Has democracy had its day?

DEMOCRACY is in crisis. We must save democracy. 

It is a familiar chant of Western politicians. The reality is that while it may make a good soundbite to motivate a flagging electorate shouting about how much trouble democracy is in serves no purpose.

Part of the problem is that no-one actually seems to know what democracy is any more. I am not talking about a historical definition here but a subjective philosophical one.

Is democracy that which Western states decree? An excuse for war? A path to extremism and xenophobia? Is it even the removal of freedoms from some in the name of the "greater good".

Democracy has become a hot topic once more this week as Britain marks 750 years since its first parliament was elected.

This year also marks another key anniversary in the history of democracy, 800 years since the signing of the Magna Carta. Even this most notable document in the evolution of Western democracy does not reflect the governance we currently have today.

Democracy is at its ideological core about allowing all people to have a voice, however, as declining voter turnout has demonstrated, less and less people are actually taking the opportunity to have their voices heard.

Ostensibly interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were, at least tentatively on paper, part carried out to bring democracy. What democracy though? 

Western imposed democracy forcing different cultural and sociological ideals on countries provided that they elect governments who will be more malleable to American and British interests in the region.

The elections may have had the look of being free and fair but how much does this really matter if everyone knows that the winner must support the West or face removal and the whole process being repeated. It is a global power politics version of a teacher keeping the class behind until everyone gets it right.

In the West several commentators have warned that the latest crisis to face democracy is the rise of the populist movement. I have no love for Britain's United Kingdom Independence Party, America's Tea Party movement et al. They play on fear and disillusionment. They use blame games and the politics of hate to entice the dispossessed. 

In a democracy though we must face that parties such as this may gain power. It is not that democracy is in crisis, this is democracy in action.

If more mainstream parties want to put the threat to democracy to rest then they must debate effectively and challenge the principles of hate which are fuelling these parties.

There is a wider question though. Has democracy had its day? Is it time for a new political system. Eight hundred years since the Magna Carta. It is nothing more than a flash in the pan of political institutions. While it's very principle may have started with the Greeks its implementation has proven a long and arduous journey.

Not everything lasts. Religion, politics and art fade away over time. As we increase surveillance on our citizens, denigrate our opponents, dismiss ideas and hide from principles of unity. As we sacrifice morals and ethics on the great altar of Western democracy and bury culture and systems which have survived for millennia because they don't fit anymore, is it not time to consider that the future of freedom may be what is truly in crisis. A crisis caused in no small measure by our blind approach to democracy.

Whose in the right in humanitarian intervention?

THE idea of humanitarian intervention is, and indeed should be, a contentious issue. It revolves around the principle of assuming that one group of individuals are better suited to solve issues and decide what is right rather than another.

By its very nature it speaks of an unevenness in the international system and the implication that some states are unable to manage their own affairs. 

There is an argument to be made that intervention, particularly in recent years in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya et al, has been conducted via a British and American led concept of imposing westernised thinking on the rest of the world. It is a post-colonial argument that we have never stopped seeing ourselves as the saviours of the rest of the world.

There is another argument, however, that due to our past involvement with much of the world we have left the foundations for current crises. This does not necessarily mean historic involvement though. 

In the case of Iraq it seems inevitable that we will once again deploy ground troops. When we invaded in 1990 it started a chain of events which has by clear and predictable means led to the situation whereby much of the country is ruled by terrorist insurgents and it balances dangerously on the precipice of becoming a failed state.

Both invasions into Iraq, led by Bush and son inc, served no purpose in increasing US, or another nation states, power. Indeed they could arguably seen as diminishing power by demonstrating weaknesses in American long term foreign policy, particularly in regards to divisions between the Republicans and Democrats outlooks. On a separate front it has opened America, and the West as a whole, to a new wave of terrorism which weakens them domestically.

The recent interventions, and lack of intervention in some places, has additionally highlighted the failure of liberal ideology and the use of international agencies. 

The US had overruled the United Nations on a number of occasions to launch interventions under the pretext of defence of self interest. In other instances opportunities when intervention may genuinely be justified it is blocked by the self interest of member states with the power of veto. Likewise individuals in an increasingly networked society may be under the illusion that they have the power to shape the choices and identity of states. Evidence in the international system at present, think new order in Egypt as a crucial example, proves this wrong though, with non-state actors having a transitory effect at best. Protests for or against intervention may gather a few extra viewers for the news, and add a couple of column inches, however if it truly had an effect then we would not be back working with Iraq.

As such humanitarian intervention cannot, and should not, be seen as something which can be covered by one particular mindset. No single theory can cover the multifaceted issues which surround the moral and legal justifications for intervening in the affairs of a sovereign state. As Lebanon buckles under the sheer volume of refugees from Syria, and in turn finds itself under threat of civil war, it is clear though that for the sake of a global society we must do something to help our fellow human beings. What higher justification can be needed than to preserve the basic human rights of our fellow beings?

ISIS aren't just another terror threat

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a stark warning that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has planned six terrorist attacks in Europe.

His warnings come as sources close to the security services revealed that they have identified the insurgent known as Jihadi John, believed to be responsible for the murders of American journalists James Foley and Stephen Sutloff.

In a statement to MP's Mr Cameron said: "The point I would make even today to the British people is: be in no doubt about the threat that so-called Islamic State poses to us. We have already seen something like six planned attacks in the countries of the European Union from [Isis], including of course that appalling attack in the Brussels Jewish museum, where innocent people were killed. That flows directly from this organisation."

While ISIS, which is also known as Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), may be planning attacks against the West it would be far too simple to think of them as just another terrorist organisation.

ISIS may have started out as an offshoot from Al-Queda, however, it has now morphed into something all the more dangerous and insidious.

"This is not a terrorism problem anymore,” says Jessica Lewis, an expert on ISIS at the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank. “This is an army on the move in Iraq and Syria, and they are taking terrain.”

"We are using the word encircle,” Lewis tells TIME. “They have shadow governments in and around Baghdad, and they have an aspirational goal to govern. I don’t know whether they want to control Baghdad, or if they want to destroy the functions of the Iraqi state, but either way the outcome will be disastrous for Iraq.”

ISIS's metamorphosis creates an issue in the way in which the British government, and nations as a whole, need to combat them. Traditional methods of dealing with a terrorist threat has involved cutting off supply and removing leadership. In the case of ISIS these are unlikely to work though. Due to the territory it has taken and the armaments it continues to capture it has essentially become self sustaining in terms of supply. While it has a powerful leader in the form of  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi it is increasingly clear that his removal would have little impact on the long term effectiveness of the group with a replacement likely waiting in the wings. 

The British government has already confirmed that it will supply arms to Kurdish fighters and the Iraqi government waging a war against the spread of ISIS.

The Prime Minister has said: “I have always said we would respond positively to requests from them for the direct supply and we are now prepared to do that and so will be providing them with arms, as the Germans and others will.

“Also with allies, we think it’s right to step up our training and mentoring efforts and so we’ve said we would be willing if they would like to train a battalion of Peshmerga fighters because they are doing such a vital job.”

As the conflict continues though more may need to be done. While another military intervention in the Middle East is less than palatable it may become necessary as the group becomes viewed as an occupying army rather than a terrorist group. 

Danger if destabilisation as PKK armed

BRITISH involvement in Iraq is threatening long term stability in region according to some analysts.

British Defence Minister Michael Fallon has warned that military intervention to combat the threat from Islamic State extremists could last for months. 

The news, which broke on Sunday, comes in the wake of confirmation that the British government would aid the supply of arms to Kurdish fighters in the region, something which has led to fears about the long term implications for stability in the war torn area.

The defence secretary told service personnel at the South Cyprus RAF base in Akrotiri: "There may well now be in the next few weeks and months other ways that we may need to help save life [and] protect people and we are going to need all of you again and the surveillance you are able to give us,"

"We want to help the new government of Iraq and Kurdish forces. We want to help them stop the advance of IS and stop them from being terrorised.

"This is not simply a humanitarian mission. We and other countries in Europe are determined to do what we can to help the government of Iraq combat this new and very extreme form of terrorism that IS is promoting."

It is the arming of Kurdish fighters which is proving a controversial tactic, however, amid fears that once the current situation is resolved it could lead to long term conflict on the borders with Britain's NATO ally Turkey.

Richard Gowan, research director of the Centre on International Cooperation, at New York University, said: "There are moments in fast-moving crises when you simply have to stop events spiralling out of control, and worry about the consequences later. This is one of those moments. Arming the Kurds may be a step towards the final fragmentation of Iraq, with worrying consequences for Turkey and Iran. But if the alternative is losing more territory to Isis and allowing more atrocities, then this is still the best short-term option available."

Turkey has fought a long battle against the Kurdish terrorist group the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK), which wants more autonomy for Kurds within Turkey. Despite a tenuous peace between the group and the government in Ankara an influx of weapons and munitions from the West could destabilise the current situation.

“Wars are always a very important catalyst for change . . . In a year’s time the position of the PKK is going to be much stronger than it is now,” said Henri Barkey, a former US State Department official.

Officials in Ankara have been quick to play down the perceived influx of PKK fighters into Iraq, with one spokesmen stating: “I don’t think their involvement is real,” a senior Turkish official said. “It looks more like a media campaign than a real military campaign.”

As Britain becomes more active in the crisis and its reliance on Kurdish fighters increases the military campaign may become more apparent. Calls are already growing for the PKK to be removed from British and US lists of terrorist organisations as their fighters become crucial in the battle for Iraq. With possible legitimacy, training and British supplied weapons Mr Fallon may be creating a long term issue for which he is unprepared to deal with.

Blair's blame game

AS THE conflict in Iraq escalates comments made by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair have caused outrage among observers.

Reports of mass killings of Iraqi soldiers by members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have added fuel to calls for the international community to take action in the violence ridden state. Aid groups have warned that America and Britain need to intervene to prevent a wide scale humanitarian crisis emerging, telling leaders that they must take some responsibility for leaving the country ill-prepared to deal with threats following the 2003 invasion.

Meanwhile Mr Blair, who was made United Nations envoy to the Middle East in 2007, told the British Broadcasting Corporation that the current situation was inevitable and the West cannot be held accountable.

Claiming that the concept Iraq would be more stable if former leader Saddam Hussein had been left in power was simply not credible".

"Even if you'd left Saddam in place in 2003, then when 2011 happened - and you had the Arab revolutions going through Tunisia and Libya and Yemen and Bahrain and Egypt and Syria - you would have still had a major problem in Iraq," he said.

"Indeed, you can see what happens when you leave the dictator in place, as has happened with Assad now. The problems don't go away."

Mr Blair's statement has been heavily criticised by politicians, aid agencies and former military and diplomatic officials.

Writing in the Telegraph on Monday London Mayor Boris Johnson said: "I have come to the conclusion that Tony Blair has finally gone mad. He wrote an essay on his website on Sunday that struck me as unhinged in its refusal to face facts. In discussing the disaster of modern Iraq he made assertions that are so jaw-droppingly and breathtakingly at variance with reality that he surely needs professional psychiatric help.

Tony Blair now believes that all this was “always, repeat always” going to happen. As an attempt to rewrite history, this is frankly emetic"

The British Ambassador to the United Nations at the beginning of the American led 2003 invasion, Sir Christopher Meyer,  was reported as saying: ""We are reaping what we sowed in 2003. This is not hindsight. We knew in the run-up to war that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would seriously destabilise Iraq after 24 years of his iron rule."

Both Britain and America have ruled out sending ground troops to support the embattled Iraqi forces of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. 

Mr Blair's blinkered approach to the situation may further inflame anger that his role in the 2003 invasion has not been fully investigated, and that reports on the war remain partially obscured to the public's eyes.

Turkey may force action in Iraq

AS ISLAMIST insurgents gain ground in Iraq America may find its hand forced if Turkey takes action.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has taken control of Iraq's second largest city Mosul and the home city of former dictator Saddam Hussein, Tikrit. The group, led by former Al Qaeda hardliner Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi, has also announced intentions to push on to Baghdad and beyond.

During the taking of Mosul insurgents kidnapped 49 members of the Turkish consulate, including three children. The attack follows the taking of 31 Turkish lorry drivers on Tuesday in the region.

 Turkish officials have threatened severe consequences if any of the hostages are harmed. 

"All those involved should know that if our citizens are harmed in any way, they will be the subject of harsh reprisals," Turkish media quoted Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu as saying at the United Nations in New York.

As a member of the United Nations Security Council Turkey's actions may have wider implications for the growing conflict.

In a statement UN officials said that they "strongly denounced the taking of hostages at the Turkish Consulate and insist on the immediate and safe return of all personnel.  They condemned acts of violence against diplomatic and consular representatives, which endanger or take innocent lives and seriously impede the normal work of such representatives and officials."

Meanwhile United States Ambassador to the UN Samantha Powers said that she "strongly condemned attacks in Mosul by the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant and its efforts to turn back clock on Iraq's progress."

Turkish influence may put pressure on American President Barack Obama to take a firm stance against the terrorist campaign being waged in Iraq. 

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has informally called on the United States to provide air and drone support as ground forces attempt to repel the rebels. Battle weary America has not made any signs it will seek to become engaged in another conflict in the country, from which it withdrew troops in December 2011, preferring to provide aid to Iraqi forces to maintain its own security. 

Some American officials have already expressed concerns about becoming too involved. Instead they blame Prime Minister Maliki failure to include the Sunni population in politics for the current crisis. 

"He's obviously not been a good prime minister," the Associated Press reported Senator Bob Corker, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as saying. "He has not done a good job of reaching out to the Sunni population, which has caused them to be more receptive to al-Qaida efforts."

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been hesitant to become embroiled in the situation, releasing a statement in which FCO Minister Hugh Robertson said: "We fully support the Iraqi government in its fight against terrorism, and call for the safety of all civilians to be ensured. It is vital that all Iraqi authorities co-operate to tackle the challenges Iraq faces, and we call for a new Iraqi government to be formed quickly to allow political leaders to work together to tackle the causes of insecurity in Iraq."

With the situation looking only to escalate and Turkish involvement plausible Britain and America may find that they are forced to do more than condemn and instead take action.