Munich security conference - 3/4.Feb.2006

I'm critical of Iran, Saddam's Iraq, North Korea etc etc too.
So are a LOT of people who are ALSO critical of NATO.

Iranian clerics tend not to meet in Munich though eh.

You need to think in a slightly more complex way.
Opposition to the Aliied invasion of Iraq doesn't mean that one supports Saddam Husseins previous regime for example.

Just to stir it up a bit for a Friday I think the regimes in Eastern Europe weren't communist anyway but a form of capitalism that is fortuneately now in the dustbin of history.

but spending your life on your knees can be rather pleasant from what i've heard.


that'll be my evil mind ray! mhaw haw haw haw...

First, telling someone to think in a more complex way is offensive and condescending. Especially when you're putting words in other people's mouths. I never said one could not be critical of both. Indeed I accept that many are critical of both. I am merely pointing out that these people are more vocal about, say, NATO, than about the things going on in Iran when I think the criticism should be weighted more heavily towards, say Iran rather than NATO. That's my opinion.

Obviously Iranian clerics don't tend to congregate in Munich but they do have a consulate in Frankfurt and I have yet to hear of any protests there. I'd bet an organized march against Iran down the Leopold Str. would make the news if enough people bothered to attend. Whether or not there's some conference in Munich or not really doesn't make that much difference.

I shant comment about the Eastern European regimes having been capitalist and not communist because that's just silly and frankly a waste of time.

@gideon: or mine. heh.

@pg yours is built buy koreans though. so it will be smaller ;-)

Yes mate, and I hear Mickey Mouse is sportin' a brand new Jules Winnfield watch.

Throw 'Left' and 'Right' out of the window a moment mate, please.
AND YOU'VE GOT THE FUCKIN' NERVE TO CALL ME A CONSPIRACY THEORIST???

Now go to the mirror and see if you can look yourself in the eye.

I'm sorry but you need to see the world in more than black and white.

Waste of time to discuss whether Eastern Europpean states weren't communist?
If they were communist or at least socialist surely the working class would have had control of the means of production, distribution and exchange which was patently not the case as there was a ruling class above them.

It's a VERY similar argument to when say relatively well paid public sector workers strike, like the London Underground for example. The right start shouting "oh why aren't the unions doing something about low paid agricultural workers" not becasue they really give a flying fuck about low paid agricultural workers but because they want to undermine the strike.

Similarly the argument, wha aren't you doing something about Irq / Iran / Cuba / syria / North Korea is wheeled out if people protest against the west / NATO.

When people do environmental protests its, why aren't you protesting to protect jobs in X polluting industry.

It's partly to do with issues that the ruling class would rather were swept under the carpet but to a large extent keeping popular protest down. They'd much rather people went into polling booths every few years to choose between a poke in the eye or a kick in the crutch than to get on to the streets and maybe change the world.

Anyway, it's Friday, its 5:20 and it's CRACKERJACK!
It's my birthday weekend so off for a rake of ales and maybe, just maybe, test Gideon's theory!

In some ways I believe that former Warsaw Pact countries that have joined NATO have had a chance to integrate exceptionally well before applying for EU membership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO has a rather objective analysis of NATO.

As with anything times change. Without NATO I believe little niggles between countries could escalate into something a little more serious. So I think it's a good way of keeping everyone in check. It's also allowed European countries to reduce their spending on defence because they've become more and more dependant on the US military. Therefore if the US pulled out most countries would have no option than to increase their military capability (at what expense?) which could be seen as an offensive posture and could heighten troubles between neighbouring countries (take NATO members Greece and Turkey for instance).

Incidently, HAPPY BIRTHDAY Monkstown!

First, you are saying that the right's argument regarding strikes is a red herring. That's not necessarily true. Even though you automatically think that the right doesn't care, that's not necessarily the case. If you were to assume that the union's resources were limited and that more good could be done by helping agricultural workers instead, then it's a valid argument. I suspect however that if one were to dig deeper, there's probably a good reason why ag. workers are not at the top of the union agenda and that you may be right on the strikes. Thus those comments from the "right" were probably made more for political gain and thus were indeed a red herring rather than a valid argument.

Nevertheless, I would assert that the protest issue is something different altogether. I think that it would make the most sense to direct efforts and protests towards the more serious injustices in the world and let's be honest, protest resources are limited. Therefore, I am dismayed by the amount of energy put into criticizing/protesting against, in my opinion misguidedly, the West itself and not these other countries' regimes.

For me, the only reasonable explanation would be that these protesters believe that their chances of changing the west's behaviour are greater than their chances of changing the behaviour of foreign regimes. Some probably do believe that, even though i'm not really sure how true it that is and I would bet that's a small minority of people. My assessment of the reality of it is much more cynical however. I think they're 3 kinds of protesters at NATO rally:

1) Those who believe that the actions of the West are in their eyes worse than those of other regimes because "we ought to know better" or some other reason.
2) Those who truly care about these sort of issues but just concentrate on the West because it's the "in" thing to protest against.
3) Those who are just looking for a party/fight/chance to cause trouble.

I think that type 1 are extremely misguided, type 2 are well meaning but are weighting their resources towards the lesser injustices and type 3 are just hooligans.

So you see, I am not just thinking in black and white here. I think you're the one doing the oversimplifying.

A lot of people would regard the numer of deaths in Iraq since the Aliied invasion, 100K (?) topping anything the previously CIA sponsored butcher Saddam ever "acheived" as pretty damn serious.

That's exactly my point. They think the Iraq war, NATO, globalization, etc. are somehow worse than all of the things I had mentioned. I personally strongly disagree and lament this fact.

I wonder if people would really do build a hierachy of "bad" things if they could see it objectively.
The fact is, that living in western Europe the things that NATO get up to are more immediate than Iranian theocrats or the bad trip that is Stalinist Kim Jong Il etc etc. The NATO Security Conferece is in Munich so of course it is going to come to the fore.

Over time people can realise in fact that the issues are all connected. Debt in Africa, is linked the war in Iraq, is linked to inter-communal conflict in South Asia, is linked to weakening of European welfare provision is linked to... well fill in the gaps really.

People might go to the demo for this one issue (that you think not the most important) but pick up on the other issues.

@Ketchup, many of the things you mentioned are simply communities choosing for itself the values and rules that they wish to apply to themselves. Protesting against that IS valid, however less common, and less noble, as it would really just be another example of the west trying to push its particular subjective worldview on other minority cultures.

However what people are protesting about mostly, and I am not one of them, nor do I neccesarily agree with them, but I can see where they are coming from, is that very thing. When the west tries to push its particular subjective worldview on other cultures, particularly in a militarily agressive fashion, is that not something worth protesting about?

Good point Kza, you have to be careful of cultural imperialism but some things like say the treatment of women in some Islamic societies needs to be opposed without falling into that trap.

Of course a lot of women and men in countries like Iran aren't in favour of the theocratic regime despite being critical of the West / the old Shah etc etc.

We get fed the idea that "all" Iranians are relgious "extremists" though of course that isn't the case.
There was a large secular opposition to the Shah pre 1979, but it was broken by the Islamists.

I don't think that any of things that I mentioned that I believe should be protested against (i.e. treatment of political prisoners in China, treatment of women and minorities in many countries, etc.) qualify as cultural imperialism. I think MonksTown is agreement on that one. Then again Kza, I can see how some would feel that way even though I would strongly disagree with them.

Regarding cultural imperialism by military means, you're never going to get agreement on that one. One says NATO intervention in Kosovo to prevent ethnic cleansing was justified as a greater injustice was prevented. Another says, NATO intervention in Kosovo was wrong because we are imposing our cultural/moral values on a minority country namely Serbia, of which Kosovo is a province, that mass murder on an ethnic or whatever basis is wrong. Granted, I am simplifying the Kosovo situation because I do know that many Serbs were murded by Albanian terrorists even before the Serbian army went in but even so many would say that getting involved in other countries' business is by definition wrong.

My original post lamented the fact that Germans are protesting against NATO which kept the Russians at bay some 60 years ago. I think that by using the logic espoused by some of the protesters (surely not all but some), NATO shouldn't have bothered and that is in and of itself ironic because I don't think they would have realistically been happy with the alternative which might have been living in Russian controlled Germany.

NATO didn't keep "Russia at bay" for 60 years.

At the end of WW2, Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt/Truman divided up Europe on a map.
The west under American / British / Freanch market capitalist influence, the east under Stalinist / "communist" / state capitalist influence.

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) kept the USA and the USSR certainly after the Cuban Misile Crisis away from a hot war. There wars by proxy outside of Europe: Vietnam being the most famous, Afghanistan the one perhaps casting the longest shadow and countless coups, revolutions and civil wars in South America, Africa etc that were proxies for the imperialist superpowers.

It was wrong, I'm glad Stalinism is gone but I'm concerned about the lack of balance in the world nowadays.

Yeah, Kosovo was a tough one to call. Bosnia also.

What needs to be recognised is that ethnic tensions were stirred up by the local ruling classes to carve up their own areas of control, aided and abetted by west European capital who wanted to get their snouts in the trough awash with the blood of countless victims.

Say what you will but I still think that development of W.Germany owes a lot to the security blanket provided by the NATO alliance. Whether or not the Soviet Union would have taken over W.Germany without they NATO alliance, we'll never know. Nevertheless, I would argue that the NATO alliance was a good thing for the Germans.


Sounds like that came straight out of the book of "Revelations".

Seriously though, what would west European capital have to gain by suppporting the Kosovar Albanians? That place is a shithole. Just look at the economic development of Albania. I don't think there's one highway in the whole country.

In my mind NATO should be protested against because it is basically controlled by it's most powerful members and is seen by them as a way around the UN.

Simplified i know, but some might say that was necesary...

One of the reasons that West Germany developed so fast was the vast amount of aid poured into the area to make it the "jewel in the European crown" in order to have a country that had been devasted by war become rich and prosperous using a capitalist system.( A way of saying to the communist people, "look at how Germany has developed, our systems works whilst yours doesn't)

People seem to be saying that Nato was no deterrent to the Ruskies and that if Nato had not of been there, western Europe would not have suffered the same fate as the "Eastern Block countries"

Academic really. As to "West European capital", are you claiming that the East Europeans and Russia are totally innocent (not forgetting China too)?

The Russian and Eastern Bloc news crews used carry a lot of "Western" weaponary around with them! Not for protection but to give to the the "sides" that they were interviewing so as the world came to the conclusion that the "West" was causing the confict and supplying both sides! Nice ploy and people were niave enough to believe it...the camera never lies eh??

The UN being of course the ultimate authority and the "Supreme Court" of the world. Most protesters cringe at the idea of a world government but then suggest that everything has to be approved by the UN.

Well if you now say "we'll never know" why claim NATO kept the Russians at bay in urope for 60 years?
Two power bloccs made an argreement of their European spheres of influence and stuck to it.

Of COURSE Kosovo is a "shite hole" in thet sense of being economically unattractive.
Why do you think that Slovenia and Croatia rushed for independence? They are economically stronger, greater ties to Western Europe etc.

The nationalist-militarist elements in the ruling class of Serbia over the last 10 years haven't really CARED about Kosovo in the sense that British Conservatives never really much CARED about Northern Ireland since say the 1960s, economic basket case. But banging the drum enables them to divert domestic attention to their activities.

Edit, Canaryman, just to make clear, I'm certainly not a fan of the USSR under Stalin et al or eastern Europe 1945-1990 or saying they were "innocent".
Certainly look at Russian mini-imperialism via Serbia throughout the period 1880-2000.

The Un in my opnion is far more noble, being a place where all nations are represented and have some kind of say, than a now-irrelevant military alliance effectively controlled by one or two of the richest nations...

Well the Russians were "held at bay" as it were and in my opinion, NATO had a lot to do with that. It's my opinion however which cannot be proved, hence, "we'll never know".


You're giving the Russians an awful lot of credit. More than I am willing to give them, hence my opinion above. Let's just agree to disagree on that one.


That my friend is a serious stretch. You are insinuating that the Serbs attempted to drive the Albanians out of Kosovo to divert attention from domestic political problems? Kosovo is a domestic political problem. The Serbs went in as a result of the uprising of the Kosovar Albanians and the string of violence directed against the ethnic Serbs in the province which were, unfortunately for them, in the minority. The Serbian response to the situation was unfortunately for everyone extremely heavy handed. So much so that NATO could not turn a blind eye to it to the horrors that were going on there.

I'm assuming the ? was intended as a means for asking for confirmation or otherwise. The numbers from Iraq Body Count put civilian deaths between 28,287 and 31,891.

According to the Village Voice 300,000 to 400,000 Iraqis were killed by Saddam. Human Rights Watch puts it at 290,000. Other reports say many more (290,000 seems to be the lower limit). This doesn't include those killed by sanctions under Saddam, an estimated 5,000-6,000 children alone per month according to a UN official, and the New England Journal of Medicine. 12 years x 12 months/year x 5,000 per month = 720,000.

720,000 + 290,000 = 1,010,000. I used all low estimates for this calculation.

My point: 31,891 < 290,000 < 720,000 < 1,010,000

Unfortunately, the UN has been shown to be pretty ineffective in preventing anything.

@DW

Just out of curiousity, does that civilian body count also include those killed not by the US/UK military but rather by Muslim insurgents?

@ ketchup, because NATO was never weakened since WW2. The UN never stood a chance...so bascially NATO is the victors stamping their authority on the world...

Absolutely, but it does give nations a place to put their stance to the world. It is also a good place to see when a nation is plainly lying, hence the threats from Iran to cut of diplomatic ties if it is referred to the UN

I seem to remember the UN doing a great job in Iraq until the "allies" escalated matters...poor old Mr.Nix looked like a twat, poor bugger...

The Wiki article on it says:

and further to say:

Well whatever it happens, I shall be working from home on Friday. I work behind the Bayersiche Hof and subject to road closures and random searches. Cannot be arsed with all that shit so staying well clear

So, Pirulero, you think that the UN was doing a great job? Saddam was contained and had decided to sit at home and drink tea with his chums? Videos (taken for Saddam, his family and friends) showing people he, er...did not like being chucked of 3 storey buildings, fed into large grinding machines and the subsequent discovery of many mass graves is, in your opinion, the UN doing a great job?

Watching his people suffer hardship whilst he built new palaces and let his lunatic sons have every their whim during UN sanctions must have been particulary satisfying for your understanding of a "good job".

Did you think that the Dutch troops under the mandate of the UN did a particularly good job in Sarajevo? The muslims didn't and nor did the Dutch minister/ministers that resigned over it.

What does "doing a good job" mean to you?

in terms of the WMDs which were the issue, and what proof do u have of those allegations u make... videos...narf...how come we haven't seen these...

hardship were as you say, due to the sanctions, obviously they would heighten the corruption if the countries oil was able to be sold legally...

anyway, this is quickly becoming the old Iraq debate... so i'll stop. I'd just say, noone waited to see if the UN route of inspections and diplomacy would make a difference...

Hmmmm. You are right, sorry I nearly went "off-thread".

I have to say though, two years of negotiation didnt shift Saddam, made no difference with Iran so why should 3 or 4 years negotiation (or 10 for that matter) make a difference?

Right. Nobody waited to see if the UN route of inspections, diplomacy and sanctions as levied in April 1991 with Security Council Resolution 687 and then again declaring Iraq in material breach of this resolution with resolution 707 in June 1991. Damn impatient Americans/British!

pirulero.
The videos were aired on the BBC (well, excerpts including ones of small amounts of explosives being strapped to the heart area with the recipient begging for mercy) the BBC said "we cannot possibly show you the whole video for obvious reasons) (Now I await your conspiracy theory)

Just because you did not happen to see them on the BBC does not mean that they do not exist.

Blair used WMD for a reason to go to war. Bush plainly said, before the invasion that WMD was not the only reason and that regime change was justifiable too.

Ostrich, head, sand!

The Oil for food scandal
Lybia sitting on the Human rights Council
African Children being raped by UN peace keepers

"noble"

Fact is these "rich" countries hold themselves to a higher standard than the UN.


No such "agreement" ever took place.

Approaching the end of the second world war, the great powers met in Yalta to discuss a post-world-war-II europe. Poland, I use and an example of Soviet perfidity in their discussions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference

The status of Poland was discussed but was complicated by the fact that Poland by this time was under the control of the Red Army. It was agreed to reorganize the Provisionary Polish Government that had been set up by the Red Army through the inclusion of other groups as the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity to be followed by democratic elections. (This effectively excluded the exile Polish government that had formed in London).

Group know as the Lubliners took over: http://www.bartleby.com/65/lu/Lublin.html

Poland was supposed to have a democratically elected government, which never took place. Roosevelt was ill and unable to put up a strong front against Uncle Joe. Churchill tried to inspire him moreso in their meetings with the Soviets, but to no avail. The latter Soviet violation of this agreement, is the basis of the Cold War.

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an "iron curtain" has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.
--Winston Churchill

The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.
--Leon Trotsky

Kind of bullshit considering the violation of Poland by Germany AND THE SOVIETS in September, 1939 was the cassus belli for The UK's declaration of war on Germany. The Poles were returned their soveignety only when the reds left. And we know how much the Poles hate the Russians.

In my opinion the police should just be allowed to machine gun the scruffy cunts. It would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Not only would it break up the protests so all us decent folk can go about our business without having to fight through a swathe of smelly oiks, but it would also reduce the tax/social burden by reducing the number of unemployed because, lets face it, if they had jobs they'd be doing them and not acting the cunt.

Outstanding idea. You and Don Riina should have a pint together.

Bumpy, the West and Stalin AGREED on the division of Europe into spheres of influenece at the Yalta Conference. It really is fairly basic modern European history.

Danny Fishbone. Most people I know who will be takig part in the demo are employed tax payers!

Why don't you just stay in Regensburg, or were you planning on coming into town to do some machine-gunning yourself?

If anyone wants to see how fucked up town will be from tomorrow, have a look at MVV alterations

Its not gonna be fun getting across town

Wow, looks like it's gonna be big - thanks for posting that. Maybe you should make an extra thread too, in case ppl don't look in here?

I shall be. Unfortunately machine-gunning swathes of the great unwashed is probably too much to hope for, but hopefully there will be liberal use of big sticks and pepper spray on the buggers, and perhaps some kickings in the back of the meat-wagon.

If they've got such a problem with Nato, etc, they should fuck off and live in Afghanistan / Iraq / Iran / Pakistan, or in the case of Monkstown's fraternal socialist comrades, North Korea.

Absolutely, what would happen if you criticised the state in North Korea or asked why none of the government required food aid to avoid starving. You would probably end up in a government "hotel" with various parts of your anatomy being wired into the mains! (The victim can then blame Bush and claim it was a CIA run prison with MI5 doing the questioning with a secret approval from the North Korean government!)

I just walked around Marienplatz/Odeonsplatz this morning, and things are already hotting up - police vans and police patrolling the area; I saw 2 policemen talking to some punks. I also saw a machine being removed from Marienplatz SBahn area, looked like a cash machine but couldn't be 100% certain. I wouldn't recommend going into town after work today!I also saw a guy dressed all in black with his trousres tucked into his boots and a black jacket with a yellow symbol on his arm (which I couldn't read).. is this one of those Schwarzer Sheriffs or possibly a trouble maker?

Why the f%&k do they have to hold these right in the center of the city?

This is why I like living in Austria. No damn NATO whatsoever, and only the far-right dickwads want Austria in it.

looks like its gonna be a fun weekend

Go NATO, Go NATO, Go NATO