Kurds, Iran, and Turkey, with the Duke of Herat por nada

There is a beautiful article in the  Kurdish Globe. about Iran's shelling of eastern Iraq -- what the Iraqi Kurds call "Kurdistan."  The article also describes political movements of Kurds in Turkey and Iran.

Many people who see themselves as different from the most powerful political government of their country are the most active politically.  A half-century ago, their efforts were to attempt armed resistance, and they lost except in Cuba and Bolivia.  After the Arab Spring, new forms of resistance have spring up-- forms that Martin Luther King would approve of -- in places one might not expect.  Wisconsin for one.

Powerful national governments don't like it when minorities within their borders demand liberties.  There is a tendency for powers, now-a-days, to call resisters "terrorists."  Iran, China, Columbia, and the illegitimate governments of Syria and Yemen all do.  We do too, and so does Britain.  The Uighurs in China, the PKJA in Iran, everybody except Alawaites in Syria, evrybody in Yemen, the Shining Path folks in Columbia [am I right on this one?], are all "terrorists."  Our government goes along with those dictators and agrees to list opposition groups as "terrorists," with concomitant economic consequences.  I suppose the impetus for our doing so rests with Bushco civil service appointees in our intelligence services, who, at least in Yemen, are doing  sloppy work which hurts our country.

Here are images of the parts of "Kurdistan"  described in the article.  I didn't imagine so fruitful and prosperous a place:

Suleimaniya

We can not, I think, be forgiven everything.

Erbil

  Indistinguishable from houses built in Mililani, Oahu, 10 years ago.

 We used to have lots of cranes in Honolulu.  Indeed, the crane was our state bird, for a while.  Now they have all flown away.  Looks as if they flew to Erbil, along with lots of our money. I wish I understood international diplomacy better than I do.

 To show the close proximity to Turkey, Syria, and Iran.

_________________________________

Herat, which is next to Iran on the other side, is the richest, best-run, most honest province in Afghanistan.  It is also, sorry to say, committed to the strictest form of Sharia. Don't know if proximity is relevant.  I have read that six truckloads of cash with many more of arms were rushed from Iran to Herat when Ishmail Kahn, "the Duke of Herat" was at war with the Taliban.  

Kahn and Karzai aren't friends (he sends no tax money to the central government), so I don't suppose we can be his friend, but I surely like him better than I like Karzai in spite of draconian religion.  Here are images:

 This image is from a favored blog.  See it if you love pics.

The Lonely Centrist

COMMENTS ON GOVERNMENT BY AN ENDANGERED SPECIES, A POLITICAL CENTRIST

THE MODEL

One way of understanding the endless wars waged between those who advocate different styles of governing (governance) is to conceptualize all the arguments as manifestations of a basic struggle between competitive and cooperative styles of governance.  Seen from a Psychological view, humans compete with each other and cooperate with each other.  Humans’ band together to create governments.   These governments compete and cooperate with each other.  Governments regulate competition and cooperation between the governed.  

The extreme of cooperative government is the forced cooperation of dictatorship.  In so far as the dictator is successful, those he rules cooperate with him and each other by obedience to the ruler's rules.  The extreme of competitive government, or non-government, is anarchy.  There are no rules and regulations.  The desires, skills, and wills of individuals rule.

Democratic capitalism is a compromise between competitiveness and cooperation with a tendency to lean towards favoring competition in contrast to democratic socialism which combines competition and cooperation with a greater emphasis on cooperation.

THE APPLICATIONS

A.     Politics

Politics in these two styles of governments is the art of finding solutions to real problems facing the country and creating political alternatives that protect the synergy between competition and cooperation.

Competition leading to monopoly which destroys competition is a classic example of an economic event in which cooperation (government regulation) helps maintain competition.  Government regulation, a form of forced cooperation, can support competition or stifle it as exemplified by large government bureaucracies regulating imperiously, efficiently and stupidly.

My centrist view is based on the model I have just discussed and supports cooperation (frequently government intervention) which enhances competition and competition (often private enterprise) which creatively enhances the welfare of the whole country by providing wealth accessible through jobs, taxes and the spread of ideas. 

When Romney and Gingrich turned against the Universal Mandate that all Americans must participate in health care, they undermined an interesting experiment in combining government cooperation, the demand that all cooperate by enrolling in health insurance, with insurance companies competing for the client.  With no Universal Mandate, universal healthcare, which is inevitable, will be supplied by a large inefficient government bureaucracy.  As a centrist, who believes in neither pro government nor anti-government rhetoric, I am able to look at political behavior through a lens which magnifies the results of actions rather than the ideological purity of actions. 

Santorum’s religious emphasis, if realized, would stifle competition as it is stifled in countries with no separation of church and state.  Ron Paul’s libertarian views, if realized, would remove protection for the 50% of the population with average intelligence and below from the wiles of the 50% of the population with above average intelligence.  Obama’s fascination with the power of government regulation does competition a disservice. 

What is a centrist to do in an election year when so much is polarized?  I will vote for Obama because the right and the left see him as soft.  This suggests, as I believe is actually true, that Obama neither supports endless expansion of government bureaucracy to the detriment of competition or the destruction of government to the detriment of those less gifted at competing in a modern capitalist society.  I believe that of all the candidates, Obama will be the most skill full at muddling through the middle. 

B.      Endangered Species

One creative solution to protecting endangered species with a balance of cooperation and competition was created by a Texas landowner.  The landowner imported endangered animals and created an animal sanctuary on land that was similar to the animals’ original homes in Africa.

 Finances were provided by allowing hunters to hunt for a fee.  Twenty percent of the animals were sacrificed to hunting for the survival of the whole community of animals.  This is a superb example of cooperation (the animals sanctuary) together with competition (hunting for a price) combining to address an environmental problem.  Hawaiian land owners who rent out land, kept pristine, for weddings or other social events is another good example of cooperation (keeping the lands pristine) combined with competition (renting out the lands for special occasions) to deal with an environmental issue (over development of natural resources, in this case land).

Unfortunately, an ideologist who hopes she can force death to cooperate is suing to stop the killing of the animals and thereby destroying the financial resources needed to keep the animal sanctuary going.  This is an example of a naive idealist forcing cooperation and eliminating competition in a destructive way. 

C.      A Centrists Looks at Gender Relationships

The movie, Separation, documents the effects of a cultural attempt to force cooperation between the two genders by subordinating females.  The hooded garments that symbolize female subordination and forced cooperation inform the movie with a visual intensity.  The movie also documents the not so underground system of bribery (competition) referred to in the movie as a relic of a tribal system of blood money.  Bribery provides a context where the inequality between the sexes can be addressed to some degree by a woman with money. 

The movie shows how when competition is restricted by cultural values, competition goes underground and reemerges as bribery or worse.  The end of the movie illustrates the emergence of a highly destructive competition which ignores the demands of the culture for forced cooperation and subordination of self by women.

D.     A Centrists Looks at American Marriage

A good marriage in America involves an honest realization and discussion of the inevitable competition for resources of love, attention and material goods.  This realization and discussion must be combined with the willingness to find cooperative solutions to the openly acknowledged competition.  Solutions may be as simple as taking turns, trading resources or as complex as both parties exploring childhood influences on their emotional responses. 

Bad marriages deny the reality of competition for resources: the partners compete in covert ways for resources.  Such covert competition can vary from moral persuasion to violence and the threat of violence. 

The Lonely Centrist

Anticipating consequences of War with Iran

The New York Times, today:

Western powers “know that Iran is not after nuclear weapons, but their intention of creating such a commotion is to stonewall Iran’s progress and damage Iran’s reputation among Muslim countries,” Mr.[Ali] Larijani,, a former chief nuclear negotiator, was quoted as saying.  

Mr. Larijani, a philosopher and politician, is one of the two representatives of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to the Iranian Security Council,  In his post as secretary he effectively functioned as the top negotiator on issues of national security, including Iran's nuclear program.

Well, perhaps we in the West are interested in stonewalling Iran’s progress and damaging its reputation. We have been at it for 60 years.  The Iran-Pakistan Pipeline controversy shows that we still are, I’m saddened to say.  See, e.g., my March 6, 2012, post in The Newspaper Spoon.

More important, “Israeli officials” are quoted by the Times as urging a “credible military option,” which seems merely being to drop a few bombs on Iran, as Israel did on Syria, with no adverse consequence except, er, a war with Hezbollah and bombs raining down on Israel’s population (and, by the way, substantial harm to Lebanon, but who cares?).

It seems to me that the burden on the Bomb-Dropper advocate is to detail the worst-case consequences of the dropping.  The silence on that subject drowns out all other comment.

Saddam Hussein thought that he could win a quick victory over Iran when he invaded in 1980.  Iran was in confusion after the overthrow of the Sash.  The war  lasted eight years, cost half-a-million dead and many more wounded, wrecked both countries’ economy, and did not result in the hoped-for border changes.

Images of the Iraq-Iran War:

Bushco thought that a War with Iraq would be a “walk in the park"; that “Shock and Awe”  -- dropping more than a few bombs -- would quickly bring the enemy to its knees. Our present national debt and the occupants of Walter Reed Hospital are a continuing tribute to that folly.  See the February 5, 2012, post in The Newspaper Spoon.

President Obama knows some of the consequences of Bombing Iran.  I’m sure his intelligence services  and the Israeli counterparts have detailed worst-case consequences.  

Before the Bombs drop, those consequences and the consequences of “allowing" Iran to get the Bomb must be made public so the American public, the Israeli public, and the Western, Azerbaijani, Russian, Chinese, Afghan, Pakistani publics can know, too.  Dropping Bombs is now a World concern, not just a concern of one or three national interests.  Wouldn’t the Kazakhs be affected?  Of course they would.  The Brazilians too?  Show my how they wouldn’t.

”We have a mighty country and a strong army,” Mr.[Benjamin] Netanyahu said after he returned Wednesday. “We have many friends who stand by our side and who will stand by our side at all times.”

Show me the consequences," I say, "Then perhaps I'll stand with you."

So say I.  How say you?


For pictures, maps, Turkish oil wrestling, and Kazakh horse wrestling . . .

Bomb Iran? And Pakistan and Germany, too (addendum)

This editorial in The Nation, (pk) today is important and timely.  The world seems to be polarizing, and Pakistan is one of the focal points.   The editorial relates directly to last night's blot post.

 I sincerely hope for good relations with Iran in the near future, and an end to our sanctions against it.   

Think how unthinkable were good relations, in my lifetime, with Germany, Japan,  Russia, China, and North Vietnam.  Remember how we hated the Krauts, the Japs (spellcheck won't even recognize "Jap", now), the Ditrty Commie Pinko Rats, the Chicago Seven, Hippies, Yippies -- all the Not-Us.  Now the Ragheads, the Muslims of all stripes.   Think how our views of those countries and people have changed.  Views of Iran can change, too, with our sensible President.

By: Javid Husain | March 06, 2012 |

The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was quite explicit in her warning before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations last week that the implementation of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project would trigger the US sanctions under the Iran Sanctions Act. This Act imposes certain specified sanctions against any foreign (non-US) company, which invests more than $20 million in the oil and gas sector in Iran. This warning must be seen in the context of the current animosity between Iran and the US, and Washington’s growing pressure on Tehran because of its nuclear programme. The root causes of the current tensions between the US and Iran can be traced to a number of factors.

First and foremost, Washington views Iran as a major obstacle, indeed a threat, to the realisation of its strategic objectives in the Middle East, especially the Persian Gulf region. The control over the oil and gas resources of the Persian Gulf region is a major US strategic objective, the other being the security of Israel as an ally and an outpost of the West in the region. Obviously, the US wants pliant states in the Persian Gulf region for safeguarding its interests. The attitude of defiance exhibited by Iran towards the US, since the advent of the Islamic Revolution, set in motion a process that has resulted in the prevailing enmity between the two countries. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s steadfast support to the Palestinian cause and its opposition to Israel are seen by Washington and Tel Aviv as serious threats to the Jewish state’s existence. In essence, Washington considers the Islamic Revolution as a threat to the US-friendly order in the Middle East. Therefore, it has imposed unilateral sanctions and taken a number of other steps to contain Iran and to bring about a change of regime in the country.

The US-Iran tensions have been aggravated by the serious differences between them on Iran’s nuclear programme. The US and other Western countries have essentially demanded of Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme because they consider it as a precursor to the development of nuclear weapons. Iran, while insisting on its right to carry out uranium enrichment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a party, has categorically stated that its nuclear programme is peaceful in character and that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. However, these declarations have not satisfied the Western countries. Consequently, the UN Security Council with the Western backing has imposed a number of sanctions on Iran which were weakened considerably thanks to the efforts of Russia and China.

Additionally, the US has imposed its own sanctions because of its concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme, the latest ones barring financial dealings with the Central Bank of Iran to curtail Tehran’s oil and gas exports. It is the US hope that these economic sanctions would persuade Iran to reconsider its nuclear programme to bring it in line with the Western demands. But the US and Israel have not ruled out the possibility of air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent it from the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

As a demonstration of the US seriousness on the subject, President Barack Obama stated categorically on March 4 in a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that he would not hesitate to use force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. However, despite the Israeli pressure for an early air strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the US believes that diplomacy backed by sanctions still has a chance to overcome the current impasse on the Iranian nuclear issue. It is also cognisant of the dangerous strategic, political and economic consequences of air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, especially in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Palestine. The US economy that is registering a fragile recovery may relapse into a severe recession or even a depression if the oil prices shoot up as a result of the air strikes on Iran. Therefore, Obama in his speech at the meeting of AIPAC also cautioned against “loose talk of war” with Iran. The Economist magazine in its issue of February 25-March 2 concluded that just now the change in Iran’s nuclear programme “is more likely to come about through sanctions and diplomacy than war.” It is also interesting to note that despite the concerns of the Arab countries about Iran’s nuclear programme, the Jordanian Prime Minister has warned that any military action against Iran because of its nuclear activities would be “disastrous” for the whole of the Middle East. Earlier, the Russian Foreign Minister had voiced similar views.

The US pressure on Pakistan to forego the Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline project must be viewed in the context of the foregoing. Its real purpose is to ratchet up pressure on Iran more than anything else. But if we concede the US demand, it would have serious negative consequences for Pakistan, which is facing a virtual energy crisis because of electricity and gas shortages. The alternative project that would bring gas through pipeline from Turkmenistan (TAPI) would not be feasible in the near future because of the continuing armed conflict in Afghanistan.

Pakistan and Iran signed the Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement (GSPA) in June 2009. The Government of Pakistan has already determined that the imported natural gas from Iran would provide the cheapest and most suitable fuel for power generation. It has been estimated that 750 mmcfd gas would help generate around 4,000MW of electricity, besides providing job opportunities in the backward areas of Balochistan and Sindh. Iran has already laid the 56-inch diameter pipeline for a distance of 900 km from Assaluyeh to Iran Shehr. The remaining 200 km to bring the pipeline to the Pakistani border are likely to be completed in the next two years. Pakistan, on its part, is planning to complete its segment of the pipeline by the end of 2014.

From the economic point of view, it makes eminent sense for Pakistan to complete the Iran-Pakistan pipeline project as early as possible to meet its fast-growing energy requirements. The government’s decision to stand firm on this project despite the US pressure is commendable and must be welcomed. While we must make a sincere effort to reconcile our differences with the US on different issues with a view to developing friendly relations with it, we cannot allow Washington to dictate to us, especially on issues of vital strategic and economic importance. The Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project is too important for us strategically, politically and economically to be discarded at the behest of the US. We must, therefore, use different diplomatic channels to convey our point of view on the issue appropriately to the US. It is ironical that while the US is pushing us to strengthen our economic and commercial links with India, it should be pressurising us to distance ourselves from our important neighbour to the west for the sake of its own perceived interests!

Pakistan’s long-term interests lie in strengthening its friendly ties and cooperation with Iran rather than otherwise. In view of the past US practice of subjecting us to sanctions and pressures for its own designs, it would be prudent on our part to reduce our economic and military dependence on it. The situation also calls for intensified efforts on our part to enhance self-reliance and strengthen relations with China and Russia both of which may be interested in financing the IP gas pipeline.

    The writer is a retired ambassador.

    Email: javid.husain@gamil.com