| |
|
1. februar 2005
|
|
Vodka as a secret weapon
Back in the old days, when we feared the Russians, I used to joke that Norway's first line of defence should be a bottle of vodka in front of each door up in the north.
This story, though from a dubious source, indicates that I was right:
"Eastern Ukraine is heavily ethnic Russian. The main industry is coal. The miners are rough, tough, and hate Yushchenko for wanting to take Ukraine away from Russia and toward the West," writes Wheeler. "It was arranged for more than a thousand of them to be taken from Donetsk, the capital of the coal-mining region, by bus and train to Kiev, where, armed with clubs and blunt tools, they would physically beat up the Orange Revolutionaries. Such mass violence was not only to disperse the demonstrators but serve as an excuse for the government to declare martial law, suspending the Ukrainian Parliament (the Rada) and elections indefinitely."
Now comes the secret weapon: vodka.
"When the miners got on their buses and trains, they found to their joy case after case of vodka – just for them. When they arrived in Kiev, trucks awaited them filled with more cases of vodka – all free provided by 'friends' of the Donetsk coal miners. Completely soused, they never made it to Independence Square. Too hammered blind to cause any violence at all, they had a merry time, passed out and were shipped back to Donetsk."
The vodka and the idea were an act of cooperation between Porter Goss' CIA and the British MI6.
The story is so good, in fact, we better not check if it is true.
Via Glenn Reynolds.
8:37:35 PM 
|
|
So who is Abu Mazen?
Mahmoud Abbas, or Abu Mazen, arguably has one of the most difficult jobs in the world. There is undeniably now an air of cautious optimism about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and much of the optimism lays great expectations on the man who has taken over Yasser Arafat's position, if not his authority. Hussein Agha and Robert Malley has written an obviously pro-Palestinian article about the challenges ahead for Mazen, trying to explain who this man is.
Abu Mazen is a politician of conviction, which is to say, until recently, not much of a politician at all. His behavior is rarely scheming; it is, if anything, a pure outgrowth of his emotional and temperamental makeup, a feature that accounts for his many successes and not a few of his setbacks. Guided by a deep sense of ethics, repugnance for sheer political expediency, and an exaggerated faith in the power of reason, he will seldom give in or fight back when rebuffed or slighted. Convinced that he has logic and reason on his side, and equally convinced that logic and reason are the faculties that guide all others, he would much rather passively wait until in due course people see things his way. There is little of the manipulator, deceiver, or conspirator in him, which is perhaps why he is so unforgiving of the manipulations, deceptions, and conspiracies of others. That was the key to his seesaw relationship with Arafat: because he did not hesitate to disagree with the Old Man, he chose seclusion over confrontation or compromise; because even in his anger Arafat knew that, unlike so many of his colleagues, Abu Mazen's motivations were sincere rather than opportunistic, he rarely lost trust in him and almost always forgave him.
Abu Mazen is also a profoundly pious Muslim. Inspired by Islam but allergic to its role in politics, he prays daily and fasts at Ramadan but publicizes neither, feeling as he does that religion is a matter of private belief, not public display, let alone public regulation. In his now regular dealings with leaders of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, this gives him an unmistakable edge; he is convinced he is no less a Muslim than they are, and when he meets a self-proclaimed Islamist politician, he sees the politician, not the Islamist.
Most importantly, he holds to a core set of principles which he is disinclined to depart from or compromise.
If (big If, I know) Abu Mazen eventually succeeds in ending the violence, which the authors are convinced he is at least determined to do, it will undoubtedly pass the ball to Israel's court. If terrorism largely ends, there will be negotiations where Israel will have to make some painful concessions to give the Palestinian leadership something to take home.
Ironically, only a reputed hardliner will have the credibility to convince Israelis that these concessions will have to be made. Thus I don't agree with the authors when they argue that Ariel Sharon is not the man to reach an agreement with the Palestinians when that day comes. If not Sharon, it will certainly have to be a man Israelis trust as a determined hawk, as only such a leader will be able to sell painful concessions.
11:27:58 AM
|
|
Flamebait of the day
Glenn Reynolds argues that the Iraqi elections were a big victory for.... Bill Clinton!
After all, we've heard for decades that Arab terrorism resulted from Arab despotism, and that if we wanted to end terrorism we ought to quit supporting Arab despots and work for democracy. But it was all talk until one brave man in the White House stood up for Iraqi freedom.
That man was Bill Clinton, who signed the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998. That Act called for "regime change," and the replacement of Saddam with a democratically elected government. And that's what we're about to get!
I wonder who will flame him the most, the left or the right...
1:05:07 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Jan Haugland.
Last update: 01.03.2005; 01:29:33.
|
|
|
