tinpot fanatic

Here's an article by Simon Jenkins from The Sunday Times. Funny how he calls Osama a "tinpot fanatic".

"On any objective measure, terrorism in the West is a trivial crime. True, New York and London saw outrages in 2001 and 2005 respectively. Both were the outcome of sloppy intelligence. Neither has been repeated, though of course they may be. Policing has improved and probably averted other attacks. But incidents genuinely attributable to Al-Qaeda rather than domestic grievances are comparable to the IRA and pro-Palestinian campaigns. Vigilance is important but only those with money in security have an interest in presenting Bin Laden as a cosmic threat."

On September 11, nearly three thousand innocent people were murdered by Al-Qaeda: over the same twenty four period it is reported that 30,000 children worldwide died of preventable diseases. I read something in yesterday's Observer (I'd link to it but it's this chart-graphic-like thing which isn't available online) about the US defence industry going through a boom time. In Bush's 2007 budget, $550 billion out of the $2.77 trillion will go to military purposes.

Winners include Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon (all in line for a slice of the defense budget pie)

Losers: Health services (cutting back on Medicare expenses), education and environment sectors. The President.

I suppose spending so much and placing so much emphasis on counter-terrorism is uncalled for when comparing the magnitude of the situation with other pressing needs. Clearly the whole Islamophobia trend may have began on 9/11. But clearly the West has exacerbated this fear by isolating Muslim regimes and repressing Muslim communities.

"The result is to cripple America’s effectiveness as diplomat and power broker. Take Iran. The emergence of any new nuclear power is alarming. Yet it was tolerated in Israel, India, Pakistan and Korea. Partly because of its isolation, Iran now seems certain to develop a nuclear potential. To respond by increasing that isolation and thus the paranoia of Iran’s turbulent and unstable rulers is daft. The sensible realpolitik must be to give Iran no reason to turn potential into actual power, let alone to want to use it."

That's a good point. The current approach towards Iran is based on distrust. Intolerance of its nuclear program is intolerance of its sovereignty and will give Iran more reason to utilise nuclear power for security purposes.

"In desperation British and German leaders turned last week to the new “multi-polars”, Russia and China, for help with Tehran. This suggests a world moving towards new axes, seeking new leadership and distancing itself from American myopia. The spectacle is similar to the free world’s isolation of the Russian Comintern in the mid-20th century. "

"Such a recourse is fool’s gold. China and Russia are no more likely to exert sustained influence on the world stage than did Europe’s fragmented diplomacy over the past quarter century. Both have trade interests in Iran and much to gain as brokers of power in the region. Neither is a substitute for America. Neither carries the moral suasion of open and competitive democracy. Both face rumbling insurgencies on their frontiers. Yet the West turns to them in its hour of need. That is the measure of America’s collapse."

Good stuff.