Author: Mick Hartley

The Scotsman continues its exemplary coverage of Darfur with this piece entitled “Darfur disgrace ought not to win votes for Labour”:

Last week, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, generously conceded that although some voters have misgivings about the Iraq war, many would vote Labour because of its stand on Darfur.

This comes as a surprise to pressure groups who have urged the British government to take a more robust line with the Sudanese regime. At best Mr Straw and Chris Mullin, his Africa Minister, have disappointed human rights and faith groups. Critics believe the Foreign Office places Sudan’s southern peace deal (and its oil reserves) ahead of Darfur. Meanwhile, the United Nations estimates 300,000 have died as a consequence of the war in Darfur.

Mr Mullin and Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Overseas Development, may not know it, but they are mimicking Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind a decade ago.

Mr Mullin portrays the National Islamic Front government of Sudan as our partner in the search for peace in Darfur, rather than the architect of a massive military campaign to expel millions of black Africans from its soil.

In his public pronouncements Mr Mullin assigns the Khartoum regime the role of persuading the Janjaweed militia to stop the killing, while every respectable non-governmental organisation in the region reports that Khartoum funds, supplies and assists the Janjaweed. In contrast, the Americans say genocide is occurring in Darfur and the Sudanese government is largely responsible.

In October 2004, when Tony Blair visited the National Islamic Front junta in Khartoum, he announced he had extracted several promises from them, giving them three months to end the slaughter. Seven months later Khartoum continues to kill its own citizens.

Shortly after Mr Blair’s trip, Conservative MP Andrew Robathan asked Mr Mullin why Blair had taken tea with them when “the truth is that the Sudanese government have armed and supported the Janjaweed”.

Mr Mullin responded condescendingly, “I’m afraid that, in diplomacy, it is sometimes necessary to meet governments with whom we do not see eye to eye on all matters.”

Some MPs were dismayed by Mr Mullin’s tone, given that Britain presumably does not see “eye to eye” with Khartoum on the lack of free speech or elections in Sudan, the deaths of two million southern Sudanese, the imposition of extreme Sharia law on Christians, sheltering Osama bin Laden for five years, slavery and the mutilation of virtually every eight-year-old girl.

When briefing reporters, Mr Mullin says Darfur’s tiny rebel forces are equally responsible for civilian deaths as Khartoum’s huge military machine and its Janjaweed proxies. He produces no evidence, and he fails to point out that the vast majority of the killings in Darfur took place in 2003 and 2004, when Khartoum ethnically cleansed the region of two and a half million black Africans, using its airpower and the Janjaweed.

Perhaps Straw was being ironic: those who objected to Labour’s robust stand on Iraq should be pleased that some British traditions live on, and in the right circumstances we can appease with the best of them. Or perhaps not.

gion or Belief, Iran, under the new regime reminded everyone that Islam punished apostasy by death. The delegate from Iraq, backed up by Syria, speaking on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference expressed his reserve for any clauses or terms that would contradict the Islamic Sharia, while the delegate from Egypt felt that they had to guard against such a clause being exploited for political ends to interfere in the internal affairs of states.

The various Islamic human rights schemes or declarations – such as the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (1981) are understandably vague or evasive on the issue of the freedom to change one’s religion, since Islam itself clearly forbids apostasy and punishes it with death. As Elisabeth Mayer says, “The lack of support for the principle of freedom of religion in the Islamic human rights schemes is one of the factors that most sharply distinguishes them from the International Bill of Human Rights, which treats freedom of religion as an unqualified right. The [Muslim] authors’ unwillingness to repudiate the rule that a person should be executed over a question of religious belief reveals the enormous gap that exists between their mentalities and the modern philosophy of human rights.” Islamic Human Rights Schemes are clearly not universal since they introduce a specifically Islamic religious criterion into the political sphere, whereas the UDHR of 1948 places human rights in an entirely secular and universalist framework. The Islamic human rights schemes severely restrict and qualify the rights of individuals, particularly women, non-Muslims and those, such as apostates, who do not accept Islamic religious orthodoxy.

od to be “the servants of servants.”

That a devout religious sect wishing to be left alone with their faith would choose to settle in Short Creek is understandable. The red rocks of Canaan Mountain loom like sentries above the town. The vast cerulean sky is dark and crisp at 6,000 feet.

There is also a harsh edge to the wind that turns the cheeks of the women ruddy and tousles their carefully constructed braids.

Clad in frocks and simple dresses, they appear trapped in an endless episode of “Little House on the Prairie.” Dust stirs under their footfalls, swirling their long skirts as they walk the quiet streets.

Although it’s hard to study their faces at any length because they’re quick to turn away from strangers, there’s a sense of déjà vu with each high forehead, pointed nose, and reddish-gold mane.

In Short Creek, it’s not uncommon for your sister to be your cousin or your uncle your stepfather. The lack of new blood — this is a sect you must be born into — explains the recurring facial structures.

In a more tragic way, it also explains the town’s baby cemetery, a large plot of land devoted exclusively to the headstones of newborns and infants.

Marriage between close relations can bring out the worst in genetics.

Short Creek is completely dominated by Jeffs. FLDS members control the city government, the police force, the schools, and every aspect of life.

“Obey the prophet when he speaks and you’ll be blessed,” Jeffs has said. “Disobey him and it’s death.”

In late 2004, Jeffs asked his disciples to stand if they would be willing to die for him. No one remained seated.

“He asked them would they die for him. Well, that’s a veiled question,” says Richard Holm, a former elder in the FLDS church who was excommunicated in 2003. “‘Would you kill for me?’ is the subtle question within that question.”

In the two years since he became prophet, Jeffs has ordered all dogs shot; closed the town zoo; forbidden television, holidays, movies and music; banned laughter; forbidden swimming and water sports, and sent “God Squads” of young men to inspect residences and report any violations of his edicts.

Marriages are arranged and performed exclusively by Jeffs in order to keep his chosen people pure. “The devil is trying to get people to go out and marry and mix with the world,” he preaches, “even different colored people. That is why we marry only who the prophet says.”

Strangers (“gentiles”) touring the town are met with glances ranging from hostile to fearful. Outsiders, residents have been told, are “wicked.”

Everywhere visitors go in Short Creek, they are shadowed by an entourage of men SUV and pickups watching their every move, taking note of where they go and who they speak with — a silent intimidation of both the visitors and anyone who accommodates them.

Now they’ve bought some land in Eldorado, a small town in Texas – only 260 miles from Waco.

MEMRI TV report on the tactics used by Ansar Al-Sunna (via lgf): having beheaded an Iraqi policeman, they cut open his stomach…

‘Adnan Elias: He opened him up, took stuff out, and put TNT and explosives inside. Then he sewed up his stomach with thick thread.

Interviewer: With thread?

‘Adnan Elias: Yes. And a needle. He put the buttons back in place…

Interviewer: He buttoned him up.

‘Adnan Elias: Yes, he buttoned him up. We were told to take him in the car near the square in Tel A’far. We threw him there and placed his head back on his shoulders.

Interviewer: My God!

‘Adnan Elias: 15 to 30 minutes later they told his family to come and get their son. His father came with two policemen. They picked up the body and made no more than two steps – we were standing far away – Ahmad Sinjar pressed the button.

Interviewer: By remote control.

‘Adnan Elias: The body exploded on them, and they died.

Interviewer: So his father and the two policemen died.

‘Adnan Elias: Yes sir, and we took off.

p>

So that’s, um, cleared that one up. Everyone but Oliver should hold their noses and vote Labour.

My MP and Labour candidate is Jeremy Corbyn, the man who’s voted more than any other against his party this parliament, who’s a leading light in the Stop the War coalition, who’s campaign literature stresses that he regarded the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as neither legally nor morally justified.

So what am I going to do? Well, it makes not a blind bit of difference anyway, as it’s a safe Labour seat. I’ve rehearsed a number of opening gambits should a Labour campaigner bother to call – which seems unlikely at this late stage. For instance “I’d like to vote for Labour, but I’m unhappy about the war,” so when they come back with their line about Jeremy’s proud record of defiance I can jump straight in and point out that that is precisely the problem, and why doesn’t the bastard bugger off and join Respect where he’d be far more at home so I can have an MP with principles I can support, such as backing Tony Blair’s decision to help overthrow a murderous fascist regime which was a clear threat to peace. But what I’ll do, I think, is take Oliver’s advice, hold my nose very hard, and vote Labour.

AL Daily and Butterflies and Wheels both link to this piece on the myths and truths of World War II, by Polish journalist Adam Krzeminski, so it must be good. I’m puzzled though.

The war destroyed not just countries, but the whole edifice of traditional myths that supported the identity of the European nations before it began. Meanwhile, the effort to create some new myths fell foul of the shocking reality: millions of people had been killed or murdered, there was immense material destruction, and Europe had been politically and morally degraded. In 1945 only the USSR and the USA could be triumphant without restraint. All the other nations and societies – including not just those that openly participated in the war – were deeply torn apart.

All the other nations and societies?

And then:

The only Second World War myth that can be kept intact is the American one. As the title of an American best seller puts it, it was “A Good War”.

I just have this nagging feeling at the back of my mind that there’s a country somewhere that’s been left out here.

hat counts as evidence, people in Darfur face the more urgent problem of survival:

The humanitarian crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region is set to continue until late 2006, aid agencies have warned.

Oxfam said with most of Darfur’s population in refugee camps, this year’s harvest was likely to be very low.

More than two million live in the camps, after being driven from their homes by violence.

Ten thousand aid workers provide all their food, water and healthcare.

Oxfam said even if people begin returning home soon, October 2006 would be the date of the next harvest.

Gorgeous George has been playing away:

George Galloway, the controversial leader of the Respect party, is facing a damaging divorce action on the eve of the election.

His Palestinian-born wife questions how he can call the party Respect when she claims he has been disrespectful to her by having a series of friendships with other women.

Amineh Abu-Zayyad has told The Sunday Times she can no longer tolerate his behaviour and will be contacting solicitors this week.

She says she has received a number of phone calls from women who claim to have had romantic links with him. She adds that Galloway has tried to smooth things over by telling her it is a plot by an unnamed intelligence service to discredit him.

A plot by an unnamed intelligence service to discredit him? Ah yes, of course.

From the BBC:

Experts have examined a mass grave containing what are believed to be the bodies of some 1,500 Kurds, mostly women and children, in southern Iraq.

It is thought they were lined up and then gunned down into the 18 shallow trenches found near the town of Samawa.

The victims are believed to have been killed in the late 1980s after being forcibly moved from northern Iraq.

The evidence uncovered is expected to be used in the trials of Saddam Hussein and his senior aides.

Of 113 bodies taken out of the ground so far, all but five are women and children.

More from the Washington Post (via Michael J. Totten):

Investigators said that women and children were forced to stand at the edge of the pits, then shot with AK-47 assault rifles. Casings were found near the site, they said.

“They sprayed people with bullets so they fell back” into the graves, Iraq’s human rights minister, Bakhtyar Amin, told reporters.

From 1987 to 1988, Hussein initiated a wave of violence, called the Anfal campaign, to punish the Kurds for siding with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Hussein’s forces forcibly relocated hundreds of thousands of Kurds from their lands in northern Iraq. Amin said as many as half a million people died or were killed outright and thousands of villages were destroyed.

Hussein’s forces carried out similar campaigns against the Shiite majority. More than 300 mass graves have been found across Iraq since U.S.-led forces overthrew Hussein in March 2003, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials. The grave near Samawah would be one of the largest.

According to this profile in the Washington Post (via Japundit), Hu Jintao is building a reputation as a hard-liner:

More than two years after taking office amid uncertainty about his political views, Chinese President Hu Jintao is emerging as an unyielding leader determined to preserve the Communist Party’s monopoly on power and willing to impose new limits on speech and other civil liberties to do it, according to party officials, journalists and analysts. […]

Hu has placed particular emphasis on tightening the party’s control over public opinion, presiding over a crackdown to restore discipline to state media and intimidate dissident intellectuals. He has also gone further than his predecessor, Jiang Zemin, by adopting new measures to regulate discussions on university Internet sites and the activities of nongovernmental organizations.

The crackdown has been a great disappointment to scholars and party officials who welcomed Hu’s rise to power in the hope he might be more open to political reform than Jiang. After giving him the benefit of the doubt during a long political honeymoon, many have concluded Hu is an ideologically rigid and exceedingly cautious apparatchik who recognizes the party’s authoritarian system is in trouble but wants to repair it.

“He is the ultimate product of the system,” said one party academic with access to the leadership who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He never studied overseas or had much contact with the outside world. He was educated by the system, spent his entire career in the system, and his values are the same as the system’s.” […]

Hu sealed his reputation after taking control of the military at a meeting of the party’s ruling elite in September, a final step in his long climb to power. On the last day of the conclave, in his first major address to the 300-plus member Central Committee as the nation’s undisputed new leader, Hu warned that “hostile forces” were trying to undermine the party by “using the banner of political reform to promote Western bourgeois parliamentary democracy, human rights and freedom of the press,” according to a person given excerpts of the speech.

Hu said China’s enemies had not abandoned their “strategic plot to Westernize and split China.” He blamed the fall of the Soviet Union on policies of “openness and pluralism” and on the efforts of “international monopoly capital with the United States as its leader.” And in blunt language that party veterans said recalled Mao Zedong’s destructive Cultural Revolution, he urged the leadership to be alert to the danger of subversive thinking. […]

In a recent comment often cited as a clue to his thinking, Hu wrote in an instruction to propaganda officials that though the economic policies of communist allies Cuba and North Korea were flawed, their political policies were correct, according to a person who saw the instruction and others briefed on it. The remark, first reported by the Hong Kong magazine Open, stunned many in the party who consider the two countries repressive and isolated from the rest of the world.