The Democracy Fetish Takes One More Hit

This time in Zimbabwe. The Geek always expected one of two outcomes for the practice of democracy in the former British colony of South Rhodesia. One would be the death of any challenger to the one man rule of the post-colonial regime, Robert Mugabe. The other would be the prudent withdrawal of the challenger before the bullet hit the back of his neck.

Events went the second way as Morgan Tsvangirai showed discretion is better than heroism.

More importantly, the course of the past two months in Zimbabwe demonstrated once again that democracy is more, much more than the mere casting of ballots. To be real, a democratic country must be under a regime that is willing to accept the peaceful transition of power from the incumbent to the opposition.

As in other nations, African included, the obscene behavior of Robert Mugabe shows that the country he has driven to bankruptcy, starvation, mass emigration and episodic violence is not one which meets the single, basic criterion for democracy. Mugabe states that "God" placed him in power and only the deity can remove him.

Kind of a strange perversion of the ancient Latin cliche, "Vox populi. Vox dei."

The collapse of even the thin charade of democracy in Zimbabwe under the boots of Mugabe's Patriotic League of Thugs and Terrorists raises another question. One that is of supreme import for the countries bordering Zimbabwe. All of which at least pretend to be democratic republics.

What are they going to do about the dictator in their midst?

Admittedly, Mugabe has long enjoyed a high level of prestige among the sub-Saharan African population for his leadership of the long insurgency against the White minority regime of Rhodesia following Ian Smith's 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence. The resulting war was very long, very nasty and ultimately won by the insurgents through the progressive reduction of the White population and government's political will and material capacity to continue the war.

Importantly, the Black majority forces did not win because of any particular political or military brilliance on the part of Mugabe. He was a factor in the Black success, but only one among many. Other factors including the economic sanctions imposed by the Commonwealth, European and North American nations were more important. Also more important than Mugabe was the constant and ready support offered by surrounding states.

Mugabe was a hero by convention only. His personal contribution to the toppling of the White minority government was (and is) greatly magnified.

Mugabe's actions of recent years have been minimalised by the very same people and governments which have boosted his reputation as the Hero of the Liberation. Starting with the politically popular but economically and nationally self-destructive act of "redistributing" land owned and operated to the national advantage by White farmers, and continuing through the years of systematic repression of any emergent opposition or even criticism, Mugabe seemed to have been bent upon two interlocking goals: maintaining his personal power and status, destroying Zimbabwe.

He has succeeded in both as of today. He is in power. He is the paramount chief. And, Zimbabwe is a complete wreck. A collapsing state filled with corpses, starvation and hopelessness.

Some hero.

When are the other folks in the neighborhood going to notice? When will the governments of South Africa, Mozambique, Zambia, Botswana individually or collectively say, "Enough is enough!"

Zambia had "free and fair" elections two years ago. Or so says the CIA which the Geek has found generally reliable on such matters. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/za.html

South Africa, which has borne much of the violence and economic meltdown refugee flood, is widely hailed as a pillar of democracy. It's chief of state, Thabo Mbeki, has been heavily and ineffectually involved in trying to broker an end to the chaos in Zimbabwe. Is it not time for South Africa to take the gloves off and let the aged autocrat next door know that the time for graceful retirement is now?

Mozambique underwent what CIA terms "a delicate transition" in December 2004 which allowed the country to continue sound economic policies and keep on rebuilding a nation shattered by decades of insurgency. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mz.html President Guebuza should think long and hard about the impact of a continuation of the refugee flow from Zimbabwe as well as his country's diplomatic leverage.

As much as South Africa and much more than Zambia, Mozambique has the leverage necessary to put a convincing argument before Mugabe that he should step down. Move out of the way before the turbulence in Zimbabwe endangers the neighbors even more than it has already.

It would be naive in the extreme to expect the African Union to exercise a constructive role in the Zimbabwe chaos considering that organisation's record to date with failing states across the continent. The African Union, not unlike its nomenclatural predecessor the Organisation of African States, is long on slogans, demands against the West and glitzy top-dollar diplomatic extravaganzas.

The AU, like the OAS, is very short on positive results for all its rhetoric, demands and heads-of-state meeting in upscale conflabs.

What about the United Nations? Secretary of State Rice has stated the US intends to put the implosion of Zimbabwe on the UN Security Council Agenda next week. Her demarche has already been overtaken by events. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7601194

United States, which is this month's president of the Security Council, has accused Mugabe of turning Zimbabwe into a failed state that threatens its residents and the stability of southern Africa.
When asked whether she thought the United Nations was prepared to go beyond passing a resolution on Zimbabwe, Rice said, "We believe that unless the Security Council acts, it stands to lose credibility."

Mugabe has already spent weeks (well, years actually) blaming all of his country's problems on the "colonial" powers in which he (no surprise here) includes the United States along with the United Kingdom. It's no stretch to add France to the list of offenders.

It must be remembered that both Russia and China tend to oppose the Security Council mixing itself up in what might be seen as the domestic political problems of any member state. The reasons are obvious. Russia and China face violent internal political unrest.

South Africa also opposes the Security Council move. Rightly. The neighbors, members of the SADC, have been complicit in the collapse of Zimbabwe. The same neighbors have the duty--and the self-interest involvement--to end the chaos and restore at least a semblance of democratic order.

Starvation is a part of life for millions of people in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has made that fact come into existence. Starving people are desperate people.

You don't need a PhD to figure that one out.

The borders of the neighborhood are porous. At best. In order to protect themselves, their less than robust governments, economies, societies, neighboring countries--South Africa and Mozambique in particular--have to intervene with diplomacy, aid and, if all else fails, force.

Mugabe has said that only God will remove him from power. He might consider that God can have many faces and take many forms.

Muslims Demand UN Gag Order--And Get It!

The Egyptian representative to the UN Human Rights Council demanded and received a gag order from the Council's President, Doru Romulus Costea. The Egyptian with the support of other Islamic states, most importantly Iran and Pakistan, demanded that Islamic law, the Sharia, be exempt from any discussion at the Council's meetings. Costea agreed.

The cause of this latest invocation of the sacrosanct nature of a feature of Islam?

Two human rights groups wanted to remark on the incompatibility of sharia with the human rights of women.

This was enough to outrage the Egyptian. And the Pakistani. And the Iranian.

These men of such self-evidently gentle and fragile sensibilities are not bothered by violence directed against women--provided the violence, the stonings, the "honor killings," the domestic beatings, the spousal rape are in keeping with sharia.

The donnybrook which provoked the gag order is well covered on the following sites. Check them out. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C19%5Cstory_19-6-2008_pg7_6; http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021461.php or from the folks who started it, http://www.iheu.org/node/3192

You might recall that a Pakistani National Assembly member has called for some sort of international death penalty for the hideous offense of mocking Mohammad. The Pakistani ambassadors have made threatening statements in both Denmark and Norway. The Pakistani government has sent a high level delegation to lean on the European Union. (All of these were covered in recent previous posts.)

Pakistan has now shown its commitment to protecting Islam by actually sentencing a man to death for blasphemy. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/18/asia/AS-GEN-Pakistan-Blasphemy.php. Gotta be careful about dissin' the Prophet in Pak Land.

The Egyptian represents a country which is so given to assuring respect for all religions that the bookstores in Cairo and elsewhere are filled with the most vile anti-Judaism the perverted mind can create. (Again as explicated in a previous post.)

Affairs are so rotten at the old Human Rights Council that the outgoing Human Rights Commissioner, Louise Arbour (a former Canadian judge), warned that the actions of the Council threaten the "right of free expression." http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/18/asia/AS-GEN-Pakistan-Blasphemy.php While the Arbour comment didn't get much traction in the msm it got some overseas. http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINL1856437520080618?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true.

How right the lady is!

She could have gone much further though. She could have reminded the world--and the Islamists--that the term "human" applies to all of us homo sapiens, female as well as male, non-Muslim as well as Muslim. She could have reminded the overly sensitive folks in Egypt, or Iran, or Pakistan, or even at the Organization of the Islamic Conference, that there are basic rights that have not only been recognised by various UN covenants but have been accepted generally by the human race--outside of Islamists and other backward looking, fearful sorts.

It is absolutely wrong and completely unjustifiable to kill, genitally mutilate or beat women.

It is absolutely wrong and completely unjustifiable to commit suicide bombings of civilian targets.

Or, to slit the throats of journalists and others with whom you take exception.

Or, to stifle full, free and open inquiry, thought and expression.

If a conflict exists between the words of sharia and the rights of all humans--humans trump sharia each and every time.

How Much Is Enough?

How much government is enough?

The question was raised a few days ago by a comment in one of the early Reuters articles covering the defeat in Ireland of the proposed amendments to the European Union's organic document. It was the most insightful comment encountered as the Geek has tried to keep up with the flood following the triumph of the "No's."

The forty-six year old woman said, (as far as the Geek can remember--he keeps berating himself for not having saved the link and now can't find it) "We have government enough as it is. Why would we want another layer?"

The quick answer is this. "Because the several interlocking elites of politics, business, academia, and journalism think it would be good for you."

Usually the Geek is sceptical of quick or easy answers to hard questions, but in this case he is more than willing to make an exception. His exception is based on the reactions given by the chattering classes of Europe and elsewhere to the voice of the Irish public.

The UK is home to a very interesting newsletter called Spiked. In American terms its editorial line might best be characterised as "left wing libertarian." If one wants to be spared the task of clicking though innumerable British, Irish and European sites, take a quick run over to Spiked for this week. Frank Furedi's piece is an excellent summary of the state of rhetorical play since the referendum. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/5347/

Giving an additional emphasis to the fear and loathing of ordinary people felt so deeply by members of the several elites subsumed under the "chattering class" rubric is a fine view by an expat Irishman. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/5348/.

Underscoring the utter contempt for the "no" voting Irish citizens is a third story. This one is by a teacher of political science and government living in London with the suspiciously Irish name of Kevin Rooney. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/5349/.

It is telling that Ireland alone out of the twenty-seven countries comprising the EU put the matter to the decision of the public rather than leaving it in the far more manageable hands of the local parliament. More telling is the total refusal of governments to stop and give due regard to what might undergird the Irish rejection.

The governments, the leaders including those of France, the UK and Germany as well as the business, media and academic establishments from the edge of the Irish Sea eastward have excoriated the Irish as a collection of brain dead, xenophobic, reactionary, provincial cretins who are not only short-sighted and fear-ridden but also ungrateful. The name-callers are all, in principle at least, committed to the notion of democracy. They--leaders, governments, pundits, professors and business wallahs--profess to believe fully that the will of the people is supreme.

Yeah. Right. Sure they do.

Of course for the Eurocrats and other High Minded Internationalists, the Irish defeat is a replay on a much smaller scale of what happened in 2005. Back then it was the uneducated, xenophobic, reactionary, fearmongering, provincial populations of France and the Netherlands who voted "no" to the EU's new constitution.

The Eurocrats and other High Minded Internationalists went back to work and regenerated the defeated constitution as a series of amendments. The Geek has read a (small) portion of the nearly three hundred pages of nearly opaque bureaucratise (OK, the Geekmo admits that he is a masochist--but a limited one.) The damn thing made no sense at all.

Except in one major area.

That area?

Simple. With the amendments the European Union would look, act and in most salient respects become a supra-national government.

That was what made the Irish woman's comment so trenchant. The amended constitution would impose another level of government on the heads and shoulders of the already (arguably) over-governed population.

The strongest defense offered on behalf of the amendments and the new structures they would call into existence is taken straight from Jeremy Bentham. The EU would be better able to provide "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Wow! Sounds wonderful. "The greatest good for the greatest number."

Who could be against that?

No one. At least in principle.

Until the critical question is posed.

Who decides? That's the key question. That's the weak point of Utilitarianism. That's the frail center of the argument advanced by the Eurocrats in favor of the new constitution.

Who decides?

That question also lets everyone know why the several interlocking elites of politics, business, academia and media so strongly support not only the centralising of power in the EU but do so everywhere.

Elites of whatsoever nature are in the power game. Every elite regardless of its specific type--monetary, intellectual, religious--is a political entity, seeking the maintenance and aggregation of power over those people who are non-elite.

Elites pursue power by asserting that they have the key to achieving the "greatest good for the greatest number." Often, even nearly always, the key seems to be one of limiting the indivdual's right to decide, to choose, to risk, to be autonomous. To be free.

To put it simply the elites--those who have their meaty fists around the levers of power and influence--do not trust, do not like and frankly often resent the presence of the hoi polloi. (Unless, of course, the common herd merely hears and obeys the desires of the Older and Wiser, the Best and the Brightest.)

And why shouldn't we listen and heed? After all, the elite is richer than the rest of us. It's better educated than the rest of us. Has access to airwaves and print that the rest of us lack. It's even been democratically elected by the rest of us.

Why shouldn't we hear and obey? The movers, shakers, power brokers and opinion molders have our best interests at heart. They know what is the greatest good. They know who is the greatest number.

Why shouldn't we dumbly submit to our betters?

The Irish woman knew why. Her statement--and her question is one we should all ponder. Wherever we live.

One More Bitch Session of the Old OIC

Lord love a duck! The Organisation of the Islamic Conference is having yet one more whine, moan, bitch and threaten meeting. This one is in Uganda, former home of the noted humanitarian and political reformer, Idi Amin. Once again the OIC Secretary General gave the keynote speech.

In past years the Geek wouldn't have done more than briefly glance at the festivities. For most of the OIC's thirty plus previous meetings that was all he did. Glance, yawn, perhaps chortle at a particularly stupid comment.

Since the OIC and many of its member nations to say nothing of Islamic activists and their non-Muslim apologists have invented the thought-crime they term "Islamophobia," the Geek has paid much attention to the sophistries of the OIC regarding "responsible free speech."

Let's listen in to the SecGen courtesy of http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/topic_detail.asp?t_id=1144. We join the speech already in progress.

Honourable Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, In face of the adverse and mounting phenomenon of Islamophobia in the West, we placed this issue at the top of our priorities and preoccupations, while conducting a large-scale world-wide effort to confront it at four levels: First: The official level of countries and governments of the West, where this phenomenon is rampant and wide-spread. We have exhorted the officials in these countries to assume their inherent legal responsibilities in order to stem this illegal trend in conformity with international and domestic laws which prohibit discrimination based on incitement to hatred towards individuals or groups because of their religion, race, or other grounds. Second: The level of major international organizations, such as the United Nations General Assembly in New York or the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, as well as organisations concerned with Dialogue among Civilizations, or inter-religious and interfaith dialogue. Third: Renowned academic institutions, intellectual and research centers, and think-tank circles. Fourth: The level of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, which we have established in order to monitor and document all manifestation of this scourge, and to deal with them in an interactive manner. Taken together, this plan has proven its merit and we have been able to achieve convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly. The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam. In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

Parse the statement carefully. Read it more than once. Slowly, carefully.

To give the remarks an appropriate context recall that Muslims are demanding that which they will not, and, according to Islamic doctrine as currently and widely interpreted, cannot give in return.

"That is?" You ask.

Respect. Muslims as shown by the foregoing (and many previous statements by OIC) demands--that's right--demands thorough, absolute and total respect for all matters Islamic. As defined solely by Muslims.

The OIC has made this demand. It will make it again.

A parliamentary delegation from Pakistan levied this demand on the European Union. Pakistan will not be alone in making it.

The same demand is being made upon the United States.

"So what do the Muslims offer in return?" You want to know.

Nothing. There is no quid pro quo in the demand. Read it again.

The OIC and the countries which make up that organisation have never, and according to Islamic injunctions, can never offer equal and balancing respect for either other religions including Judaism and Christianity or for the secular institutions of states.

The most an Islamic interlocutor can offer is the conditional guarantee of no bombings, no shootings, no burning down your embassy, no violent street protests.

Some deal, right?

You give us the right to ban from your public square anything of which we do not completely approve and we will try really, really hard to stop the thugs from harming you or your citizens.

Now consider the OIC members themselves. In a previous post the Geek noted a study of the forty-eight members of the seventy plus countries which comprise the total OIC membership. With three exceptions the "OIC 48" ranked at the bottom of the human rights-democracy--economic freedom index. Saudi Arabia ranked dead last with Pakistan barely above it.

The lever-pullers in the OIC are well on record as being totally opposed to freedom and totally in love with the unquestioned dominance of an unelected, non-transparent, heavily militarised, authoritarian regime backed by a reactionary clerical crew.

While quite willing to throw fits that go plumb off the Richter Scale over cartoons and Internet videos (including a call for an "international death penalty" by one really over-the-edge Pakistani lawmaker), Muslims generally and the OIC in particular are stone silent on the matter of defaming other religions.

Say it ain't so, Geek.

Ah. good buddy, but it is so. Were you to go to Cairo and wander the Arabic language bookstores or that supposed outpost of British liberal values, Jordan, and hit the bookstores there, you would find shelf after bloody shelf of anti-Jewish billingsgate.

Not simply works denouncing Israel or the "Zionist Entity," but Judaism per se.

Since Cairo or Amman, let alone Tehran may not be on your travel plans in the next few days, let your fingers do the walking. Take a look at this, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/html/search.asp?isSearch=yes&isT8=yes&searchText=T98&pid=118&sid=15&preview=.

Scroll through. Take your time. Make sure you flip to the page covering Britain and the West.

Try not to get too sick. But, it's all there from the (Christian originating) Medieval "Blood Libel" through the Czarist secret police forgery, Protocols of the Elders of Zion to new inventions.

While it is unfortunate that the various Christian denominations including the Catholic Church do not have such a nice central registry for Christian defaming materials of Muslim origin, the Geek well recalls having seen such years ago throughout the Mideast and portions of Northwest Asia.

The likelihood of the situation having changed for the better is equivalent to finding that whales fly.

Or that the Saudis will allow Christian travellers to bring in a Bible or a crucifix medallion.

For many Muslims and certainly for Islamic states such as the big movers of the OIC as well as the OIC itself, respect is a one way street. It has to be that way. Islam means and compels submission.

As far as the political leaders of Islamic states are concerned, the question of submission to whom or what is settled. Them and their demands.

It has to be that way. The Islamic states are by and large fear-ridden enclaves of reaction. Trapped by fear, Islamic political/religious autocrats must not allow the base of their power be exposed to unfettered debate or even factually based criticism in the public square.

These same political/religious fountainheads of diktates and fatwas hope to make us afraid enough to give up the hard won fruits of long fought wars against limitations in expression, inquiry and thought. Fear is the natural ally of the oppressor.

Not the only ally of course. Misplaced love of multiculturalism and an overly zealous desire to be solicitous of the sensitivities or feelings of others can be an equally powerful aid to the would-be oppressor.

Some today term the Muslim playing upon the current fads of sensitivity and political correctness "stealth jihad." The Geek prefers an older, harsher term from the Cold War. Subversion.

By the combination of fear and subversion, the OIC hopes and plans to silence criticism and counterarguments to Islam throughout the West. It is a necessary way station on the road to the dream of a Global Caliphate.

They have told us clearly what they are up to.

Are we going to let them get away with it?

Finally! A Couple of Moderate Muslims

Being reasonably familiar with the Quran and other basic written materials of Islam as well as the sweep of Islamic history, the Geek has been unconvinced by the repeated assertions on the part of the United States Government as well as the legions of politically correct, high-minded journalists, academics and their ilk that there existed such a person as a "moderate" Muslim. The Geek is quite willing to acknowledge that the vast majority of Muslims are more concerned with the problems of living and securing a better life for their children than striving for mirages such as a Global Caliphate or A New World Under Sharia.

Even with that large caveat, the Geek has been far more impressed with the sheer bloody mindedness and "Death to---!" orientation of so many in the Muslim population of the world than he has been with expressions of something as ambiguous as "moderation." This is why is was impressed with and commends to your attention two writings from opposite ends of the globe.

The first is from Pakistan, a country which, as has been posted previously here, is far more a part of the problem than a portion of the solution. The writer is Farooq Sulehria and his article appears today at http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=118852.

His theme includes some features which are notable. Sulehria argues powerfully that the time has come for Muslims to stop blaming others such as the West, the US, the Jews, the Christians, for the problems which best Muslim dominated societies and states.

When all else fails, "Jews" and "Christian" West are there to lay the blame for all our ills. Conspiracy theories instead of scientific, rational thought holds sway across much of the Muslim world. And every time a rights abuse is highlighted in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, a typical Muslim answer is: Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Chechnya. True, imperialism and Zionism have a hand in our predicament. However, there are many wounds one can only describe as self-inflicted. Take, for instance, the Iran-Iraq war, one of the last century's bloodiest conflicts. There is no denying the fact that the United States backed the Saddam regime. But it was the Arab sheikhdoms, panicked at the Iranian revolution, that stoked the flames of war. And, ironically, now in the post-Saddam era when the "Christian" West has written off Iraq's Saddam-era debt worth $66 billion, Iraq's Arab brothers refuse to write off that country's $67 billion loans.

How is that for a gale of honesty! But, wait. There's more.

Similarly, last century's bloodiest Muslim genocide was not carried out by Serbs, Israelis, Americans, Europeans or Hindus. It was Pakistan's military that refused to respect a democratic verdict and plunged East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, into an ocean of blood. Millions were killed, maimed, raped and rendered homeless. Luckily, Pakistan has a "Hindu" neighbour. "Hindus are born enemies of Islam'. Hence, Pakistani children are now taught that a Bengali traitor (revered by Bengalis as founder of Bangladesh), in connivance with our "Hindu" neighbour, dismembered Pakistan. Ironically, of all her South Asian neighbours, Pakistan enjoys most cordial relations with the world's only Hindu state, Nepal. The other big genocide was perpetrated by Indonesia. The target was: its own citizens who were members of the Communist Party.

That defines "telling it like it is!

A second point is tellingly made. Islamic countries are at best pathetic in their guarding of human rights. Using a twisted reading of the internally contradictory injunctions within the Quran and hadith, Muslim dominated states run rampant and roughshod over the rights that do (or should at the very least) belong to all of us in possession of a navel. Consider,

The Amnesty International report on human rights for the year 2007 is out. The Muslim world constitutes, as usual, bleakest chapter. Every single country across the Muslim world has been pointed out by the Amnesty International either for executions and torture or discrimination against women and ethnic and religious minorities. Punishments never handed down even during the Stone Age, have been awarded in 21st century Muslim world. In one case, two Saudi nationals were awarded 7,000 lashes. Yes, 7,000. And executions? Well, 335 in Iran, 158 in Saudi Arabia and 135 in Pakistan. Violation of human rights, it seems, is the only thing that unites the otherwise divided Muslim world. The report is no exception. The Muslim world cuts a sorry figure every time a global watchdog releases its findings. Freedom of expression here remains curtailed, Reporters Sans Frontieres annually reports. Regarding freedom of expression, there is a joke often told in Arab world. At a meeting, a US journalist says: "We have complete freedom of expression in the US. We can criticise the US president as much as we like." The Arab journalist replies. "We also have complete freedom of expression in Arab world. We can also criticise the US president as much as we like."

If the Geek had written that factual statement, here in the United States, an entity such as CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) would have screamed, "Islamophobe! Hate criminal!"

Sulehria adds a grace note which might be overlooked in the thundering symphony of condemnation he composed. It shouldn't be. It strikes right to the heart of the matter. Right to the heart of why so much of the Islamic population is condemned to life-long servitude and no hope for a better future.

Similarly, it is either Bangladesh or Pakistan or Nigeria which is on top of Transparency International's corruption indexes. However, when Nobel laureates gather in Stockholm every December, Muslim scientists and writers are conspicuous by their absence.

There can be no real hope of a better today without governments which are open, transparent in their operations and honest in their dealings. Can anyone imagine a corruption investigation of a Muslim head of government such as that which has been underway in Israel?

There can be no real hope of a better tomorrow without talented, free-thinking and creative scientists. Not only are Muslims conspicuous by their absence when the Nobel prizes are passed out, they aren't to be found in the peer-reviewed literature unless they are living in non-Muslim states.

The Geek can't help but wonder when (not if) some Islamist/jihadist cave dweller will take it in his mind to kill the apostate. Likewise the Geek can't help but wonder how diligently the Pakistani authorities will seek to prevent the success of the assassin.

With that cheery thought in mind, let's switch to the Netherlands. The writer of this post hides behind a pseudonym out of fear. The fear that may silence so many others who share her views or those of Farooq Sulehria.

Take a look at, http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/ayaanhirsiali/2008/06/muslims-show-so.html.

The author is described as an educated Dutch Muslim. That demands the question, "What is her nativity, ancestry?" The article does not make clear if she is a Muslim by birth or by conversion although that distinction would do much to put the thoughts in a proper context.

She raises an issue which is very important not simply to the Dutch but to all of us in the West. The issue is simple: Why do Muslims demand what they will not grant--respect for other cultures, religions, ways of living?

The writer ascribes the responsibility for the Muslim unwillingness to offer reciprocity of respect to their historical tradition of "arrogance." In her words, "It is time that we Muslims let go of our feeling of superiority, hypocrisy and ignorance."

She backs her contention with a brief account of her understanding of Islamic history, which, in the Geeks' professional estimate is fundamentally correct.

Muslim history writers wrote with pride about what they saw as successful heroic deeds. And we still live under the delusion that the quality of the lives of indigenous people is improved by replacing their temples and churches by mosques, and that we conquer their hearts by doing so. But nothing is further from the truth and why the Dutch say 'our culture is disappearing as we do see mosques everywhere' when yet another church is transformed into a mosque.

Leaving aside some translation problems, her understanding is correct and is certainly backed by Islamic writings including those of Muslim historians of the the classic period. If one adds the necessary comment that Mohammad was a political leader using a religious doctrine for the political purpose of establishing a regime and that his successors of all stripes were political figures seeking to expand or maintain authority employing the same religious doctrine, her assessment becomes all the more convincing.

A very brave woman who acknowledges that "with the support of my parents" she both studied and thought long and hard about Islam levels a key indictment. Consider it--and its source.

The present time: consider the decapitation of non-Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan. Those so-called heroic deeds are perpetrated in name of Allah. What is our response to this? Do we condemn this? No, we look on silently, but do demonstrate on streets when an insulting cartoon is published in a newspaper and we threaten politicians with their murder. Embassies of non-Muslim countries are attacked, and numbers of murders are committed out of our passion for heroic martyrdom.

That's asking for a bomb on your bus, a knife across your throat or a bullet in the back. After all the Heroic Warriors of Islam seem to get far more jollies out of killing a woman than a man.

The lady asks a question which every self-proclaimed Islamic "moderate" ought to be shouting throughout the US, the West and even the Islamic states. See if you agree--

Why don't we show respect in the Netherlands where we adhere to few rules and civic norms, and where we perpetrate senseless violence - while we make use of their medical facilities, ask for special attention of teachers and community-workers, complain a lot while expecting non-Muslims to take account of us?

Non-Muslims ought to asking the same question of CAIR and similar groups as well as other apologists for the "Religion of Peace and Tolerance." It's our world, our countries too.

We Americans are an accepting bunch. We have welcomed all sorts of people and beliefs. We continue to do so. In the past we have expected that religious beliefs would be primarily private, and certainly not imposed on others. We have expected that a live-and-let-live attitude would govern our attitudes and behaviors regarding each other's beliefs (or lack thereof.)

In spite of occasional and lamentable excursions into policy accommodation of religious values, our easy going approach has worked and worked well. We must insist that it continue today.

This means that the use of Islam qua Islam as a basis for demanding accommodation or being forgiven criminal trespass or silencing the voices of those unliked is totally unacceptable. We the People should and must show the same level of courage as the anonymous lady in Holland and the Pakistani Rebel With A Cause, Farooq Sulehria

The "Dutch Disease" Hits Gulf Oildoms

If you follow such sites as http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/, a pattern of developing economic crisis is seen in the oil producing states of the Persian Gulf. All these resource rich semi-feudal spots from Saudi Arabia to Iran are experiencing what economists have called for some years, "the Dutch Disease." The symptoms of the disease are simple and obvious: accelerating inflation, low real growth and the absence of an economic base other than the exploited natural resource.

Actually the name should be the "Spanish Disease" as the symptoms were first experienced by the Spanish Empire during the Fifteenth Century as Spain was flooded by increasing torrents of gold plundered from its colonies in South and Central America as well as the Philippines. Inflation not only undercut whatever may have existed in the way of an underlying Spanish economic infrastructure but eventually assured the financial collapse of the Empire and its citizens.

More recently the Dutch experienced the same disease with the discovery and exploitation of oil from its continental shelf. It took the Dutch years, much effort, some pain and the understanding support of other countries to overcome the illness which now bears its name.

For a long, long time the oil producing shiekdoms, kingdoms and mullahocracies have or should have been aware that each and every one of them was a prime candidate for the next round of Dutch Disease. With the exception of Iran (which has poured money into economically non-beneficial uses such as missiles and uranium enrichment plants) none have used the oil based income to provide a sound economic infrastructure that could absorb and mitigate the negative effects of more money pouring in as the oil flowed out.

Sure, the Saudis Royal Family--all seven thousand or so members--have invested its plunder in any number of offshore projects. The same may be said of the elites in other countries such as Kuwait and at least some of the UAE.

Of course, the Saudis have poured a great deal of money into the building and provisioning of Wahhabist mosques and madrassas around the world. The same source has also been a generous contributor to various Islamist "charities" including such noted humanitarian organisations as the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Spain did much the same as Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf Oil Crew. It funded wars. It funded the Inquisition. It funded religious extremism and proselytising. It's aristocracy and elite built big homes, drove fancy carriages and wore expensive clothing.

Whether in the case of the Spanish or that of today's oil based autocracies, the spending of money on foreign investments, religious expansion or the stuff of war and repression helped develop the basic economic structure about as well as a 9 mm in the prefrontal lobes helps thinking.

From Iran on south and east to the tip of the Arabian Peninsula, the symptoms of the Dutch Disease are too visible to be hidden behind cooked books, fabricated statistics or a burqa of denial. Inflation is at or above ten percent throughout the region--and that is a conservative estimate. In Iran it is above twenty-five percent. Unemployment and underemployment are a majority experience for all those natives too proud to hew wood, draw water or do any of the other necessary, mundane and not necessarily inspiring jobs left to foreign helots (or expat Western technicians.)

As was the case with Spain and (to a lesser extent) Holland four hundred years later, the disease has profound effect upon neighbors. Neither Egypt nor Jordan, for example, are noted producers and exporters of petroleum, but both are experiencing very high inflation (in Egypt's case the highest in nineteen years) coupled with low rates of real growth and high unemployment.

Not surprisingly the countries with the worst cases of the disease are taking wrong actions. Iran has turned on the printing presses 24/7. The UAE and others are controlling prices and providing subsidies for such essentials as diesel fuel. Egypt continues to go the subsidy route for food.

The Geek admits economic history is a fascinating subject--if you are Allan Greenspan. For the rest of us, it usually is a very dull trudge through the Valley of Grim Numbers.

If, however, the trudge is taken and the Grim Numbers overcome, the result is an appreciation of what is needed to defeat the Dutch Disease. It's a simple, painful and not particularly short course of treatment involving the abandoning of controls and subsidies, the forced direction of resource derived wealth into economic infrastructure development and even, horrors! limiting the ability of the elite to buy private jets, luxury yachts the size of aircraft carriers or disporting in the usual lifestyle of the ultra-rich and self-involved.

Not a pretty political picture for any of these regimes. All the way along the wide arc from Tehran to Cairo, the governments are precarious in their grip on power.

Better not to take the risk of doing the right thing and losing hold of the levers of power.

Right?

Perhaps its only appropriate that the latest sufferers of the disease first experienced by the Spanish respond in the same way to their condition. Recall that the Spanish Empire was run by a dark and grim combination of autocrats and clerics. The Spanish Empire was hag ridden by a backward looking religious dogma and quivered in fear of the future. The Spanish Empire sought to hold its place in the world with a combination of blood-happy killers, repressive torturers and pure bluster of following "God's Will."

Sound familiar?

We know how it all ended for the Spanish. How different will it be for the Kings, Sheiks and Mullahs of oil?

It took Spain a long time to fade to the obscure margins of the world. Things happen much, much faster today.

US Troops In Iraq For Another Century?

So what if they are?

No one has any idea how long a US presence in Iraq may be either necessary or desired (by the Iraqis in particular.) When Republican John McCain made his seemingly off-the-cuff comment, he was not making a policy statement. Anyone with even a quarter of an intact neocortex should have known that.

Apparently the current presidential campaign has stupefied the Democratic establishment. And many in the mainstream media. From the shock and horror spewing forth from the left hemisphere of the political world one might think that McCain had espoused a policy of never-ending war with hectatombs every year for decades to come.

Get a grip!

Let's get a couple of areas straight.

The surge worked. The US is no longer running a real risk of losing in Iraq. We have met the minimal goal of not losing. Behind the now thinning shield of US combat forces, the Iraqi National Army as well as the Government of Iraq have developed capacities, improved services, and provided stability, which is not being shattered by the occasional spectacular vehicle or suicide bombing of a soft civilian target. (Such as today's VBIED attack near a market in a Shiite section of Baghdad.)

The success of the surge and the concomitant improvements of Iraqi institutions and structures are the reason we no longer hear the Democratic congress-wallahs making mighty moans and shrieks of dismay regarding unmet milestones as they were a year ago. If the provincial elections in Iraq come off without widespread violence or enervating corruption, it will be fair to assess that the US has achieved not only its minimal post-invasion goal of not losing, but that the future of Iraq is in Iraqi hands,

Hands that will not need holding.

The US forces will not be in country to either hold hands or "guide" development.

They will be there for the same reason US troops remained in Europe following World War II and Korea following the armistice of 1953. Before going to the reasons for the long lasting US presence in Europe, Japan and Korea, consider that our military has been in Europe and Japan for sixty-three years and in Korea for fifty-five years.

Sixty-three and fifty-five years. Best chunk of a century for the first and a good chunk of one for the second. (Golly, kind of makes it obvious why McCain popped out with the one hundred years figure, doesn't it?)

The reason the US maintained forces on the ground in these venues under various Status of Forces Agreements was simple and self-evident. Keep the peace. Not only through the high-profile deterrence of cross-border invasion directed against the Soviet Union and its clients.

Sure, the deterrent mission was the one that got all the attention. But, it wasn't the only peace keeping consequence of the US presence.

The presence of the outsiders (us) also provided a useful matrix for maintaining internal peace. More than a few European statesmen and politicians wanted the US to stay in Europe even as the crowds were chanting "Yankee, go home," as they feared a recrudescence of German militarism should the Yanks pack up and leave. In Japan quiet talks in private with political, academic and journalistic personalities indicated that the US presence was an important tool for maintaining domestic order during many of the past six decades.

The US presence in South Korea has been important not only for raising a cautionary flag in the face of the less than totally predictable North Korean dictatorship, it has also served as a completely unappreciated insurance policy for the thugs in Pyongyang. As long as the US were in the South, a Southern invasion of the North was unlikely in the extreme.

Also the US bases in South Korea have served to inhibit some of the more boisterous potentials in South Korean domestic politics. It's not that the Ugly Americans have done anything at all to directly influence the more extreme elements of the Korean political spectrum. They haven't.

It is enough that they are there. With an unknown capacity and motivation for intervention.

That may not be a nice, warm and fuzzy thought, but it is an element of reality wherever US forces are based in significant number--particularly after a war.

The current Iraqi-US negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement will conclude satisfactorily. With the exception of the increasingly irrelevant Sadrists and the even more marginal Association of Muslim Scholars, the leading political parties in Iraq favor a continued US presence. There is no doubt but the Kurds not only favor it, but are damn near demanding, "Yankees! Stay Here!"

Assuming that neither the rump of neocon cretins through continued insistence on provisions which do or may appear to threaten the sensitive sense of national sovereignty in Iraq and that the Democrats-in-search-of-an-issue don't scuttle the SOFA, it will be signed. US troops will stay in Iraq.

At this point the loudest applause should come, not from Baghdad and not from Washington, but from Tehran. Iran has always feared a replay of the Iraq-Iran War. For Tehran and for the Iranian public it was a disaster that could have been much worse. The mullahocracy ought to appreciate that no country where the US has maintained troops has invaded its neighbor.

So, how long will the troops stay?

Beats me, sez the Geek. McCain might have been right--or not. It doesn't matter in the real world.

It only seems to matter in the less than half-real world of presidential campaigns.