Coloured Pencils for the Blind

Today the people of Afghanistan were called to elect a new President. This is the second time such an election takes place under the general rules of a 'democratic' system.

The first time, in October 2004, the incumbent Hamid Karzai (photo below, inspecting a guard of honour in Kabul) was elected President. He is hopeful to be elected for a second term, but he is not popular with everyone.

Karzai is a Pashtun (or Pathan) and son of a wealthy and influential tribal leader from the south of the country. With close to 40% of the population the Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and have provided the ruling elite ever since the establishment of the first singular state called 'Afghanistan' in 1747. Their territories are predominantly in the south, and they also make up a significant minority in neighbouring Pakistan.

There are more than a dozen other distinctive nations and ethnic groups in Afghanistan, of which the Tajiks - with ca. 37% of the total population - are the largest (and the second-largest in the country). Their territories are all in the north, and over centuries there has been a balance of power between the southern Pashtuns and the northern Tajiks.
All other ethnic groups are much smaller and less well represented in the political structure and make-up of Afghanistan. The two most visible of these minorities are the Hazara and the Uzbeks, each with about 9% of the overall population.

Politics in Afghanistan is based on strict tribal loyalties and age-old alliances between leaders of various clans. Even though there have been political parties for some time, they too reflect only too clearly the tribal structure of the country. The idea of an 'Afghan nation' has not arrived yet in the high and rugged mountains that control the links between the North and South of Asia, as well as the links between the West (Iran) and the East (China) of the continent.

Since the overthrow of the monarchy in 1973, some Afghan politicians have tried to establish some form of nationalism, but it has never worked or lasted for long. All their efforts ended in even more tribal conflict, which is still the predominant situation in Afghanistan.

Only a complete fool like George W. Bush, with no idea of history and ethnic structures outside the USA, could ever even think of invading Afghanistan and hoping to control it. Many nations and military leaders have tried - and failed - in such enterprises before.
Even Alexander the Great, perhaps the best army commander of all times, failed in his effort to control the mountains of the area that is now Afghanistan. And he was wise enough to realise that and withdrew his forces gracefully, after having founded a city that bore his name.

During the 19th century Britain tried - and failed - twice to occupy and rule Afghanistan and took massive casualties in the process. One of their expeditions entered the country with 42,000 men, of which only one single officer - an army surgeon - returned alive to tell the tale of total defeat.
More recently the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan from the north - at Christmas 1979 - with more than 120,000 troops. After nine years of fierce and bloody guerrilla war that helped to bring the USSR to her knees and end her existence, the Russians withdrew again - with a very bloody nose and tails between their legs - in 1988.

It has always amazed me that no-one in the political and military leadership of the USA warned George W. Bush of the dangers any military action in and against Afghanistan would bring to the invading force. Especially since they should have known what was waiting for them, after they had supported massively - but in a covert operation - the Afghan Mujahiddin (freedom fighters) in their struggle against the Soviet occupation force.
Perhaps they did warn him, but Bush - in his usual combination of ignorance and self-importance - did not listen. He just made one of his arogant and bellicose statements and sent his troops into war against a people who have not been defeated by anyone in more than 3000 years.
Like a blinded bear he just walked into the unknown, into the largest bear trap on Earth.

This was in the Autumn of 2001, and ever since Afghanistan has been - once again - an occupied country. The difference is that the current occupiers - the USA, the UK, NATO and a mixed bag of smaller contingents from various countries - claim that they are there 'to establish Democracy' in Afghanistan.

For the people of Afghanistan that means nothing. They remember only too well that the USSR was there not so long ago in order 'to establish Socialism', another idea with no value or meaning for tradional Muslims who live on the technological level of the Middle Ages.

- more to follow -
(I have to get some sleep first, sorry)

Barack Obama - 44th President of the USA

Today at 12 o'clock noon local time (5 p.m. GMT) Barack Hussein Obama stood on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and was sworn in as the 44th President of the USA. According to media reports the inauguration ceremony and the related parades and celebrations brought a record crowd of more than 3 million people (1% of the entire US population) out onto the streets and boulevards of the US capital, where they were standing for up to eight hours, despite a cold wind a temperatures well below zero Celsius.

This is a happy day for the USA, as it ends the eight terrible years of the Bush administration with its massive wave of crimes, war crimes and breaches of human rights and international law.
George W. Bush, the uneducated savage war lord, former alcoholic and right-wing 'Christian' fundamentalist, walks away from all the harm and damage he has done to his own country and to many others around the world. He will spend the rest of his life in great luxury and he will never be held responsible for his unspeakable acts of crime, war, terror and torture.

And he settles the new administration of President Obama not only with two illegal wars in Asia, but also with the worst economic and financial crisis in modern history, perhaps only matched by the disastrous period of the early 1930s.

Most media declare that Barack Obama is "the first black US President", which is not correct. He might have a darker skin than many of the journalists, but Obama is not 'black', but of mixed race. Calling him an African-American is acceptable, as his father was an African from Kenya, while his mother was a white American from the Mid-West.

But race is not the issue here and has played no significant role in Barack Obama's campaign. He is in fact the first non-white US politician who built his career on facts and achievements alone, without playing the race card. This, in my opinion, is one of the reasons for his electoral success and for his universal appeal to people from all ethnic groups and walks of life.

On this important day, as his presidency begins, I wish Barack Obama the best of luck and much success in his new and difficult office. I am confident that he will make a great difference to the USA and her people. And if he is given enough time and support, he might even do additional good for the rest of the world.
But one should be realistic and not expect the impossible. Despite all the public hype and media circus Mr. Obama is not the Messiah. He is just a human being, like you are and I am.
He is highly intelligent, very well educated, eloquent, courageous and sensible, and all this will be of great help to him and his administration. But to solve the massive problems his criminal and imbecile predecessor has left behind, he will also need a lot of time, even more money and a real large portion of good luck.

Let us hope that the world will be a better place under President Obama, and that he can heal at least some of the wounds caused by the Bush administration. But whatever he does, even in two periods as President (eight years) he will never be able to restore all the confidence, credit and good will the USA lost under George W. Bush.
More than 35 years after abandoning South-Vietnam the USA are still not trusted in South East Asia, and they won't be for at least another century. The Germans are still blamed for Adolf Hitler, 64 years after he died and the Second World War ended.

Some may see it as unfair, and perhaps it is. But major diplomatic mistakes, political blunders and especially cruel and illegal wars of aggression have the habit of hanging over nations for a very long time, for many decades and even centuries. This is the legacy the Bush clan leaves to Barack Obama and the whole USA.

Nevertheless, I have to admit that for the first time in eight years I am looking West with some degree of hope and positive expectation. But it is very early days yet, and only time will tell if we can even contemplate to trust the USA again in future. As I have followed the political career of Barack Obama throughout the whole of 2008 - and predicted his election more than a year ago - I will keep an eye on his policies and decisions as President. And if you keep reading this weblog, you will stay well informed about him.

The Emerald Islander

P.S. To answer a query I received earlier today, let me point out that Barack Obama is the 44th President of the USA, but only the 43rd man to hold the office. The reason for this discrepancy in numbers is simple: Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, was elected President twice, but not in consecutive terms. Thus he is listed as the 22nd President (1885-1889) and as the 24th President (1893-1897), even though he is the same person.

Cheney indicted for Organised Criminal Activity

A Grand Jury in Texas has indicted US Vice President Richard 'Dick' Cheney (left) and the former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (below right) for "organised criminal activity", related to alleged abuse of inmates in private prisons.

The Grand Jury of Willacy County, in the Rio Grande Valley near the US-Mexico border, said that Mr. Cheney is "profiteering from depriving human beings of their liberty".

The indictment cites "a money trail of Mr. Cheney's ownership in prison-related enterprises, including the Vanguard Group", which owns an interest in private prisons in southern Texas.

According to the jury's indictment, Alberto Gonzales has "used his position to stop the investigations as to the wrong doings into assaults in county prisons".

Dick Cheney's office has declined any comment. "We have not received any indictments. I can't comment on something we have not received," Cheney's spokeswoman said.

The indictment, overseen by County District Attorney Juan Guerra, cites the case of one Gregorio De La Rosa, who died on April 26th, 2001 inside a private prison in Willacy County.

The Grand Jury wrote that it made its decision "with great sadness", but said they had "no other choice but to indict Mr. Cheney and Mr. Gonzales, because we love our country".

The indictment has not been seen by a judge yet, who could still dismiss it. But the fact that it was made, and - of all places - in Texas, the heartland of right-wing conservative Republicans, is in itself significant.

It will be interesting to follow developments in this case, which also is one of the first signs for a sea-change in public attitude towards the outgoing Bush administration, after the clear win of Barack Obama on November 4th and an increased majority for the Democrats in both Houses of the US Congress.

Given the many crimes and war crimes the Bush administration has committed, this indictment on a relatively small scale might look insignificant to some, but it could be the first step of a longer and more detailed process, aimed at dealing with the numerous breaches of national and international law that were the hallmark of the Bush administration.
With some luck George W. Bush might in future be indicted himself, as he personally authorised systematic and widespread torture of US prisoners and is responsible for many more criminal acts committed by Americans at home and abroad.

As most people's memories are short, let me just remind you that only last year Cheney's former Chief of Staff and close confidant Irve Lewis 'Scooter' Libby (right) was found guilty of "obstruction and purgery" and then sentenced to "30 months in federal prison, a fine of $ 250,000, two years of supervised release and 400 hours of community service".
Even though George W. Bush pardoned his old pal four weeks later and ordered his release from prison, the fine and community service remained and Libby is therefore still a "convicted felon", as they put it in the USA.

When he was first indicted in 2005, few people believed that the case would lead to a conviction, or even go to court. But it did.

So perhaps the criminals who occupied the White House and ruled the USA for the past eight years will not be getting away scotch-free after all... In the interest of peace and justice, let's hope so.

The Emerald Islander

John McCain's unexpected Choice

Senator John McCain, candidate of the Republican Party in this year's US presidential election, has surprised most people with the choice of his so-called 'running mate'. However, as misleading as this word - used by American politicians and media - might be, it is not for a sporting event he chose his partner, but for the White House.
'Running mate' is a popular - even though daft - substitute for the word 'Vice President'. Whoever is chosen for this position will undergo the same media scrutiny and unfair attacks from opponents as the person chosen to 'run' for President. (It is rather telling that here in Europe people 'stand' for elections, while in the USA they are 'running', as if they have to get away from something...)

Well, this entry is not really about linguistic fineries, even though language always plays a role in politics, often in various and significant ways. (Maybe I will write about the use of language in the modern political landscape at another time...)

This is about a woman called Sarah Palin. Sarah who? Yes, I did ask myself exactly that, too, when I heard the news. Even as a rather active and well-informed political analyst I had never come across the woman before, nor heard her name mentioned at all. No surprise really, as Sarah Louise Heath Palin (right), to give her full name at least once for the record, became the governor of Alaska only in December 2006.

Even though Alaska is the largest of the fifty US states by size, it only has a population of about 683,000 (a little more than Dublin City and half of the Dublin Urban Area) and hardly anything important ever happens in this remote part of the world with its subarctic climate. Most of the state is a vastness of uninhabited forests, mountain ranges and island, covered in ice and snow for many months of each year. And as about 65% of the land belongs to the federal government and is managed through its agencies, the governor has real responsibility for only a third of the state.

So, without wanting to diminish the position of the governor of Alaska, it is certainly not the most important or challenging job one could find within the political landscape of the USA. And as such also not the one that would qualify its holder easily for the overall leadership of the nation, which includes more than ever huge international responsibilities.

One has therefore to wonder why John McCain, a very experienced politician and a truly 'old hand' in Washington, chose Sarah Palin, a virtually unknown woman with extremely limited experience, as his 'running mate'. Nobody really knows, and it is not even certain if McCain made the selection himself.
Anyone 'running' for political office in the USA is now surrounded and supported by large teams of advisers, consultants and pollsters, each of which has some influence on the decisions made. It is therefore all teamwork these days, no matter who the person in front is.

During the past two months various names have been circulated within the Republican Party for the position of presumptive Vice President. John McCain met all the potential candidates and a number of them spent a weekend with him at one of his houses in Arizona. Political observers in the USA - as they do - speculated over the person most likely to be selected, but not once did the name of Sarah Palin come up. In fact, McCain only met her once before announcing his surprising choice of 'running mate'.

So why is she now the second name on the Republican ticket? What qualifies her for such a high and difficult office? And what makes her more suitable than the about a dozen people previously mentioned, most of them Republican state governors with a lot more experience?

Well, nothing really. In fact, on the basis of education, personal clout and development, political stature and the real experience of legislation, administration and leadership she is about the least qualified person I could think of. All she achieved educationally before eloping with a blue-collar oil-rig worker and part-time fisherman is a Bachelor's degree in Journalism from the University of Idaho (the state Sarah was born in before her parents moved to Alaska). She worked a short while as a sports reporter for local TV stations, but stopped that in favour of having four children and helping her husband on a fishing boat. And yes, of course, there were the beauty pageants. I almost forgot.

In 1984 the then 20-year-old Sarah Heath (pictured left) became 'Miss Wasilla', the beauty queen of her small, cold and boring home town, then a minor settlement with less than 2000 inhabitants. She moved on from that to become second in the state-wide Alaska beauty contest of the same year.
Not knowing the other contestants, it is hard to comment on this element of Sarah's career. True beauty is a rare commodity, and even more so in small communities. 'Among the blind the one-eyed is king' is a saying that comes to mind. And even the most remote places just want to have their bit of fun as well...
However, by becoming runner-up in the 'Miss Alaska' pageant, Sarah won her scholarship to the University of Idaho, also rather second-rate in the greater educational structure of the USA.

In 1992 Sarah Palin entered local politics for the Republican Party. She served four years on the town council of Wasilla, which had meanwhile doubled its size due to the oil boom. In 1996, when she was elected Mayor after a pushy and quite controversial campaign, Wasilla had almost 5000 inhabitants. (Currently the number of Wasillans is officially listed as 6715.)

After six years as Mayor, Sarah's ambitions grew and she wanted to leave small-town politics for the richer pickings of the state. In 2002 she 'ran' for the office of Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, but was beaten already in the Republican primary. Old party hands thought that she lacked the experience necessary for the job.
Four years later, after a couple of years on the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, Sarah came back with a vengeance and went right for the top job this time. In an unexpected and still controversial move she unseated the incumbent Republican governor (and ex-Senator) Frank Murowski and began to fight the massive corruption which her own party created over many years in Alaska and its rich oil and gas industry.

With less than two years in office, this work is far from finished. So if cleaning up Alaska and its corrupt and narrow-minded political landscape is really what Sarah Palin wants, she should have refused the offer made to her by John McCain. But - in all fairness - few would say 'no' to such an offer coming their way...

For the Republican Party the announcement came as much as a surprise as for the rest of us. It remains to be seen if it will do them any good in the main campaign and - more crucially - in the election in November.
So far a main argument of the McCain campaign was that their candidate was a vastly experienced and seasoned politician who could be trusted as leader and commander-in-chief. They portrayed Democratic candidate Barack Obama often as "too young and lacking experience", especially when it comes to foreign affairs.

Well, such argument will be a lot more difficult to use, now that McCain chose a "hockey mum" as his deputy and presumptive successor as head of state and commander-in-chief.
Compared with Sarah Palin the experience of Barack Obama is massive and clear for everyone to see. In contrast to her, he is also a highly educated man and has many years of practical work in a large and difficult community under his belt. And by choosing veteran Senator Joe Biden (of Delaware), the most experienced foreign affairs expert in Washington, as his 'running mate', Obama made up far more than necessary for his relative youth and lack of foreign experience.

Adding the fact that John McCain celebrated his 72nd birthday yesterday and would - if elected - be the oldest person ever to become President of the USA, the choice of Vice President is even more crucial than usually. Given that under the US Constitution the Vice President automatically succeeds the President on his death, anyone who would be Vice President to a President McCain would have to be able to step into his shoes at any time, should the situation arise.

John McCain had been looking for a proper second-in-command very carefully and for a long time. Before yesterday's surprise announcement, McCain's own personal preference was a man who is as much a maverick as he is himself. It was widely expected that the 'running mate' position might go to the veteran Senator Joseph Lieberman (right), a former Democrat and now - after being dropped by his own party for his support of the Iraq War - an 'Independent Democrat'. This could well have upset a number of staunch Republicans, many of which see McCain as a 'liberal' (whatever that means in an overall liberal country). But the two men are friends across the political divide for a long time and have in the US Senate worked together at various occasions with great success.

So why then the sudden change of mind and the surprise announcement Senator McCain made yesterday? Well, as mentioned above, nobody knows for sure. But what I hear from my personal contacts in the USA, the main reason is a man whose name you will not have heard before either.

He is Steve Schmidt, who on July 2nd, 2008 took over as the principal manager of the McCain campaign. Unknown to the general public, Schmidt is quite a familiar name in the fraternity of political consultants and analysts. He worked for years very closely with the demonic Republican spin doctor Karl Rove, who secured the White House for George W. Bush twice, the second time actually through a real election, which he won with massive lies and scare-mongering, shocking a large amount of right-wing 'Christian' fundamentalist with the prospect of 'gay marriages' if the Democrats would win the election. That was of course complete rubbish, but it scared enough of the rednecks and hill billies and made them vote for Bush.
Schmidt also worked as Counselor and spokesman for Bush's Vice President 'Dick' Cheney, who was - and still is - the most hard line war monger in the current administration and one of the main architects of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (If things had gone Cheney's way, there would by now also be a war in Iran...)

It is pretty obvious that John McCain - back in 2004 - sold his political soul to the Bush camp. In exchange for stopping his maverick attacks against his own party and government, McCain was promised a free run for the presidency in 2008 (when Bush cannot 'run' any more himself). The likes of Cheney and Rove might have hoped that McCain - suffering from skin cancer and getting quite old - would probably never be able to go all the way, but now that he does, they made sure that the former free-thinker and maverick from Arizona, who was more than once on the brink of leaving the Republican Party (the last two times in 2001 and 2004), is surrounded by enough right-wing minders and advisers.

After they failed to push the Democrats to select Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate (which would have been a great bonus for the Republicans) and Barack Obama was wise enough not to choose her as 'running mate', the right-wing strategists panicked and forced John McCain to make a clear gesture towards the fundamentalist 'Christians', rednecks, hill billies and all the other people of little brain and education who secured the election of George W. Bush in 2004.

Instead of his old friend and colleague Joe Lieberman, who is an orthodox Jew from the Eastern seaboard, McCain was cajoled by Schmidt to go for the exact opposite: a redneck woman of little brain and experience, but one who fulfills most of the requirements to appeal to that particular part of the electorate. She has no academic clout, lives 'in the wild', loves shooting, is therefore a member of the ultra-reactionary National Rifle Association, eats 'mooseburgers' (made from the meat of the moose she kills) and has a son in the Army and on the way to serve in Iraq. This is the sort of people America's brain-dead morons just love. But wait, there is more. Sarah Palin "does not believe that global warming is the result of human activity" and has vetoed that the polar bear should be put on the list of endangered (and therefore protected) species. This alone, the unbelievable amount of arrogant ignorance when it comes to the important matters of the environment, makes her a female version of George W. Bush!
Sarah Palin is - of course - also a brainwashed right-wing 'Christian' and supports the teaching of the so-called 'Intelligent Design' theory, which denies the facts of evolution and is based on the literal interpretation of the Bible as the only acceptable source for everything, including science.

Steve Schmidt and his right-wing Republican strategists are pretty certain that a woman like Sarah Palin can gain them the moron votes that John McCain would not mobilise. They also hope that by choosing a woman they might scoop up some of the radical feminist vote that supported Hillary Clinton for the sole reason of being a woman, as well as some of the Democrat blue-collar support that is not quite happy with a non-white candidate. Yes, racism in the USA is alive and kicking, and nowhere more than in the very same party that started the Civil War 147 years ago, apparently to free the negroes...

In 1984, the year young Sarah Heath became 'Miss Wasilla', the first ever woman was nominated as the vice-presidential 'running mate' of any US presidential candidate. She was Geraldine Ferraro (right), a highly intelligent, educated and experienced lawyer and politician from New York.
Walter Mondale, the Democrats' nominee, made this inspired and courageous selection, but in November of that year they lost heavily to the incumbent President Ronald Reagan (and his Vice President, the ex-CIA director George H. W. Bush, father of the current incumbent).

Now Sarah Palin (nee Heath) is heralded by right-wing media as the second woman selected as a 'running mate'. They sing her praise - even though there is little to sing - and build her up to look like a giant, just because she is a woman, unknown and a right-wing trollop. Sarah Palin is no giant. With her ignorance and her aggressive and violent lifestyle she is rather unattractive as a woman, and she is certainly no second Geraldine Ferraro!
Portraying Sarah Palin as a positive role model for women is an insult to everyone's intelligence, and in particular an affront to every feminist who fought and fights for women's rights and true equality.

Well, I am obviously no American, and thus I have no vote in November. But of course one does have opinions and preferences, even from the outside. Eight years ago, in the year 2000, when John McCain 'ran' in the Republican primaries against George W. Bush and the incumbent Vice President Al Gore - long before his rebirth as an environmentalist - tried to succeed Bill Clinton as President, I would have supported John McCain and voted for him. He was then still the clear maverick for whom decency and common sense had priority over party politics and imperialistic attitudes.
In 2004 McCain was close to start a third party, or even defect to the Democrats. There was for a while even a chance he might become John Kerry's 'running mate' on the Democratic ticket. However, something happened around this time, and John McCain was never the same again. It looks to me that he sold his political soul to Bush (as I mentioned above) and ever since he drifts more and more towards the conservative right, even supporting now positions of Bush's policy he openly attacked between 2000 and 2004.

For me the selection of Sarah Palin as his 'running mate' shows that John McCain finally has lost his maverick spirit and his independence. He is now nothing more than a willing puppet, whose strings are pulled by Steve Schmidt, just as the strings of George W. Bush were pulled by Karl Rove. So if I were American, I could no longer support McCain or vote for him. Most certainly not now, after he has hitched his wagon to a woman like Sarah Palin.
I sincerely hope that the American voters will have the right answer to the short-sighted and in many ways idiotic selection of Sarah Palin. If not, then no 'God' or anything else will help America when the inevitable downfall and disintegration comes. Let the silly woman go back to her snow, ice and wilderness, where she can play the gun-totting dominatrix. But let the USA be once again governed by people with dignity, morals, education and common sense!

The Emerald Islander

Human Rights - a Challenge for us all

There is hardly any politician in the civilised world who will not publicly commit himself (and his party) to respect, uphold and defend Human Rights. This is good, and a great achievement for many campaigning groups and organisations (of whom the most prominent is undoubtedly Amnesty International). After all, only 65 years ago the world's nations were occupied with killing and destroying each other, and two centuries ago slavery was still seen as 'normal' by the majority of political (and religious!) leaders.

However, when it comes to implement the well-spoken words into policies and action, the record of the same politicians is far less impressive. In fact some of the most vociferous supporters of Human Rights are regularly found to be liars and hypocrites, who abuse in practice the same Human Rights they seem to support and uphold in their speeches.

The list of these politicians is long, too long to be published here. But I am sure that most readers will know plenty of the names that come to my mind. So I will concentrate for today - May 15th, the day Bloggers unite in a concerted international action for Human Rights - on some of the worst cases and their words and deeds.

Undoubtedly the worst hypocrite of our time is George W. Bush, who takes every opportunity to speak about "freedom, democracy and human rights". How much would one wish that he actually means what he says. But the most powerful man alive on this planet always speaks - as Native Americans used to put it so fittingly - with a forked tongue.
Occasionally he makes public gestures, such as awarding some medal or accolade to prominent Human Rights' campaigners and sufferers from political oppression and injustice. They include the Dalai Lama (above left) and Aung San Suu Kyi (above right), who are both the legitimate leaders of their nations - Tibet and Burma - and both recipients of the Nobel Prize for Peace.

But the same George W. Bush is responsible for the worst crimes and Human Rights' abuses in modern time. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the ongoing illegal occupation of these countries by US and allied troops (for seven and five years respectively) have killed more than a million people, most of them innocent civilians. Even more were wounded, and further millions - including more than four million Iraqis - were made homeless and driven into exile as refugees: homeless, jobless, penniless and by now almost forgotten by the world. Bush is also responsible for the systematic torture of thousands of political prisoners - at Guantanamo Bay and in secret CIA prisons in foreign countries - and has personally vetoed the banning of the infamous torture technique named 'Waterboarding' by the CIA. In fact it is simulated drowning and was originally invented by the Inquisition of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.
The CIA, with Bush's personal approval, re-introduced this barbaric method some years ago. For that alone Bush and every CIA agent involved should be brought to the International Court of Justice. Sadly that is not going to happen, as the USA simply do not recognise the court.

One should also remember that the same George W. Bush, during his time as governor of Texas, had more prisoners executed than all other US states together. Nearly 200 US citizens died in six years on the orders of Governor Bush.
More than 4000 US soldiers have died meanwhile in Iraq, where he sends them as his human killing machines, and nearly 500 in Afghanistan. Additionally the lives of more than 60,000 US soldiers are blighted forever by serious wounds, many of them so severe that they will disable the wounded soldiers for life.

There is no shortage of public criticism of Bush, his henchmen and their criminal actions, but it only comes from ordinary people, including academics, writers, journalists and bloggers. Hardly any fellow politician has the guts to stand up and speak openly against the murderer, torturer and hypocrite in the White House.

As recommendable exceptions one has to mention Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez (right), Bolivia's President Evo Morales and Cuba's new leader Raul Castro - three men whose countries and people have suffered more than enough from US imperialism. They are not only very brave, honest and courageous, but also very popular with the people.
So there is, after all, some hope...

The vast majority of the world's political leaders, ministers and parliamentarians are cowardly bowing before Bush and his regime of systematic Human Rights' abusers. I suppose that some countries are simply too small and too weak to even raise their voice against the USA. But what about the strong nations?
When has one ever heard a critical word from Japan, still the second-largest economy on the planet? And how does Europe fare? The mighty European Union (EU) with meanwhile 27 member states is sadly also a gathering of hypocrites and lickspittles, following eagerly the lead provided by the White House. No-one seems to have learned any lessons from history, as if Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and a dozen other dictators of the 20th century had never existed.
In our schools children learn little enough about them and their crimes, and what they learn there are usually stereotypes and twisted half-truths. Those in power are not really interested in well-educated and informed people. Tranquil and half-witted consumers, addicted to alcohol and various other drugs, are much easier to rule and control than enlightened and active citizens.

Subsequently there is little awareness - and even less open criticism - of the world's modern dictators and oppressive regimes. Since Russia is supposed to be our friend now, we close our eyes completely on its dark sides. There are no reports in our media about the brutal war in Chechnya, where Russian troops kill civilians at will and behave even worse than the Americans in Iraq. No mentioning either of the crimes against humanity that go on inside Russia, where power is now shared between ex-KGB officers (like Prime Minister and ex-President Vladimir Putin) and a mafia of common criminals which is well-organised, well-armed and absolutely ruthless. Anyone who dares to stand in their way, or even to speak about them in public, is in mortal danger. The number of journalists, writers and Human Rights' activists that have been murdered in Russia since 1991 is growing ever larger. If it were not for Amnesty International, we would never hear and know about them.

An even crueller and more cynical regime rules China, which has become a truly hybrid country: A totalitarian Communist state with absolute power, exercised by the one existing party, but with a more and more capitalist and consumerist mentality and society. Having enough manpower, available at very low cost, China has turned itself into the biggest workshop on the planet, manufacturing now about 85% of all basic consumer goods for the industrialised countries of the West. Many western books are also printed there, by people who cannot read English, while China is still blocking and filtering news from the free world, especially online.

Currently the country is in Olympic fever, preparing for this year's games in the capital Beijing. In a very Confucianist way the Chinese leadership is using the event also to humiliate the West (and the rest of the world) and make them bow before China's new industrial power. Protesters against the brutal occupation of Tibet (since 1952) are arrested, beaten up or simply shot in the streets, while at the same time the Olympic flame is paraded around the world by the Chinese in an unprecedented way. Showing off their newly gained strength, the Chinese leadership demanded that a stick with a flame would be treated by the world's major nations like a head of state, with 2000 policemen out on duty in London, and a similar sad spectacle in Paris.
In the past the flame travelled around a host country, carried by numerous athletes. There has never been any need for police or security, and everyone along the way cheered happily. But this year things are different. China managed to turn the Olympic flame - once a symbol of free sporting contest between the youth of the world - into a symbol of hypocrisy and oppression. The fact alone that it is surrounded at all times by ten burly 'flame attendants' (a job and word that did not exist until the Chinese government created it) says enough. It is a spectacle for political reasons, and like Hitler in 1936 the Chinese leaders use the Olympic Games to show off their newly gained strength.

What is the reaction of the 'free' world? Silence, ignorance and complacency. Having a few hundred hours of sports on TV this summer seems more important to most of us than the political conditions in China, and the freedom and well-being of the people of Tibet plays almost no role in most Westerners mind. Bestowing the odd honour on the Dalai Lama now and then is nothing but poor window dressing and no help for the Tibetans at all.
Being in economical hock to China now, the West is caught in its own trap. The capitalist demand for ever cheaper products, manufactured for less and less cost, has lead to the outsourcing of our manufacturing industry. Most brands you can think of as famous, fashionable and stylish in the West have their goods produced in Chinese sweatshops for years. People still pay high western prices for them, while a pittance is paid to Chinese workers. The balance fills the pockets of the super-rich in the USA, Japan and Europe.

In order to produce all the things the world wants to buy, China is in need of huge amounts of resources and raw materials. This has lead to a new form of neo-colonialism, especially in Africa, where now China call the shots in many of the 'independent' African countries. This suits many African leaders a lot better than co-operation with the West, because China never makes any comments or demands on them regarding Human Rights. Thus China is very happy to be the main supporter and arms supplier of the militant Islamic regime in Sudan, which commits genocide on a large scale in their western province of Darfur. The western world stands stunned and gapes, shouts and makes demands. The result: no change.
If our politicians would really be interested in Human Rights and the protection of innocent people from all kinds of harm and oppression, the US Army would be in Sudan instead of Iraq. (And there is even oil in Sudan...)

Africa is a subject one could - and should - write books about. It is a vast continent, with vast resources and riches. It could be feeding itself easily, produce plenty of food for export and give its people a live of great wealth and comfort. So why is it that Africa is the poorest, least developed and most suffering of all the continents?
Once again it comes down to the will of political leaders to act or not, to uphold Human Rights or to prefer shady deals with warlords and cleptocrats instead. Due to western hypocrisy and the selfish greed and brutal methods of Africa's tribal leaders the continent is experiencing now four decades of war, instability, turmoil and economic collapse. The obvious results are famine, genocide, destruction and the complete decline of culture and society, in the absence of law, order and proper administration.
Western countries, and especially the former colonial powers, carry a lot of the responsibility for this. But like the Thirty-Years War that devastated central Europe and especially Germany in the 17th century in a similar fashion, the catastrophe has many fathers and could not happen without the co-operation of the willing soldiers on the ground. The Thirty-Years War only ended when both sides ran out of people, food and other resources, after destroying and depopulating vast areas of Germany. If no alternatives are offered by the world's leaders - and especially the leaders of powerful nations - this is most likely the fate of Africa, too. They will carry on killing each other, destroying their infrastructure and devastating their fertile lands until no one has enough power and resources left to carry on.

One cannot write about Africa at present without mentioning Zimbabwe, where President Robert Gabriel Mugabe - a Jesuit-educated Catholic - has declared total war on the entire population. Having destroyed the economy of this once rich, prosperous and very fertile country, Mugabe is now bullying his people with brute force into submission, trying to make them elect him again as President. With over 80% unemployment and meanwhile 250,000% inflation (which is a sad all-time world record, making even the massive inflation that blighted Germany in the 1920s look insignificant) Zimbabwe is on its knees. Most people spend all their time with nothing else but searching for a little bit of food, in order to survive another day.

Mugabe (pictured here in one of his Rolls Royce state cars at an official function) and his clique of criminal henchmen still live a life in luxury, while ordinary people have two choices: death by starvation or fleeing into neighbouring countries. There are now nearly four million Zimbabweans living in South Africa alone. Nevertheless, South Africa's spineless President Thabo M'beki sees "no crisis in Zimbabwe". His lack of leadership, action and humanity makes him one of the worst of the political hypocrites alive, and even his own people have now lost confidence in him and elected Jacob Zuma as the new leader of their ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC).

The list of Human Rights' abuses and hypocritical politicians is long, and so is meanwhile this text. There is so much more one could say and write, but I will draw to a close, to keep this article to a readable length. One could, however, not end a post about Human Rights without mentioning Burma. This poor and long-suffering country, almost unknown to most Westerners, is currently experiencing its probably worst period in centuries.
Devastated by the forces of cyclone 'Nargis', which wiped out whole communities and killed a very large, but still unknown number of people (the early estimates are between 70,000 and 250,000), the south-western part of Burma, including the largest city (and former capital) Rangoon, is a disater area for the past two weeks.
Despite that, and the inability to deal with a catastrophe of that dimension alone, the Burmese military junta is still refusing foreign aid workers visas and entry to their country. In an act of cruel cynicism, matched only by Stalin and Hitler, the Burmese generals went ahead with a nationwide referendum on a new constitution (which will keep them in power for the foreseeable future) while people died of injuries and starvation unattended on the roads outside the polling stations!
Once again western politicians made speeches and demands, and than backed down and left it at that. France is the only western country that suggested to invoke a special clause in the UN Charta which allows foreign intervention under exceptional circumstances, even without co-operation from the target country's government. But since no-one else picked up the idea, it died even faster than the victims of cyclone 'Nargis' in Burma.

If the leaders of the western world were serious in their many verbal commitments to freedom, democracy and Human Rights, American and international troops would not be in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in Burma, Chad, Congo, Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe. There would be no jovial business deals with the Russians, and no bowing down before the cruelties of the Chinese.
But as long as the majority of people in the western countries does not care, keeps electing the wrong people to positions of power and prefers getting drunk to taking an active part in politics, there will be no change.

No-one can change the world single-handed, but every single hand put to a good cause will help to make the world a little bit better. The challenge is there, for you, me and everyone. Let's see who takes it up, let's see if we want a decent future for this planet and the human race!

The Emerald Islander

World Bank warns of severe Food Shortages

The World Bank has announced emergency measures to tackle rising food prices around the globe.
World Bank president Robert Zoellick (right) warned that "100 million people in poor countries could be pushed deeper into poverty by spiraling prices". The crisis has already sparked recent food riots in several countries, including Haiti, the Philippines and Egypt.

The World Bank endorsed Mr. Zoellick's "new deal" action plan for a long-term boost to agricultural production. Emergency help would include an additional $ 10 million to Haiti, where several people were killed in food riots last week, and a doubling of agricultural loans to African farmers.

Robert Zoellick's proposals were endorsed by the World Bank's steering committee of finance and development ministers at a meeting in Washington.
The World Bank and its sister organisation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), held a weekend of meetings addressing the rapidly rising food and energy prices as well as the credit crisis that is upsetting global financial markets.

IMF president Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a former French Finance Minister, said last week that hundreds of thousands of people were at risk of starvation because of food shortages. Prices have risen sharply in recent months, driven by increased demand, poor weather in some countries that has ruined crops, and reduced production area, due to an increase in the use of land to grow crops for transport fuels.

According to the World Bank the price of staple crops such as wheat, rice and corn have all risen, leading to an increase in overall food prices of 83% in the last three years.
The sharp rises have led to protests and unrest in many countries, including Egypt, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, the Philippines and Indonesia. In Haiti last week's protests turned violent, leading to the deaths of five people and the fall of the government.

Restrictions on rice exports have been put in place in major producing countries such as India, China, Vietnam and Egypt. Rice importing countries such as Bangladesh, the Philippines and Afghanistan have been hit hard.

"We have to put our money where our mouth is now - literally - so that we can put food into hungry mouths," said Zoellick. "It's as stark as that."

He called for more aid to provide food to needy people in poor countries and help for small farmers. He said the World Bank was working to provide money for seeds for planting in the new season. He also urged wealthy donor countries to quickly fill the World Food Programme's estimated $ 500 million funding shortfall.

Mr. Zoellick, who was appointed to his post by George W. Bush after the previous World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz (who had earlier, as Deputy Defense Secretary, planned the illegal war against Iraq) had to resign in disgrace over a personal favours scandal forgot to mention only one point.
If the costs of only two days of US operations in Iraq would be re-directed to the World Food Programme, there would be no funding shortfall. In fact, the money the USA spend in Iraq in one month could end starvation and world poverty for good.
But in contrast to Robert Zoellick, his master G. W. Bush is not interested in people and how they live. All he cares for is money and oil.

The Emerald Islander

Five Years of Lies, Crime and Carnage

Today is the fifth anniversary of the begin of the illegal US invasion of Iraq. Immediately after George W. Bush had declared war on Iraq, a massive air attack began, with indiscriminate bombings of Iraqi cities and military targets. This air war was conducted mostly by the US Airforce, with the British Royal Air Force in a minor support role.

Only after most Iraqi cities were heavily bombed, Allied ground forces entered Iraq, encountering little resistance from the inferior and demoralised Iraqi army. And within six weeks it was all over, at least officially. Even though few people seem to remember the fact, but it is worth to point out that George W. Bush declared on May 1st, 2003 that the war was over and the Allied forces had been victorious. This declaration was spectacularly staged on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), one of the largest and most modern ships of the US Navy (pictured below).

But five years after the begin of the war US and British troops are still in Iraq, and still fighting. So is the war still going on? Then Bush lied to the world (and not for the first time) on May 1st, 2003.

However, in international law the situation looks a bit different. By declaring the war over, Bush - as head of state of the main belligerent country - made a legally binding statement, which binds not only him, but all US citizens, civilian and military, including all members of the armed forces of the United States.

After this official declaration, the USA (United States of Aggression) had no right to stay in Iraq as a fighting force. They could have stayed on as an occupational security force, but with limited powers, not much different to that of a police force. But this is not what happened. The USA did not only keep a large fighting force (currently 158,000 troops) in Iraq, including heavy battle tanks and helicopter gunships, as well as fighter and bomber aircraft, the US leadership orchestrated a second war - this time against the entire Iraqi population - after their war against Iraq's army and the ruling Baath Party was over and won.

This war is still going on, with no end in sight. And it is even more immoral and illegal than the first one, which started five years ago. Most people are not familiar with military and international law, and so they believe that the current war in Iraq is still the one that began exactly five years ago. But this is not the case. It could be, if George W. Bush had not - very prematurely, as it turned out - declared victory, "mission accomplished" and "combat operations over". Given the low intelligence of George W. Bush, he might not have been aware at the time what his declaration means in international law. However, in his position he has a large team of highly-trained and very well paid experts, advisers and lawyers, and they must surely have known better. Did they not dare telling him? Or were they all enthralled in the same false belief that by invading Iraq, destroying the army of Saddam Hussein and abolishing the Baath Party they would gain complete control of the whole country and its population?

If so, it only shows to the world how naive, inexperienced and incompetent the entire leadership of the sole remaining "super-power" really is.
Everyone knows by now that the Pentagon had absolutely no plans for the occupation, administration and post-war reconstruction of Iraq when they declared war. The then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saw no need for that, since he firmly believed that the US troops would be "welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people" and "hailed as liberators".

Subsequently the hastily established Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) under L. Paul Bremer, a former diplomat and Bush cronie, who was totally unprepared, unqualified and unsuited for the job, ran a medieval terror regime while squandering billions of dollars without proper accounts or receipts.
During the twenty months it was in charge of Iraq, each month a huge crate, containing 1 billion dollars in cash (!), was flown from the USA to Baghdad for the day-to-day operations of the CPA. Most of this money has disappeared without trace, and it has been alleged that a large part of it went right back to the USA, into the private pockets of CPA officials and US contractors working for it.

Meanwhile there have been elections and there is an official Iraqi government, complete with a President and Prime Minister, a large cabinet and a complete administration. The problem is that rival parties who hate each other have been forced into an undesired coalition, and they use their limited power predominantly for their own purposes and benefits. The general population of Iraq has no confidence in this government, nor in the newly created Iraqi army and police force, well armed and trained by the USA, but nevertheless still completely useless.
This is not entirely accidental, because as long as the Iraqi politicians and their new armed forces are incapable of ruling and controlling the country, a massive US presence can be justified by the White House. No one in the Bush administration has the slightest interest to leave Iraq, since it is needed as the assembly ground and jumping-off base for a war against Iran, which has long been planned by the Pentagon and is still a possibility, as long as Bush is in charge.

Earlier today Bush made a bullish speech at the Pentagon, praising himself and the war in Iraq. Sometimes I really think he actually believes all the lies and nonsense he tells the world, but in reality he is just a remote-controlled puppet, executing the orders he receives from his father, Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney (who is the real ruler of the USA) and others who did buy the presidency for him in December 2000. And when he makes a speech, he is repeating words and doctrines his advisers prepare for him. Only when he has to answer ad-hoc questions the real George W. Bush comes to the forefront, a bumbling fool with no idea of politics or the world, a man who is not even in proper command of the English language and often mixes up his metaphores. Once a lazy daddy's boy and alcoholic, he is now a lazy but willing puppet for the unholy alliance of right-wing religious fundamentalists, oil barons and arms manufacturers who took control of the USA in a bloodless coup d'etat in December 2000 and put him into the White House.

Those who write Bush's speeches are professionals and masters in the art of manipulation and propaganda, and even the infamous Dr. Joseph Goebbels could learn from them. In today's war anniversary speech there was only good news and praise. No mention of the "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) Saddam Hussein never had, but whose apparent existence was used by Bush as the main excuse for the war. No mention of the length of the war, which is meanwhile going on for longer than the First World War. No word either about the astronomical costs for the American taxpayers, which have recently passed the 500 billion dollar line. (for the exact amount at any time have a look at the running cost counter in the information column on the right side of my weblog)
There was of course also no mention of the human costs. Close to 4,000 US soldiers have died in Iraq so far (only 139 of them in the first war against the Iraqi army, the rest in the war against the whole Iraqi nation), and more than 60,000 have been wounded, many of them seriously and to the point that they will never again be fit for active military service.

But these are small numbers, compared with the amount of Iraqis who have lost their lives. As the USA does not even bother counting Iraqi dead and the new government in Baghdad issues only doctored statistics that makes them look good, one has to rely on independent international sources. The lowest estimate - from Britain, which is still the USA's only real ally in Iraq - puts the number of Iraqi civilians killed since March 19th, 2003 at "about 151,000".
The International Red Cross (ICRC) is more realistic and lists 654,965 Iraqi civilians as casualties of the war. But another source, the international ORB survey which has monitored events in Iraq closely from day one of the war, reports a death toll almost twice as high, with 1,220,580 Iraqi civilians and more than 14,000 members of the new Iraqi security forces (army & police) killed since March 2003.

As excuses for the war Bush presented the most ridiculous list of "reasons", well phrased, but only fooling those who were brainwashed beforehand. He said: "1) Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children. 2) Because we acted, Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms and children's prisons have been closed for good. 3) Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer invading its neighbors or attacking them with chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. 4) Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land. 5) Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and defying the will of the United Nations. 6) Because we acted, the world is better and United States of America is safer."

Well, let's just deal with these examples. Number 1 is true, because Saddam Hussein is dead, hanged by the Iraqi puppet government after being sentenced to death in an US-controlled Iraqi kangaroo court. Now it is US troops who fill Iraqi fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children. Number 2 is true as well, since torture chambers in Iraq are now operated by the CIA and the US Military Police. Number 3 - true also. Bush only forgot to mention that it was the USA who provided Saddam Hussein with those weapons when he was still their friend and ally. Number 4 is of course correct as well, since Saddam is dead and his regime gone. So now families of Palestinian suicide bombers receive their payments from Saudi Arabia, which is America's closest ally in the region. Not surprisingly, number 5 is true also, as no-fly zones no longer exist in Iraq since 2003. Instead the US Airforce is now regularly bombing civilian targets with the excuse that they are "suspected terrorist hideouts", without ever providing any evidence for the claims. And number 6 - well, Mr. Bush, there you have slipped badly. Only someone with absolutely no brain, who is also blind and deaf could believe this outrageous and truly idiotic statement.

If you want to read Bush's whole speech, you can find it through this link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080319-2.html

Thanks to Bush and his criminal administration the world is in complete economic turmoil, with the Middle East and some other areas also in political chaos. In Iraq the world's one remaining "super-power" has not been able to restore normal supply of drinking water and electricity after five years, not to mention the many other shortfalls that make life in Iraq hell for the Iraqis. No surprise that 4 million Iraqi people (which is 1/7 of the population) fled their homes and are now living as refugees, about half of them in other parts of the country, and the other half fled to foreign countries, the majority to Syria and Jordan.

And America safer? Well, perhaps for Mr. Bush and his cronies, who are constantly surrounded by dozens of body guards from the Secret Service, travel only in armoured limousines and special aeroplanes, and have the whole US security apparatus protecting them. Ordinary Americans pay for all this with their tax dollars, but in return they get ever worsening conditions in every area of their lives, from security and policing to personal freedom and the economy. Not to mention all the other problems people in the USA are only too familiar with...

This is a very sad day for the whole world, and Bush's triumphalist speech makes it even more so. In 2002 and early 2003 I attended numerous anti-war demonstrations, where thousands of Irish people made their voices and views heard, long before the illegal occupation of Iraq started. The build-up to the war was only too clear and visible for us, with many thousands of US troops and their supplies being transported to the Middle East stopping over at Shannon Airport. But no one listened to us and to the millions of people who held similar demonstrations in other countries. While always using the words freedom and democracy very liberally, neither Bush nor his willing vassals Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern paid any heed to the people. While Bush and Blair had their set agenda and just wanted this war, regardless of the costs and public opinion, our Taoiseach simply did not have the spine and moral fibre to say "no" to the use of Irish airspace and Shannon Airport. But in committing war crimes the small helpers are as guilty and responsible as the big leaders and the executers in the field.

There will come a time when the people as well as their leaders will see the Iraq war for what it is: the greatest combination of ordinary crimes, war crimes and carnage in modern times. And when the historians write their books about it, George W. Bush will find his place in eternal infamy, close to Stalin and Hitler. Sadly many more people - Iraqis and Americans alike - will be paying for his crimes and war crimes with their lives before someone will find the courage to end this war, which the US administration calls meanwhile "The Long War".

The Emerald Islander
(sad and sick, but still writing)

P.S. They say that history repeats itself for those who have not bothered learning enough of it. I found this quotation and reading it makes one think deeply and shiver...

Getting the Priorities wrong

The Irish word Taoiseach means Chief or Leader. When Ireland gained independence, this word was bestowed on the Prime Minister of the country, and it is a lot more than just his job title. The linguistic connection with the ancient Celtic kings and chieftains who ruled the island for centuries before the arrival of the Normans bridges the historic gap, the time during which the Irish nation was in bondage, the land occupied and its people oppressed.

So when we call our Prime Minister Taoiseach, it includes a degree of general reverence that goes well beyond the individual and far above party-political considerations. In ancient times the chiefs were not only ruling by force and law, they were first and foremost leading the people by personal example.

Sadly, this is no longer the case, especially not with the current Taoiseach. For years he has been trying to lead us up the political garden path, and more recently we have also learned a lot more of his private shortfalls. I have written about this already extensively and there is no need to repeat myself. What I want to highlight in this entry is another point that shows a clear lack of personal leadership in Bertie Ahern.

For many years now the Taoiseach and most of his ministers are fleeing from the country on the one day when they all should be here. As good leaders they should be with and among the people on Ireland's national day, St. Patrick's Day. Sadly cabinet ministers prefer a quick promotional trip to foreign places to joyful celebration at home.

It has been argued that the visits are valuable to promote Irish industry, trade and tourism, but I am not so sure if it is worth the bother any more. We are meanwhile a wealthy and successful country, with more money than common sense, and we need hundreds of thousands of foreign workers to fill all the jobs on the island. The amount of foreign investment is still strong, and there is not a lot for any minister to improve on by visiting a foreign city on March 17th.

With regards to tourism those trips are even more futile.
As long as the US dollar stays weak, many Americans can simply no longer afford holidays in Ireland and will go to some cheaper country, if they go at all. And in order to attract more European tourists we need only to do two things: lower our ridiculously high prices and improve the standard of our services. No ministerial visit on our own National Day can achieve that.

What really annoys me most is that for many years now our Taoiseach seems to be obliged to go to Washington D.C. on St. Patrick's Day, in order to present the President of the USA with a bowl of Irish shamrock. This was not started by Bertie Ahern, so he is only following in the footsteps of his predecessors. But it is nevertheless wrong. And it reminds me strongly of the ancient times when the subordinate rulers of vassal states had to turn up once a year at the court of the king, in order to pay homage and present him with tribute and gifts.

A bowl of Irish shamrock might not have much financial value, but it still is a symbolic tribute of homage, given to the ruler of the country that now controls more or less the whole world, both in political and economical terms. Why is this happening? I always thought that we are a free and sovereign country - at least on paper - and have no need to pay homage to anyone. At least that is the task our ancestors fought and died for, achieving freedom for 26 of our 32 counties at last in 1922.

Neither Éamon de Valera nor John Costello traveled to Washington every year with a bowl of shamrock, and I do not think Seán Lemass, Jack Lynch or Liam Cosgrave did it either. (Since I spent most of the FitzGerald and Haughey era abroad, I am not sure about the way they behaved on St. Patrick's Day.)
I think that it is about time to end this senseless custom.

When I saw this morning a photo of the Taoiseach handing a bowl of shamrock to the war criminal and torturer George W. Bush, I almost choked. I'm not happy with Bertie Ahern, his policies, practices and personal attitude, and I never voted for him or his party.
But nevertheless he is An Taoiseach, the leader of the Irish nation, and as such he can demand my basic loyalty.

Sadly he is not a true leader and gets his priorities wrong. If he were a real leader, he would spend our National Day at home and hand out bunches of shamrock to ordinary people, to the old and sick, the poor and disabled, soldiers of our Defense Forces and those who give their time and personal commitment to Ireland and to the local community. They would be grateful, happy and proud to receive such a gift from the Taoiseach, and they would deserve it.

Instead our cabinet ministers are flown around the world - at taxpayers' expense - to attend a number of more or less tasteful celebrations, and our leader pays homage to a war criminal. No time and no reason to be proud to be Irish.

The Emerald Islander

Amnesty links Ireland with US Rendition Case

Amnesty International says that the Republic of Ireland is "clearly contravening international law" by allowing its air space and territory to be used to facilitate the US practice of "extraordinary rendition". The group points out that the running of secret CIA prisons for terrorism suspects makes a mockery of international law.

In its latest report the Irish section of Amnesty states that Shannon Airport was used to refuel an aircraft that on the following day was allegedly used to move a man - named as Khaled al-Maqtari - from Iraq to Afghanistan.

The higly respected international human rights organisation says that the case of Khaled al-Maqtari sheds new light on the cruelty and illegality of the CIA programme of secret detentions and forced disappearances. He suffered multiple forms of torture and ill-treatment after his capture in Iraq in 2004. Via Baghdad's infamous Abu Ghraib prison, he was moved to secret US jails in Afghanistan and then to another unknown location, possibly in eastern Europe.

31-year-old Mr. al-Maqtari was eventually freed without charge from US custody in 2006 and returned to Yemen, where he was further detained until May 2007.

In response to the new Amnesty International report a spokesman for the Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern said that the Irish government is "totally opposed to the practice of extraordinary rendition" and has reiterated its position on numerous occasions.
The government has apparently received some specific assurances from the US authorities, including George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, that no prisoners have been transferred through Irish airports, nor would they be without the Irish government's permission.

However, US aeroplanes - both military and civilian (and including aircraft operated by the CIA) - have been landing and refueling at Shannon Airport for many years, without anyone really knowing who was on board. In the build-up to the US invasion of Iraq thousands of US troops were also ferried through Irish airspace and stopped over at Shannon. There have also been reports of small aircraft - known to belong to or operated by the CIA - landing there.

George W. Bush admitted for the first time in September 2006 that the USA are running secret jails for terrorism suspects, but the practice has gone on for much longer. And only a few days ago Bush vetoed a new US law passed by Congress that was to ban the CIA torture practice known as "waterboarding". (see my entry from March 8th) Thus Bush is personally responsible for the continuation of this cruel and inhumane practice and a promoter of secret CIA torture.

The Emerald Islander

Bush prevents Ban of "Waterboarding"

The White House has announced that George W. Bush will veto proposed legislation that would have banned American intelligence agents from using "waterboarding" and other controversial interrogation methods.

"Waterboarding" (pictured right) is a torture technique originally developed by the Spanish Inquisition during the Middle Ages and later used occasionally by some totalitarian regimes, mostly in South America.
Since George W. Bush started his "War on Terror" in 2001, the method has been adopted for interrogations of suspects by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies. Suspects are subjected to simulated drowning, which is widely criticised by many members of the US Congress.
Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, the United Nations and most countries in the world regard "waterboarding" as nothing but an invented word that camouflages brutal torture.

Last month, the US Congress sent Bush a broad intelligence authorisation bill that contained new limits on the CIA's interrogation techniques.

But the Bush administration has countered that the CIA should not be held to the US military's interrogation standards. As excuse the White House says that their "intelligence agents are dealing with terrorists who are not lawful combatants operating under traditional battlefield tactics".

For all those who still had some doubts, it is now more than clear that George W. Bush sanctions and encourages the use of torture openly and with his usual arrogance.

Sadly the majority of Americans seems to be quite ignorant of their leaders' crimes, war crimes and major human rights' abuses. And since the presidents and prime ministers of other countries have no courage to stand up and criticise the USA openly, Bush gets away with torture in the face of the whole world.

The Emerald Islander