National Security Online Resource Center

RFE/RL’s Radio Free Iraq has covered several groundbreaking debates and forums throughout Iraq during the campaign leading up to the March 7 parliamentary elections.

In Diyala province on February 26, a local NGO hosted a debate intended to train citizens on how to question candidates. Candidates were given the opportunity to present their election programs to the public, and then faced questions from voters about their proposals and platform. Candidates from several lists and coalitions participated in the debate, and many citizens said they were eager for the opportunity to closely engage with the candidates. “This is a groundbreaking debate, and an important step for civil society,” one citizen told RFI after the debate. “Passionate, active discussion is good for civil society, and for unity in Iraq. It is good to have interaction between the candidates and the people, who can ask the candidates challenging questions about their proposals. This is essential for the building of democracy in Iraq.”

Other citizens took the opportunity to challenge the candidates to give specifics on how they planned to fulfill their campaign promises. A young man named Osama Ghazi said that he asked candidates how they intended to bring the services they had promised to Diyala province after they won the election. “I asked the candidates a question about how they intended to fulfill all of these promises in such a short time after they were seated in the next parliament, God willing,” he explained.

more

I apologize for my recent absence from this blog. I will soon write very extensively on the Geert Wilders trial. Here is a preview from an essay I recently wrote:

The consequences of violating the sacraments of political correctness (PC) are direr in Philistine societies that have not adopted freedom of speech. When Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders produced a 15 minute web film denouncing radical Islam, the Dutch “Openbaar Minsisterie” (“justice” department) indicted him for “hate speech.” He now faces over a year in prison if convicted.

Even worse for Wilders, he is not allowed to use “truth” as a defense. When he tried to call witnesses that would corroborate his views, the court refused, offering a chilling statement: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct; what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.” In other words, not only does Wilders not have the right to free expression, but he also lacks the right to defend himself in court.

Despite his “illegal observation,” Wilders will not roll over but is instead using his trial to shed light on Islamist terrorism and its attempts to suppress free speech in Europe and beyond. While most normal people would bow and ask for the court’s mercy, Wilders is defiant and ready to be a martyr in the war against PC.

Even though society has shown itself willing to stand up to PC when it gets out of hand, PC cannot be defeated unless our societal values themselves change. PC only holds water because we as a society decide it is a value we cannot do without.

European countries who are interested in letting their Islamic populations practice sharia law need only look at Malaysia for example. The countries Malay population, which is nearly exclusively Muslim is subject to Islamic law while the nation’s Chinese and Indian populations are exempt from it. The Sharia law recently came under scrutiny when three women were caned for having extra-marital sex with a fourth on trial for drinking beer.

Is the west prepared to allow acts like this to happen? Many of these canings are in public and can be for the most minor offenses. But of course this is small potatoes compared to one part of Sharia Law that should scare everyone in the West, the practice of honor killing. The UK, Germany and other countries need to ask themselves if they are prepared for the consequences of allowing their Islamic countries to virtually police themselves, I hope they find the idea to endangering to personal liberty to allow it to happen.

Should we negotiate with the Taliban? President Obama pondered negotiation early last year but instead decided to scale up its efforts against the group. Now Ahmed Rashid, one of the foremost scholar-journalists on the Afghan conflict, has suggested that America may have no other choice. A similar solution is proposed by George Gavrilis in the recent issue of Foreign Affairs where he argues that a less intrusive, less idealistic solution is the way to go in Afghanistan.

The politically accommodating solution is attractive (especially to a transactional president like Obama) but not always successful. Nixon bombed Vietcong to the peace table but South Vietnam fell a couple of years later. This is essentially Obama’ s strategy – weaken the Taliban and then negotiate. Obviously the situation in Afghanistan is different from Vietnam. The country is far more fragmented and a political reconciliation with the Taliban unavoidable given the growing unpopularity of the war. However, we must not forget about the commitment of freedom and democracy we made to the Afghan people. Rights of women are going to roll back and the country is likely to return to an increasingly autocratic/Islamist regime. Even if democracy is maintained, it will be marred by corruption and another civil war started by the loosers is not out of the question.

So whats the solution? You tell me.

Geert Wilders, a right-wing member of the Dutch Parliament, is now on trial in the Netherlands for a controversial film that juxtaposed Koranic quotes and images of Islamist terrorist violence. While the video’s content is undoubtedly controversial, the content of which can be found here, the fact that he potentially faces a 15-month prison sentence is even more so. Wilders has become increasingly popular despite his persecution as he has been willing to stand up to the increasing Islamism in the Netherlands and Europe as a whole.

As his trial opened, Wilders offered his opening statement, where he stressed the importance of liberty in society. Here are a few excerpts, but the entire speech can be found here.

“Our freedom in this country is the fruit of centuries. It is the result of a history that has no equal and has brought us to where we are today. I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom is threatened in the Netherlands. That heritage, which generations could only dream of, is precisely this freedom which is no longer a given fact, no longer a matter self-evidence.”

“In this trial it of course is about the freedom of expression. But in this trial it is certainly also about finding the truth. The statements I have made, the comparisons I have drawn — are they true? As mentioned in the summons? Because if something is true, how can it be illegal?”

Egypt recently arrested 30 bloggers as they were on their way to Naga Hammadi, the site where several Coptic Christians were brutally killed. Here are some details about the event:

“The bloggers are among a bigger group of Egyptians that include politicians like Osama Ghazali Harb of the liberal Democratic Front Party, Kifaya leader George Ishaaq and Cairo university professor and opposition leader Mohamed Abul Ghar. Split in two separate groups, one en route to Naga Hammadi by train and the other by bus from Luxor, they were heading to the small town in order to meet Bishop Kirollos of the Naga Hammadi Diocese, in addition to the families of those who lost their lives in the violence a week earlier, not only in order to console them but also to show solidarity.”

The State department is currently concerned about the arrests, yet no further actions seem likely. President Obama has done quite a bit to repair the damaged relationship between Egypt and the United States. However, he cannot in good conscience allow democracy activists and advocates of religious freedom to be arbitrarily arrested in a country that is the second largest recipient of U.S. international assistance! Squeezing moderates is going to empower Islamists who offer an alternative to America and democracy.

Conservative governance scored a major victory in Chile as billionaire and former Senator Sebastián Piñera defeated the leftist opposition by a 52-48 margin. This victory, over former Chilean President Eduardo Frei, ends twenty years of leftist rule ever since they came to power in wake of General Augosto Pinochet’s departure in 1990.

This New York Times articles notes that many experts believe this victory is not a repudiation of the leftist government, considering the outgoing president enjoys 75 percent approval ratings. In addition, Piñera could not escape Pinochet’s legacy. The article also reports that several members of his coalition served in Pincochet’s Cabinet, and that several leftists in Chile were wary of this fact when voting.

As the Times reports, “‘This was one of the most difficult decisions the country has had in a long time,’ said Erica Tapia, 44. ‘Unfortunately, I voted for Frei out of fear of the right.’”

Nonetheless, Piñera has pledged not to appoint any former Pinochet Cabinet members to his new Cabinet. Piñera, who has also pledged to privatize several nationalized industries and create one million jobs, will hopefully be a bright spot in Latin American politics to counter the influence of socialists such as Hugo Chavez. Having a pro-American ally in previously-leftist Chile could potentially increase our favorability in South America.

Our thoughts and prayers here at NSORC go out to the victims of an earthquake that struck the island nation of Haiti this week. A report of the tragedy can be found at any news source, but here is one report containing numerous details of the disaster. The earthquake, which measured a 7.0 out of 10 on the Richter scale, has potentially killed upwards of 100,000 people (although estimates vary considerably) and has reportedly destroyed the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince and most hospitals in the city, which renders this earthquake even more damaging.

Fortunately, international aid has poured into Haiti from the United States, the United Nations, and countries such as France. In fact, one sports retailer is sending t-shirts featring now-former University of Tennessee coach Lane Kiffin, who left Tennessee after one season to coach at the University of Southern California.

President Obama acted swiftly and sent troops and aid to Haiti. This is a good opportunity for the United States to show its benevolence to the rest of the world. Readers of this blog know that I rarely discuss President Obama without offering criticism, but I will defer to the President for now.

I will continue to update readers as more information becomes available. But for now please think of the victims and remember how fortunate we are.

Every since the Christmas day undie-bomber Yemen has come increasingly under the spotlight. Many are already calling it a failed state, citing the strangle hold Al Qaeda seems to have over the country. But there is another problem, one that is mostly only mentioned in passing, the Houthi Shias. The Houthis are a religious minority in the predominately Sunni Yemen, and for the past 5 years they have been waging a war against Yemen and in the last couple of years, southern Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have recently claimed victory over the Houthis who have been occupying a town in southern SA for the past several months. The Houthis claim to be oppressed for their religious beliefs and are claiming northwestern Yemen and parts of southern Saudi Arabia as their homeland. This recent conflict between the Houthi and the Saudis is just a small part of the greater conflict between the Houthis and Yemen. The question remains, Will the Saudis be willing to assist Yemen in defeating the Houthis? Or are they merely considered with their own territorial well being?

It is rather interesting to witness the late arrival of Yemen to the discussion of American security threats. Yemen’s instability has been long known but when the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, said that he received assistance from an Al-Queda branch in Yemen, the small, poor country showed up on the map. President Obama announced a doubling of U.S. monetary assistance to Yemen. So including this new addition, the United States is now deeply involved in 5 Muslim countries. The other countries include: Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. So we must ask at least the question: Where do we draw the line?

American presence is vital to these countries’ security and to ours. I am not questioning that notion and I understand the desire to increase our presence in Yemen. Yet have we fully thought about all of the options. Do we need to increase our presence in any country to solve our problem? I know it won’t make much sense to most to do nothing and to suggest doing less seems blasphemous. It maybe that we need to do more, but are we sure that the answer isn’t doing less?

Other than the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, on security matters, the administration has been largely responsive, rather than proactive. Key initiatives have failed to get anywhere (Israel-Palestine, Guantanamo). So does the United States have a long-term strategic plan for dealing with Middle East rather than being responsive to a series of crises? If so, why hasn’t the President outlined this initiative? With President Bush, at least we were certain of his foreign policy mindset. With President Obama, nothing seems clear.