiny should be extended to all interest and lobby groups operating in this State. - Yours, etc,

Umar Ahmed

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Two Irish authors named on Booker longlist

'Two Irish authors have made it onto this year’s longlist for the prestigious Man Booker prize.

The 13-strong list includes Sebastian Barry’s The Secret Scripture and Joseph O’Neill’s Netherland .

Barry was shortlisted for the 2005 prize for his book A Long Long Way.

British author Salman Rushdie, who won the prize in 1981 for Midnight’s Children , is also nominated for his latest book The Enchantress of Florence .

The other authors on the list are: Aravind Adiga for The White Tiger , Gaynor Arnold for Girl in a Blue Dress , John Berger for From A to X , Michelle de Kretser for The Lost Dog , Amitav Ghosh for Sea of Poppies , Linda Grant for The Clothes on Their Backs , Mohammed Hanif for A Case of Exploding Mangoes , Philip Hensher for The Northern Clemency , Tom Rob Smith for Child 44 , Steve Toltz for A Fraction of the Whole .

A shortlist of six books for the £50,000 prize will announced in September.

The 13 books, announced today, were chosen from 112 entries, 103 were submitted for the prize and nine were called in by the judges.

Chair of this year’s judging panel former British MP Michael Portillo said: “With a notable degree of consensus, the five Man Booker judges decided on their longlist of 13 books.”

Mr Portillio said: "The judges are pleased with the geographical balance of the longlist with writers from Pakistan, India, Australia, Ireland and UK.

"We also are happy with the interesting mix of books, five first novels and two novels by former winners.

The list covers an extraordinary variety of writing. Still two qualities emerge this year: large scale narrative and the striking use of humour."

The judging panel for this year’s prize is: Michael Portillo, former MP and Cabinet Minister; Alex Clark, editor of Granta; Louise Doughty, novelist; James Heneage, founder of Ottakar’s bookshops and Hardeep Singh Kohli, TV and radio broadcaster.'

by EOIN BURKE-KENNEDY

from Irish Times.com

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day

UN-Able To Choose

The United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva has requested that the Irish government address current areas of inaction on human rights issues. In total, 19 recommendations have been included in the committee's concluding observations to ensure that Ireland is compliant with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Prominent among these was the call to introduce a regime controlling suspected rendition flights through Irish airports. While noting the establishment of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, the Committee expressed concern with the highly restrictive circumstances under which women can have an abortion in the State.

While many might argue that the recommendations by the Committee are an attempt to interfere in the sovereignty of the State, by and large they were quite sensible. However, one recommendation that I still find difficulty wrapping my head around is the criticism that the State does not allow for revised birth certificates following a change of gender by transgender persons. The recommendation for a change would see a person born of either gender being given the right to change the gender recorded on their birth certificate, indicating that they had in fact been born of the opposite gender!

Surely, a birth certificate should never be modified as it records that individual as they are when born. A man may feel like a woman all his/her/their life but does not change the fact that he/she/they were born a man. It is, in essence, rewriting history! A transgender person has the opportunity to chart an unwritten future upon their gender transformation having left behind their previous gender. But to imagine the past has never existed is wishful thinking at best.

There are times when I feel that certain proponents of 'liberal' thinking are perhaps pushing the boundaries of sanity, at least 'sensible' thinking (whatever that might be!).

In a day of bizarre stories concerning childhood's one may wish to forget, Talula Does The Hula provides us with just one more story.

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Winning Votes The Left Way

In a bid to destroy the image of being a Muslim, as portrayed in a recent New Yorker cartoon, US Presidential candidate Barack Obama is pictured below on his current trip to Israel. Next month's New Yorker cover is expected to contain a caricature of Obama in Jewish clothes in a bid to win back vital votes that this month's New Yorker cartoon lost him. A recent poll revealed that 10% of the electorate believe Barack Obama to be Muslim, while some believe he was educated in a Madrassa (Islamic religious school). Mr Obama said the ties between Israel and the United States were unbreakable.

Political Cartoon Of The Day

What's in a Cartoon?

The second installment of Cartoon Wars has struck! This time it’s a cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker depicting Presidential candidate Barack Obama in Muslim clothes and his wife as a terrorist. Obama’s campaign has labeled the cartoons as “tasteless and offensive”. John McCain said the cover was "totally inappropriate and frankly I understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would find it offensive".

The furore over The New Yorker’s cartoon reminds us of the controversy surrounding the publication of those Danish cartoons several years ago of the Muslim prophet Muhammed. The Danish cartoons showed the prophet Muhammed with a turban hiding a bomb on his head, giving the impression that he was a suicide bomber. The publication and re-publication of this cartoon led to death threats on the cartoonists life, international condemnation and diplomatic action against Denmark.

The governments of Pakistan and Turkey condemned the publication of the satirical drawings of the prophet Muhammed, while in Europe states were divided in their approach. Jack Straw, the UK foreign secretary, denounced the decision to republish the cartoons, saying that press freedom carried an obligation not “to be gratuitously inflammatory”. Mr Straw affirmed that he believed in freedom of the press but stated, ‘I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been insulting, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong”. He went on to praise the British press for their decision not to reprint the offending cartoons, which demonstrated their “considerable responsibility and sensitivity”. But the German home minister, Wolfgang Schauble, sought to defend the decision of four German newspapers to reprint the cartoons by claiming that their republication was “an expression of press freedom”.

Professional Cartoonist Daryl Cagle explains:

‘Cartoons can be outrageous in their exaggeration; we draw things that never happened, and never could happen -- but we have a contract with the readers who understand that we’re drawing crazy things that convey our own views. The New Yorker’s Obama cover fails to keep that contract with readers. Cartoonists don’t exaggerate anything just because we have the freedom to do so; we exaggerate to communicate in a way that our readers understand.’

Cagle believes that The New Yorker’s cartoon is somewhat flawed but that it could have been fixed with a minor alteration:

‘There is no frame of reference in The New Yorker’s cover to put the scene into perspective. Following the rules of political cartoons, I could fix it. I would have Obama think in a thought balloon, “I must be in the nightmare of some conservative.” With that, the scene is shown to be in the mind of someone the cartoonist disagrees with and we have defined the target of the cartoon as crazy conservatives with their crazy dreams.’

Cartoons will often be inflammatory to certain individuals or groups. It is important to ensure that they do not go too far by creating hatred for particular individuals, groups, races or religions. Malicious attacks must not be tolerated. However, both freedom of speech and the press are fundamental principles of our society. What we must ensure is balance. But, perhaps the most important thing is for those who are offended to develop a greater resistance to finding offence. The greatest double standard that can exist is not being able to laugh at oneself.

JibJab Presidential Campaign Video '08

It's that time again. Time for the US Presidential campaign video from the boys and girls at JibJab! This time you can even put yourself into the video by visiting their website and uploading a picture of yourself! To watch the video just go here

War crimes suspect Karadzic arrested

Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb leader accused of war crimes and genocide during Bosnia's 1992-5 war, was arrested last night after more than a decade on the run. Read on here

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Sarkozy Seeks Answers In Dublin

French President Nicoloas Sarkozy was in Dublin today on his first visit within the European Union in his role as President in the office of the European Council. France assumed the rotating six-month presidency of the Union on July 1.

The purpose of Mr Sarkozy's brief visit was to meet with supporters and opponents of the Lisbon Treaty in an attempt to understand the reasons for the Irish 'no' in the recent referendum on the treaty. Mr Sarkozy held a working lunch with Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Brian Cowen, which was followed by private discussions with Enda Kenny (leader of Fine Gael) and Eamonn Gilmore (leader of the Labour Party). He then attended a meeting at the French embassy with leading figures from the Yes and No camps.

Mr Sarkozy was told by both Mr Gilmore and Mr Kenny that holding a second referendum before the European Parliament elections in June next year would be counter-productive. Mr Sarkozy explained that there exist certain time-pressures and a time-limit, arguing that changes within the Lisbon treaty are required for the 2009 European elections, though he denied claims that he had ever said Ireland would have to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. If the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified before the elections then the electoral distribution of seats will remain as it was under the Nice Treaty.

President Sarkozy and Taoiseach Cowen issued the a joint-statement following their meeting this afternoon:

'On the occasion of President Sarkozy’s first visit to Ireland, the President and the Taoiseach exchanged views on a range of issues. The President emphasised that he had wished his first visit within the Union, in his role as President in office of the European Council, to be to Ireland, and the Taoiseach expressed his welcome for such a visit.

The two leaders discussed the Lisbon Treaty and the recent Irish referendum. The Taoiseach explained the Irish Government’s aim to develop a fuller understanding of the concerns that affected the outcome of the referendum as a necessary step before deciding how best to respond. The Taoiseach also explained that intensive consultations would take place, both domestically and with EU partners, in advance of the October meeting of the European Council. The President confirmed that he respected the outcome of the Irish referendum, but welcomed the fact the ratification process is continuing in other Member States and expressed his commitment to the Lisbon Treaty. The two leaders undertook to work closely together in seeking a way forward for the Union.

The two leaders reaffirmed the need for the Union to continue delivering practical benefits to European citizens in critical policy areas, many of which are priorities of the French Presidency. They discussed the current situation regarding food and oil prices, the importance of the Common Agriculture Policy, the current state of play in the WTO and the need for the Union to take a lead role in addressing climate change and energy security.

The two leaders discussed the situation in Sudan and Chad and the important contribution being made by the EUFOR Chad/CAR Mission, under the operational command of Lieutenant General Pat Nash, to which France and Ireland are the two largest contributors. Franco-Irish cooperation has been pivotal to the conduct of this Mission which fully reflects the EU’s growing role and expertise in conducting humanitarian operations.

The Taoiseach and President Sarkozy also discussed a number of other international issues including the growing international concern over Iran and its nuclear programme, on which they reiterated their full support for the EU-led efforts to achieve a diplomatic resolution.'


It is doubtful that Mr Sarkozy will have learned much after his visit today that was not already evident as a consequence of the opinion polls conducted following the referendum. Those on the 'no' side will continue to demand that the Lisbon Treaty is dead. However, with the likelihood that all other 26 countries will ratify the treaty, there will certainly be pressure placed upon Ireland to come to some conclusion about the direction that Lisbon must take. It is unlikely that a simple no will do. Ireland could seek to implement most of the treaty through parliamentary ratification but this might seem politically unwise given the backlash it could entail in a general election. A second referendum will need to include something new for voters, such as protocols on certain issues. There were serious concerns raised during the debate before the referendum concerning tax harmonisation, neutrality, abortion and the loss of EU Commissioners. Any future referendum, if one is to be held, will have to address enough issues to swing the vote back in favour of the treaty. Europe is indeed at a crossroads and at this time it would not be wise to isolate Ireland. As Eamonn Gilmore said today: '“This is not just an Irish problem, this is a European problem and that the start to resolving it has to be a start based on a European solution....Obviously we in Ireland have to contribute to that solution but it is not as simple as the 26 other member-states ratifying and then turning around to Ireland and asking us to think about it again'.

________________________

The Lisbon Treaty was supported by all major political parties, with 160 of 166 TDs (members of parliament) supporting its ratification. The main opponents to the Treaty were the political party Sinn Fein and lobby groups Libertas, Coir and the People Before Profit Alliance.

The referendum to approve the treaty held on 12 June failed with 53.4% voting against.

Taoiseach Brian Cowen meeting French President Nicolas Sarkozy at Government Buildings this afternoon. Photo: Bryan O'Brien

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day

MEP calls for EU ban on cigarettes by 2025

An Irish MEP has called for a total ban on tobacco products across the European Union within 15 years. Read article here

However, surely before considering a law to ban the sale of cigarettes we would have to ensure that alcohol is banned. Alcohol is responsible for causing harm not only to the individual consuming that drug but also to those who come in contact with the individual (to a far greater degree than passive smoking). How many road traffic accidents come as a consequence of smoking? Alcohol is guilty of creating problems within the home and poses problems for society as a whole. I do not think that the same can be said of cigarettes.

I am in favour of a ban on neither. Responsible adults should be afforded the opportunity to make responsible decisions provided that the appropriate information is available and they are informed of such. Moderation is the key. No person can claim that they do not know the health risks that are associated with smoking. Gone is the day where people could claim ignorance.

What we need to do is to continue to educate the population about the dangers of using cigarettes and ensure that this is done from an early age. Furthermore, a responsibility lies with parents to try to prevent their children from taking up smoking. To deal with the addiction problems associated the government needs to provide appropriate funding for programmes through the Department of Health. It is important that we continue to reduce the numbers of those smoking.

But to engage in this significant hypocrisy when certain other socially accepted drugs are causing far more damage is truly cynical.

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Can Wars Be Just?

War in the twentieth century can be characterised by its particularly brutal nature. As technology advanced it allowed for the creation of new and more deadly weapons, which increased the costs of war substantially. The death tolls amongst both civilians and soldiers in both World Wars bears testament to this. With the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima it appeared that all wars henceforth would be ‘total’ wars. The concept of a ‘just war’ was, therefore, held to have lost its utility (Chomsky, 2002). If wars were to be limitless as a consequence of the means of waging them, then the fundamental tenet of proportionality in just war theory could no longer be applied.

However, due to a delicate balance of power during the Cold War, no one power came to totally dominate world politics in that period and nuclear weapons have luckily not been employed in a war since the end of the Second World War. That the threat of their use still exists is of course a considerable risk.

War has not become total as had been predicted. Instead, it appears to be moving towards a situation in which technology has increased the capability of destruction, yet by the same token, precision has vastly increased and, consequently, discrimination is vastly improved (Nye, 1996; O’ Hanlon, 2000). War, fought at least by the technologically superior states, has become manageable to the point where just war theory may again be employed to assess its application. It appears that suggestions that the just war tradition had become irrelevant were very much premature.

In the post-Cold War era there has been an increase in what might be termed ‘humanitarian interventions’. Such military actions are taken with a view to preventing the large scale killing of a particular ethnic or religious group by another more powerful group. The interventions in Bosnia (Smith, 2005), Kosovo (Kurth, 2001), and East Timor (Smith, 2004) might be deemed as such. Another brand of intervention has developed which might aptly be termed ‘democratic interventions’. These interventions occur to either ensure that democracy is upheld in a state or to forcefully ensure that democracy ‘takes flight’ in that state. The United States has led the field in ‘democratic interventions’, with interventions in Haiti, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq all assumed ‘democratic interventions’ or at least having the aim of instituting democracy as a major ingredient in the mixture. The causus belli in recent wars by the United States has increasingly focused on the defensive, democratic and humanitarian nature of their wars (Haass, 1999). The just war tradition appears to be making a serious re-entry into the field of international relations theory. In fact, just war theory has played a key role in the development of international law as “elements of just war thinking have been incorporated into both treaty and customary international law” (Crawford, 2003: 7) and the principles of the tradition have influenced the practices of many armies, including the United States.

War is the most significant action that states may engage in, affecting all areas of policy formulation. The Bush Administration has sought to characterise the recent Afghanistan war as a just war “by making a positive legal and moral assertion to a right of self-defence (Crawford, 2003: 12).

“Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done” (President Bush, September 20, 2001).

“This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace...we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world” (President Bush, September 11, 2001).

“We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors human liberty...Building this just peace is America’s opportunity, and America’s duty” (President Bush, June 1, 2002).

The just war tradition can trace its origins to St. Augustine’s City of God and has undergone continuous development and redefinition to match the requirements of contemporary war. From the writings of Augustine, Aquinas and Grotius the tradition has advanced to depict the nature of modern warfare and establish the benchmarks by which the ‘justness’ of present wars might be assessed. The contemporary eminent scholars in the tradition include Walzer (2000), Coates (1997), O’ Brien (1981) and Paskins and Dockrill (1979). All agree on the ultimate aim of the just war tradition which is the advancement of peace and inevitably the demise of the tradition itself. “A just war must end in a just peace” (Coates 1997, 286) and it is fought with the intention of bringing about peace in the first place.

Coates (1997) divides the tradition into three elements: (i) just recourse to war (ius ad bellum), (ii) just conduct of war (ius in bello), (iii) just peace in the aftermath of that war (ius ad pacem). They are each separated in their individual analysis but, inevitably, comprise part of a greater whole and if any one is found to be lacking then the claim of a ‘just war’ is nullified.


But can war ever be considered just? Is it ever right to interfere in the internal operation of a state? If we can agree that wars can be just are we impelled to act in the name of justice? With ongoing (almost-) wars taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan, the crisis in Darfur and Chad and the violence surrounding elections in Zimbabwe, it is important to address the notion of whether or not interventions can be considered just. Is international politics governed by self-interest alone or do higher goals exist? The notion the European Union emerging as a coherent political identity is interesting in terms of military interventions given that many recognise the EU as having a greater propensity towards humanitarianism than the other major global powers. But if this humanitarianism takes the form of military intervention is it justified or merely a continuation of the 'white man's burden'?



- Chomsky, Noam. 2002. ‘The War in Afghanistan’ in Z Magazine, February 1, 2002.
- Coates, A.J. 1997. The Ethics of War. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Crawford, Neta C. 2003. ‘Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War’ in Perspectives on Politics Vol.1 (1).
- Haass, Richard. 1999. Intervention: The use of American military force in the post-Cold War world, revised edition. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.
- Kurth, James. 2001. ‘First War of the Global Era: Kosovo and U.S. Grand Strategy’ in War Over Kosovo: Politics and Strategy in a Global Age, eds. Andrew Bacevich and Eliot A. Cohen. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Nye, Joseph. 1996. ‘America’s Information Edge’ in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75 (2).
- O’ Brien, W.V. 1981. The Conduct of a Just and Limited War. New York: Praeger.
- O’ Hanlon, Michael. 2002. ‘A Flawed Masterpiece: Assessing the Afghan Campaign’ in Foreign Affairs Vol. 81 (3).
- Paskins, Barrie and Dockrill, Michael. 1979. The Ethics of War. London: Duckworth.
- Smith, Michael. 2004. The Spying Game: the secret history of British espionage. London: Politico’s Publishing.
- Smith, Gen. Sir Rupert. 2005. The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World. London: Penguin Books.
- Walzer, Michael. 2000. Just and Unjust Wars. Third Edition. New York: Basic Books.

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Consul in Lebanon dismissed over remark about regime

'IRELAND'S HONORARY Consul in Beirut was dismissed yesterday following controversial remarks he made describing the previous Lebanese government as "illegal and unconstitutional".

Prominent Lebanese businessman Khaled Daouk was informed of the decision to terminate his appointment, with effect from October 10th, in a letter sent by e-mail from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Daouk, who has been Honorary Consul in Lebanon since 1988 and Honorary Consul General since 1995, insists he did nothing wrong.'

Read full story here

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Video of Child Soldier at Guantanamo Bay Released

A video of 16-year old Omar Khadr being interrogated at Guantanamo Bay has been released today. Khadr, who is a Canadian citizen, was 15 at the time of his capture in Afghanistan. He is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a US soldier during a firefight in Afghanisatn in 2002. The video showed Khadr being interviewed by Canadian Secret Intelligence Services officials in the presence of a CIA officer during 2003. It demonstrates the effects of prolonged interrogation and detention on the Guantanamo prisoner and raises many ethical and legal questions concerning his detention.

Having been captured at the age of 15, Khadr is a child soldier and should, legally, have been dealt with according to the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which both the United States and Canada are signatories. Under the convention, governments and rebel groups are prohibited from deploying children under the age of 18 in any form of armed conflict.

According to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers: ‘Child soldiers, even those who have committed human right abuses, should be treated first and foremost as victims of adult crimes – that is the prosecution should be prioritised of those who unlawfully recruited and used them’. They should be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society and should not be dealt with by prolonged detention, questionable treatement and possible torture. This should not preclude the possibility of prosecution, which might deny justice to the victim. However, any criminal justice process involving a former child soldier must adhere to international standards on juvenile justice. If we look at the International Criminal Court in the Hague we see that some of those accused of the worst atrocities receive due course before the law and are afforded their basic human rights. It will take courage by states to stand up to their responsibilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child but this is necessary to ensure that children are not denied the rights they are entitled to.

The US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has been criticised for breaking Internatioanal Law and the Geneva Conventions and has been subject to repeated calls for its closure. The reputation of the United States has suffered in recent years with scandals surrounding accusations of torture, the exercise of rendition flights and revelations of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq compounding the perception that the US is consistently mistreating prisoners in the conduct of the ‘War on Terror’.

Khadr is one of two Guantanamo detainees captured as juveniles and faces life in prison if convicted by the Guantanamo prison’s war crimes court.

Human Rights Watch state that children are direct participants in war in approximately 17 countries worldwide.

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day

National Day of Commemoration

The National Day of Commemoration ceremony to honour Irish men and women who died in past wars or in service with the UN was held today in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham, Dublin.

The ceremony was attended by President Mary McAleese, Taoiseach Brian Cowen, Tánaiste Mary Coughlan, and representatives of the Council of State, Defence Forces, the Diplomatic Corps, the Dáil, Seanad and the judiciary.

The next-of-kin of those who died in UN service and a wide cross-section of the community, including ex-servicemen's organisations, were also in attendance.

The ceremony began with a multi-faith service of prayer, after which the President laid a wreath on behalf of the people of Ireland.

Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, the Jewish Community and the Islamic Community conducted the multi-faith service.

(from RTE.ie)

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Proposed UN Sanctions On Zimbabwe Shot Down At Security Council

Russia and China have vetoed the Western-backed UN Security Council resolution designed to impose sanctions on the Zimbabwe as a result of the recent violent presidential election. The sanctions would have imposed an arms embargo on the southern African country and financial and travel restrictions on President Robert Mugabe and 13 other officials.

Mugabe called the failure of the sanctions resolution a victory over racism and a defeat to attempts at meddling in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwean Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that 'we are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the UN'.

Britain called the decision by Russia to veto the resolution as 'incomprehensible', which was a u-turn from the promise it had made at G8 summit and calls into doubt the position of Russia within the group. The Russian Foreign Ministry stated that 'an adoption of such a document by the U.N. Security Council would have created a dangerous precedent, opening the way for interference by the Security Council in internal affairs in connection with certain political events including elections, which is a gross violation of the U.N. Charter'

The fate of the resolution has once again demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the UN Security Council. With Russia and China preferring less scrutiny of their own elections it makes sense to ensure that this resolution fails. The missile defence treaty signed by the US with the Czech Republic on Wednesday led to strong criticism from Russia and their veto may have been used as a protest to perceived US hostility.