Iraq’s Problem in Its Constitution not the Referendum!
I have not written on the political situation in Iraq for many months because I believe it to be futile as Iraq has no short or medium term political future…
Who is the Terrorist in Syria?
I shall not attempt to find a political definition for terrorism lest I end up in the middle of a dispute between those who call a ‘terrorist’ a fighter…
Aggression Case against Tony Blair and others – SECOND UPDATE
The Divisional Court held on 31 July 2017 that Aggression is not a crime under the law of the UK, rejecting an application for issue of Summons against Tony Blair…
This is the story behind the court case on Aggression in invading Iraq in 2003 against Tony Blair and others in the High Court in London.
Background I started my life as an electrical/electronics engineer having studied at Baghdad University and specialised in Microwave Communication at UCL. I left Iraq in 1980 for political reasons. This…
Realignment in British Politics – 1
Britain is witnessing a real shake up of its political system that may lead to the greatest realignment of its internal politics in generations. There are two indicators to justify such a statement – the Referendum on Europe and the intended Bill of Rights mentioned in the Queen’s speech. Today I will deal with the Referendum issue.
A long time has passed since the UK joined the Common Market (the predecessor of the EU) after the demise of de Gaulle and removal of his veto. The new generation of Brits know very little about life in the turbulent years between 1967 and 1975. The current prosperity is taken for granted and no one can assert whether or not the UK would have been better off had it stayed outside the EU. Economics is not a precise science and thus just as it was impossible in 1973 to determine the pros and cons of joining, it is equally impossible today to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU. (more…)
The audacious US
Is it not audacious of the US, which has not only refused to recognized the ICC but had in fact legislated to punish anyone or State cooperating with the Court,…
Putin’s Dilemma
Mr. Putin, his Foreign Minister and most of his foreign affairs advisors were at some time members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The presumption must be that they believed then in the ideals of Marx – in socialism, class struggle, and other practical policies that underlined the policies and practices of the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. It is healthier to believe that they were Socialists who converted to Capitalism. The alternative would make them hypocrites which would indeed make the future of Russia look very bleak.
But switching ideology is a dangerous step with unpredictable consequences. Converts of this type, in attempting to repent their early perceived mistakes, may become so adherent to the new ideology that they get blinded to realities and turn into fanatics. We have examples of Arab communists who converted and became worse imperialists than the Neocons.
UN Security Council Usurping International Law
Many states contracted post WWII to set up the United Nations in order to settle disputes among nations; eliminate wars and maintain peace, order and cooperation amongst them. The Charter that was adopted set out the terms of that contract between states and identified the remit of the Security Council to implement these terms. Although the victors of WWII with the veto powers wanted to ensure that their activities were not shackled by real judicial scrutiny and thus the International Court of Justice was not given such authority, it remained true to say that at no place in the Charter was there any intention to give the Security Council any judicial authority. Furthermore, respecting the sovereignty of member states constituted the heart of the charter, which entailed that the Security Council was prevented from intervening in the internal affairs of any member state. To a large extent, these realties were maintained during the Cold War era.
The Confusion in Understanding Political Islam
The problem with most writings on the conflict in the Muslim world today revolves around two facts. Firstly, it is almost impossible to find Muslim writers who have enough objectivity to present faithfully what is happening to enable the reader to make his own conclusion. Secondly, and invariably, the best of the Orientalists lack a true understanding of political Islam. It is not surprising in view of the above two facts that people in the world find it difficult to follow and understand what is happening in the Muslim/Arab world today.
I do not intend to take the reader through the development of political Islam as no such matter could be covered in one article or even one book. However, I would like to clarify a few matters for the independent mind to enable him to make a better understanding of what is happening.
Is As-Sistani Revealing Lack of Wisdom?
Ali As-Sistani, the most influential Shi’a cleric, recently issued one of the most controversial and contentious Fatwas that may have far more repercussions than ever thought. Although several attempts have since been made to moderate the language and purpose of that Fatwa, the damage had already been done. The ‘Jihad Fatwa’ called on able Shi’a men to take arms and fight the attack of Sunni Selafis against the Government in advancing from Mousil south towards Baghdad. The Fatwa has created a polarization the like of which Iraq has never experienced before as waves of Shi’a mob took arms and marched through cities in Iraq intimidating Sunnis. But in order to understand the value of the Fatwa and its possible repercussion, a few words need to be said about the meaning of Shi’a hierarchy.