‘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.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
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 hereWednesday, July 30, 2008
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
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
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.
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.comMonday, July 28, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
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.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
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
Monday, July 21, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, July 18, 2008
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).
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.
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).
“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.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
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
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
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)
Saturday, July 12, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Isolating Iran Creates Stronger Asian Cooperation
Iran and Israel have spent the last number of weeks conducting provocative military exercises in a bid to demonstrate the respective strength of their armed forces. The intention may be deterrence but the further escalation of threats can only lead to negative consequences.
Israel confirmed that it conducted a major aerial military exercise over the eastern Mediterranean Sea during early June. The message was clear: Israel has the capacity to attack any Iranian nuclear programme and is willing to do so. The posturing over recent weeks by both states reached new heights on Wednesday with Iran test-firing its latest missile, the Shahab 3, which has the capability of reaching Israel, eastern Turkey and Pakistan. The next generation of their Shahab missile programme will seek to produce missiles capable of reaching Europe.
The Iranian test led to criticisms from the United States, who signed a missile-defence treaty with the Czech Republic on Wednesday, which in turn led to strong criticism from Russia who view the move as hostile. The Czech Republic will host the radar system for the proposed project. Condoleezza Rica stated that "this missile defence agreement is significant as a building block not just for the security of the United States and the Czech Republic, but also for the security of Nato and the security of the international community as a whole….Ballistic missile proliferation is not an imaginary threat."
With neigbours on both sides (Afghanistan and Iraq) being invaded by the United States, it is no wonder that Iran is feeling somewhat ill at ease. They could be next on the list but are perhaps relieved that the US Presidential system allows for only two terms. We wait to see whether John McCain will provide the third. Iran continues to maintain that the aim of its nuclear programme is purely non-military, though the scepticism that this claim has generated throughout the world has led to the imposition of sanctions on Iran. A nuclear weapon would provide Iran with a greater deterrent against potential attacks but the worry in Israel that such a weapon would be used may very well lead to pre-emptory attacks, and a precedent for this has been set.
Perhaps most worrying for the US should be the fact that their increasing isolation of Iran has resulted in the development of a stronger relationship between the Chinese and Iranian governments. In a visit to Iran during April by China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Zhai Jun, Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki suggested the possibility of creating an Asian Union that would act as a counter balance to US and European power on the international stage. China has sought to increase trade relations with Iran and, as Western states increasingly isolate Iran, China’s influence in the region has increased. The rapidly expanding Chinese economy requires the energy sources that a nation like Iran can provide. With the growing interdependence between China and Iran, the American policy of isolating Iran may prove another failed policy. With diplomacy and modest reconciliation with North Korea, the ‘Axis of Evil’ club is now down to just one member. It may be time to re-engage with Iran in a bid to relax tensions in the region and prevent any possible move by Iran to disrupt oil shipping through a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Expect the posturing by all sides to continue.
Israel confirmed that it conducted a major aerial military exercise over the eastern Mediterranean Sea during early June. The message was clear: Israel has the capacity to attack any Iranian nuclear programme and is willing to do so. The posturing over recent weeks by both states reached new heights on Wednesday with Iran test-firing its latest missile, the Shahab 3, which has the capability of reaching Israel, eastern Turkey and Pakistan. The next generation of their Shahab missile programme will seek to produce missiles capable of reaching Europe.
The Iranian test led to criticisms from the United States, who signed a missile-defence treaty with the Czech Republic on Wednesday, which in turn led to strong criticism from Russia who view the move as hostile. The Czech Republic will host the radar system for the proposed project. Condoleezza Rica stated that "this missile defence agreement is significant as a building block not just for the security of the United States and the Czech Republic, but also for the security of Nato and the security of the international community as a whole….Ballistic missile proliferation is not an imaginary threat."
With neigbours on both sides (Afghanistan and Iraq) being invaded by the United States, it is no wonder that Iran is feeling somewhat ill at ease. They could be next on the list but are perhaps relieved that the US Presidential system allows for only two terms. We wait to see whether John McCain will provide the third. Iran continues to maintain that the aim of its nuclear programme is purely non-military, though the scepticism that this claim has generated throughout the world has led to the imposition of sanctions on Iran. A nuclear weapon would provide Iran with a greater deterrent against potential attacks but the worry in Israel that such a weapon would be used may very well lead to pre-emptory attacks, and a precedent for this has been set.
Perhaps most worrying for the US should be the fact that their increasing isolation of Iran has resulted in the development of a stronger relationship between the Chinese and Iranian governments. In a visit to Iran during April by China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Zhai Jun, Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki suggested the possibility of creating an Asian Union that would act as a counter balance to US and European power on the international stage. China has sought to increase trade relations with Iran and, as Western states increasingly isolate Iran, China’s influence in the region has increased. The rapidly expanding Chinese economy requires the energy sources that a nation like Iran can provide. With the growing interdependence between China and Iran, the American policy of isolating Iran may prove another failed policy. With diplomacy and modest reconciliation with North Korea, the ‘Axis of Evil’ club is now down to just one member. It may be time to re-engage with Iran in a bid to relax tensions in the region and prevent any possible move by Iran to disrupt oil shipping through a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Expect the posturing by all sides to continue.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
England v South Africa: First Day at Lords
South Africa elected to field after winning the toss in the first test match of the series with England at Lord's this morning. Both captains felt that there would be something in the wicket for the seam bowlers. However, the South African captain, Graeme Smith, was probably regretting his decision come lunch after his side were unable to take any wickets in the morning session, with England going into the break 71-0. However, the tea and sandwiches clearly gave the South Africans a boost and during a ten minute spell of the afternoon session they had claimed the wickets of Cook (60), Vaughan (2) and Strauss (44). The English seemed on tilt at 117/3. England responded in a positive manner with Ian Bell setting the tone for his innings with a four off the first ball he faced. Pieterson's start seemed somewhat nervous and a poor decision almost led to a run-out and a very early walk back to the pavilion. These early jitters were soon cleared away and replaced by another stunning performance with the bat. Pieterson notched up his first test 100 in his first test against South Africa proving that, while he may have been born in South Africa, he was definitely made in England. After a solid performance on a pitch that has not offered much for the bowlers, England are in a commanding position going into tomorrow. The South African bowling attack will no doubt learn from the mistakes of today and bowl a fuller length tomorrow, forcing the English batsmen to play at the ball more often. Today was surely England's day.
The day's play finished with England on 309/3
K Pieterson 104*
I Bell 75*.
The day's play finished with England on 309/3
K Pieterson 104*
I Bell 75*.
Delays at Dublin Airport
Delays continue to affect flights at Dublin airport today following a serious malfunction of the airport's radar system yesterday. The airport is currently running at 65% capacity but the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) has said that the situation is improving. The problems with the French-designed radar system led to the cancellation of 23 Aer Lingus flights and most of Ryanair's 74 flights, while other airlines also suffered delays and cancellations, leading to disruption for thousands of airline passengers' travel plans. The IAA has confirmed that over the past five weeks there have been five radar malfunctions. Ryanair have called for a government investigation into the fault, stating that it is "unacceptable that there is no contingency or back-up plan".
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Former Minister Seamus Brennan dies at 60
Long-serving TD for Dublin South, Seamus Brennan, died at his home this morning following a long illness. On May 6 he had resigned from his Cabinet position as Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism. Mr Brennan had a long and successful career with the Fianna Fail party. He was first elected to the Dail for Dublin South in 1981 and held his seat in the constituency in every subsequent election. He was a true public servant and will be missed by both the people of Dublin South and Ireland as a whole.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Irish Overseas Development Aid Slashed by €45 million
The Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan, made a statement today concerning cutbacks the government will seek to implement as a result of the downturn in the economy. One of the main elements of government plans is a 3% cut to public payroll expenses by the end of 2009. The two departments with the largest payroll expenses, Education and Health are exempt from the planned cut. The Minister claims that the proposed measures will lead to savings of €440 million this year and €1 billion in 2009.
One area of some interest to many people I know is the cut in Overseas Development Aid (ODA) by €45 million this year. The Minister stated that this is as a result of 'the projected revision to GNP and other factors'. The Irish government remains committed to reaching the UN target of 0.7% of GNP on overseas aid by 2012.
It will be very interesting to know specifically where these cuts will be made. Many organisations rely on ODA to fund their development programmes and cutting the ODA budget can have serious consequences for many of these programmes. If it is bi-lateral projects that are to be affected the potential impact on Irish charity and non-governmental organisations would be less. Today's statement did not provide much detail and we will have to wait for individual Ministers to make their reports to the Dail on the proposed spending cuts. Those in the Irish development community will wait with interest for the details of the proposed plan.
____________________________
The Department of Finance has predicted a shortfall of €3 billion in tax revenue this year, while government expenditure is 11 per cent ahead of the same period for last year. The significant increase in the number of people receiving unemployment benefit in the State over the past several months has been a contributing factor to the increased expenditure.
One area of some interest to many people I know is the cut in Overseas Development Aid (ODA) by €45 million this year. The Minister stated that this is as a result of 'the projected revision to GNP and other factors'. The Irish government remains committed to reaching the UN target of 0.7% of GNP on overseas aid by 2012.
It will be very interesting to know specifically where these cuts will be made. Many organisations rely on ODA to fund their development programmes and cutting the ODA budget can have serious consequences for many of these programmes. If it is bi-lateral projects that are to be affected the potential impact on Irish charity and non-governmental organisations would be less. Today's statement did not provide much detail and we will have to wait for individual Ministers to make their reports to the Dail on the proposed spending cuts. Those in the Irish development community will wait with interest for the details of the proposed plan.
____________________________
The Department of Finance has predicted a shortfall of €3 billion in tax revenue this year, while government expenditure is 11 per cent ahead of the same period for last year. The significant increase in the number of people receiving unemployment benefit in the State over the past several months has been a contributing factor to the increased expenditure.
The Hijab Debates
Ireland has finally jumped onto the bandwagon of the great Hijab Debates that have swept across Europe. This has largely been a media-driven debate since there has actually been no problems with schoolgirls wearing the hijab in this country to this point. The government is expected to publish guidelines for schools before the start of the next school year. These guidelines will most likely advise board of managements that the hijab should be allowed to be worn provided the colour is consistent with the uniform. However, this issue has caused much debate in recent weeks in Ireland with opinions both in favour and opposed making themselves heard. However, in a poll conducted by The Irish Times it was found that a majority of people support the right of Muslim girls to be allowed to wear the hijab. In a country with strong religious traditions it is not surprising that there does seem to be some unity amongst the more religious in our society against the possibility that secularist advances could make as a consequence of banning religious symbols in schools. That is not to mention the whole argument that revolves around the freedom of the individual.
A debate on this issue is currently underway on the new Irish Times blog. The debate has also touched on integration, immigration and what it means to be Irish. Interestingly, the Minister for Integration, Conor Lenihan, has also contributed to the blog debate.
If you wish to read my comments you will find them at
Comment 28: 'Irish society is constantly developing. This process of development comes on many fronts. This once traditional Catholic society is being changed by myriad forces from...'
Comment 43: 'Mona, what is ‘full integration’? Before we can talk about integration, multiculturalism or whichever we have to agree on definitions surely. I can cast my mind back...'
The crux of my argument is that Ireland is defined by its democratic nature, the right to free speech, the right to be treated equally before the law, to own property and all the positive aspects that are part of the package of liberal democracies. The issue of wearing the hijab in school or at one’s workplace does not threaten to bring down these fundamental values of the Irish state.
A debate on this issue is currently underway on the new Irish Times blog. The debate has also touched on integration, immigration and what it means to be Irish. Interestingly, the Minister for Integration, Conor Lenihan, has also contributed to the blog debate.
If you wish to read my comments you will find them at
Comment 28: 'Irish society is constantly developing. This process of development comes on many fronts. This once traditional Catholic society is being changed by myriad forces from...'
Comment 43: 'Mona, what is ‘full integration’? Before we can talk about integration, multiculturalism or whichever we have to agree on definitions surely. I can cast my mind back...'
The crux of my argument is that Ireland is defined by its democratic nature, the right to free speech, the right to be treated equally before the law, to own property and all the positive aspects that are part of the package of liberal democracies. The issue of wearing the hijab in school or at one’s workplace does not threaten to bring down these fundamental values of the Irish state.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Growing Uncertainty Looming For Pakistan
Karachi was rocked today by a series of blasts that have so far left one dead and at least thirty-five wounded. Pakistan’s state-run news agency, APP, have described the blasts as ‘low intensity’ with the objective ‘to create panic’. These explosions follow Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in the capital, Islamabad, that left 15 policemen and two others dead and at least 40 injured. These attacks happened shortly after the close of the ‘Lal Masjid Shuhada (martyrs) Conference’, the first anniversary to commemorate the victims of the government’s military operation against the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) and seminary. 103 people were killed as a result of the July 2007 military raid. Sunday’s attack targeted security personnel and is being viewed as a possible revenge attack. Pakistan is no stranger to instability but the past few days have witnessed an apparent heightened state of volatility.
In October 2007, following her return to Pakistan after years in exile, former Prime Minister and leader of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Benazir Bhutto became the target of a suicide bomb attack in Karachi. She was assassinated in a subsequent attack in Rawalpindi on 27 December 2007. With 30.6% of the vote, Bhutto’s PPP emerged as the largest party following the February 2008 elections and formed a coalition government with the other main opposition party, PML-N. The parties of the new coalition government are united by their common enmity towards President Musharraf but the coalition government is far from stable and rumours of divisions have already surfaced.
In recent months the increased levels of violence have affected major cities like Islamabad and Lahore. Karachi has witnessed a relative level of calm but today’s blasts could see a worrying return to insecurity in the Southern coastal city.
These type of attacks are not new to Pakistan but their increased frequency is a concern for a government still trying to define its relationship with President Musharraf, while at the same time grappling with the difficulty of policing its porous Northern border with Afghanistan. Despite its reluctant population, Pakistan is a key ally in the US ‘War on Terror’ and has been under increasingly open pressure from US officials to do more to prevent cross-border attacks by a resurgent Taliban. With virtually no government control in the North-West Frontier Province, there have been calls from certain quarters that attacks within Pakistan by US or Coalition forces against Al-Qaeda or Taliban targets are acceptable. However, the infringement of Pakistani sovereignty can only serve to increase the appetite amongst the Pakistani population for anti-government action and risks the further destabilisation of the country. Coupled with the attack on the Indian Embassy in neighbouring Afghanistan today that left at least 40 dead and over 140 injured it is a worrying time for the region and one hopes that a tipping point in the level and magnitude of violence has not been reached.
In October 2007, following her return to Pakistan after years in exile, former Prime Minister and leader of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Benazir Bhutto became the target of a suicide bomb attack in Karachi. She was assassinated in a subsequent attack in Rawalpindi on 27 December 2007. With 30.6% of the vote, Bhutto’s PPP emerged as the largest party following the February 2008 elections and formed a coalition government with the other main opposition party, PML-N. The parties of the new coalition government are united by their common enmity towards President Musharraf but the coalition government is far from stable and rumours of divisions have already surfaced.
In recent months the increased levels of violence have affected major cities like Islamabad and Lahore. Karachi has witnessed a relative level of calm but today’s blasts could see a worrying return to insecurity in the Southern coastal city.
These type of attacks are not new to Pakistan but their increased frequency is a concern for a government still trying to define its relationship with President Musharraf, while at the same time grappling with the difficulty of policing its porous Northern border with Afghanistan. Despite its reluctant population, Pakistan is a key ally in the US ‘War on Terror’ and has been under increasingly open pressure from US officials to do more to prevent cross-border attacks by a resurgent Taliban. With virtually no government control in the North-West Frontier Province, there have been calls from certain quarters that attacks within Pakistan by US or Coalition forces against Al-Qaeda or Taliban targets are acceptable. However, the infringement of Pakistani sovereignty can only serve to increase the appetite amongst the Pakistani population for anti-government action and risks the further destabilisation of the country. Coupled with the attack on the Indian Embassy in neighbouring Afghanistan today that left at least 40 dead and over 140 injured it is a worrying time for the region and one hopes that a tipping point in the level and magnitude of violence has not been reached.
Everything has a beginning...
During 1728-29, Jonathan Swift and Thomas Sheridan anonymously published the Intelligencer. This Dublin periodical offered trenchant and often witty commentary on the Irish social and political scene. While it is unlikely that this blog will provide as entertaining prose as the original Intelligencer, I hope that I will be able to give to the reader some modicum of amusement.
The primary aim of this blog will be to stimulate debate on a wide range of issues in political and current affairs in Ireland and the rest of the world. Every writer has their own particular interests that affect the topics they address. My strongest interest lies in the field of political campaigning and elections. Consequently, the reader can expect to find topics related to this field addressed regularly on this blog. This blog will also seek to provoke debate on the major issues of the day and may at times include matters of a more trivial nature.
This will be my first experiment in blogging. I am not sure what to expect but I hope that I can offer something of interest for those reading this blog. I bring my own bias and I hope that you will challenge me if you feel that my views are misguided or unwarranted. I look forward to the debate and my entry into the blogosphere.
The primary aim of this blog will be to stimulate debate on a wide range of issues in political and current affairs in Ireland and the rest of the world. Every writer has their own particular interests that affect the topics they address. My strongest interest lies in the field of political campaigning and elections. Consequently, the reader can expect to find topics related to this field addressed regularly on this blog. This blog will also seek to provoke debate on the major issues of the day and may at times include matters of a more trivial nature.
This will be my first experiment in blogging. I am not sure what to expect but I hope that I can offer something of interest for those reading this blog. I bring my own bias and I hope that you will challenge me if you feel that my views are misguided or unwarranted. I look forward to the debate and my entry into the blogosphere.
Photographs Around The Political Scene
National Day of Commemoration 2008
Royal Hospital Kilmainham, Dublin
Royal Hospital Kilmainham, Dublin
With Michael Woods TD (member of parliament), Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs
With the Chinese Ambassador to Ireland
With Taoiseach Brian Cowen
With Former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
