Trials are only way to restore faith after torture

THE release on Tuesday confirming that CIA officials used torture has only proven that which most people already knew a priori.

The 6000 page Senate report lambasts the intelligence agency for using extreme enhanced interrogation techniques which amounted to torture to gain information. Officials have long hinted at the idea that they may have gone too far in their pursuit of terrorists. Former US President George W Bush dismissed claims of torture, claiming that he had authorised enhanced interrogation techniques, something which the Senate had concluded what many had suspected is merely another name to cover horrendous human rights abuses.

Messers Bush, Blair et al may attempt to cleanse their souls through semantic debate but this report will leave them nowhere to turn. 

More than that though it will weaken the West in the eyes of the world an diminishes it ability to act as the policemen to the world. No longer can America and Britain claim the moral high ground in their battle against extremists such as Islamic State. There may be those who claim that torture was necessary to protect freedom and democracy from terrorist threats. What they forgot was that for freedom to exist it must exist for all or it exists for none. By judging that they could discard human rights for suspected terrorists they undermined the very foundation of the democracy they claim they were protecting.

It is too late now to backtrack. It is too late to apologise and move on. The damage has been done. The threat which the CIA was trying to battle through torture has been strengthened by its actions. To think that this will be anything other than a rallying call to terror groups would be delusional at best. This is not to say that it should not have been published though. What needs to happen now, however, is that the full weight of international law needs to be used against those accused. 

If the enemies of freedom and democracy are to be truly defeated then it will not be through torture. It will be by showing that no-one is above the law. That everyone is equal and deserves to be treated as such in the international theatre.

UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism Ben Emmerson has stepped forward to demand just such an action.

"As a matter of international law, the US is legally obliged to bring those responsible to justice," Mr Emmerson said in a statement made from Geneva.

"The US attorney general is under a legal duty to bring criminal charges against those responsible."

It had previously been claimed by officials that it was only left wing conspiracy theorists who would call for President Bush and former Prime Minister Tony Blair to be indicted for war crimes. Anyone who thought otherwise was in their view just as bad as the terrorists themselves. To prevent those terrorist groups gaining ground these officials must now recognise that a trial for war crimes is the only way to restore faith and hope in freedom and democracy.  

  

A terrifying definition of the data

FIGURES released this week have pointed to a dramatic upswing in the number of terrorist attacks globally. While the majority of these are based in Iraq where the self proclaimed Islamic State is a highly visible presence some in Western media and political circles have picked up on the news as an excuse to call for ever more draconian measures to be implemented in the curtailing of civil liberties.

Since the tragic events of September 11th 2001 for many in the West terrorism has become synonymous with Islam. The history of its use over even the last century has been lost. The actions of the Provisional Irish Republican Army appear to have been forgotten. 

White supremacist bombings in the United States are pushed to one side in favour of a new belief that terrorism is religious rather than political, and by religious the conservative right wing mean Islamic.

The report into the rise in terrorist attacks will not help the debate by making claims that the  four main groups responsible for 66% of all deaths from terrorist attacks throughout 2013, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and the self-styled Islamic State, were motivated by a radicalised and perverted form of Islam.

All four groups used "religious ideologies based on extreme interpretations of Wahhabi Islam", claimed the report before adding, "To counteract the rise of religious extremism, moderate Sunni theologies need to be cultivated by credible forces within Islam."

What the report seems to overlook by counting attacks by groups such as IS and Boko Haram is that terrorism, rather than the ideology of the groups, has changed. These are not loosely organise networks of cells with a clearly defined political agenda. These are highly trained hierarchical insurgent armed forces. If they are to be counted as terrorist groups, which by their methods of instigating fear and anti-state actions they can arguably be claimed as being, then so to should dissidents in Ukraine. So to should drug cartels in South America. 

If we are to get an accurate figure for terrorist actions then it needs to be made clear what a terrorist act is and what classes as a terrorist group. 

While the report itself is a well balanced academic and useful piece it allows for its misuse by the right wing by not addressing this issue clearly enough.

As with any form of data gathering, particularly on such a complex and wide reaching issue clarification of the measurements and ensuring a lack of bias is always going to be a difficult thing to do.

In Israel this week a horrendous attack on a synagogue has left five people dead. There is no doubt that this was a hideous and brutal attack. What could be questioned, however, is whether this was a terrorist attack. There is nothing to say that this was not an act of madness by psychologically traumatised individuals. Indeed if the act had been carried out by a Christians in exactly the same way then this is what it would quite probably have been counted as.

Before we dismiss a rise in killings as a rise in Islamic fundamentalism we must clearly identify what the criteria we are using is lest we taint a religion based on peace and honour unjustly. 

War hasn't ended but it has changed

"THEY shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

We will remember them." So say the words of the famous ode to remembrance taken from Lawrence Binyon's poem For the Fallen.

One hundred years ago millions of young men, and women, faced the horrors of a war unprecedented in the history of mankind. A war where the grim technology of death turned the fields of Europe into blood soaked patches of mud where the poppy sprung up in defiance, standing strong as proof that life will rise from death and loss shall never been diminished. It is those Poppies which continue to stand as a memorial not only to those who died in the first Great War but to those who have died in every conflict since.

There are those who have argued that after a century we should stop marking armistice, those who  have claimed that calling it the "Great War" somehow glorifies it. It is not nationalism to remember the dead. It is not idealism that allows us to thank those who laid down their lives in a bitter and futile struggle. Great is a reflection of size not glory.  

More than this though is that Armistice day is not just for those who died in World War One. The war to end all wars failed singularly in that particular respect, as in so many others. Only twenty years later the world was once again pitched into a brutal struggle, this time a fight for its soul against the evil of Nazism rather than a battle for land and resources as World War One at its core was. Nor has war ended since. Indeed as technology grows so to does the threat of death, although there are those who have argued that it diminishes it. There are many who would agree that far from being an obsolete idea World War Three is only a matter of time, an inevitability where the only question is if it will occur within our lifetimes. War has not ended, although its face may have. The implementation of violence within and without national borders is no longer the sole mandate of the state. With the emergence of powerful militia and terrorist groups such as in Ukraine, Nigeria, Iraq and Syria and elsewhere war has become an act between polities not states and polities are no longer just the states which once were their representatives.

There is very little that can be done to avoid further conflicts. If the memory of those who deaths have stained the global soul for a century could not prevent it then very little anyone can say or do will now. 

In their memory though we must not forget. Great is not glorification it is a warning. A threat for what will happen again if we fail to remember that they died for our very future. 

EU drives towards "flatter" world

The European Union has always proved to be a contentious subject in recent months, however, it has progressed to being an explosive topic.

For countries such as Turkey membership of the bloc has been something viewed with awe. Concessions have been made and flaming hoops jumped through as it continues down a long road to potential acceptance.

Meanwhile there is Britain which is fighting to rework the European Union into something more amenable to its electorate. For both sides of the debate the challenges can be daunting. For both the road they are walking is likely to be filled with opponents trying to stop their progress. The road has always had people waiting in the verges though to provide a helping hand. These good Samaritans seem to be becoming scarcer on both sides as states look to maintaining their own interests.

Most recently German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned British Prime Minister David Cameron that she was losing patience with him over Europe. In a widely quoted article in the German newspaper Der Spiegel she reportedly said that she would not allow Mr Cameron to introduce limits on the number of immigrants moving between countries within the bloc.

For potential members like Turkey such a move would be catastrophic. The freedom of workers to move around the European Union to follow the jobs has become a crucial part of its ability to maintain as standing as an industrialised trading bloc. This arguing in favour of such movement highlight the ways in which it helps European countries combat the hegemony of America and balance trade. 

Those who support Mr Cameron, many of whom have preferred to stay in the verges rather than risk crossing the powerful Merkel, would argue that this movement tends to be from low skilled workers who take jobs available to the indigenous population. 

Even the most ardent Eurosceptic must see that this argument is flawed. Possibly this is why Mr Cameron's usual supporters remain hidden in the shadows. The free movement of workers would allow countries, such as Turkey, to receive foreign capital as at least a portion of wages cross borders back home. Perhaps this is why right wing groups fear workers from outside their own country. It would make a better argument than unsubstantiated xenophobia or bigotry after all. 

The outflow of capital, however, is more than compensated for by lower wage costs leading to higher profits and therefore companies paying increased taxes. 

It is the reduction of jobs for locals which remains the main concern though. It is one which the honest solution of working harder and doing a good job is treated with genuine anathema amongst antagonists. The failure to realise that it allows for domestic workers to follow the jobs seems to have escaped their attention.

The European Union has moved on from is founding principles. It's growth and subsequent subsumption of countries has overridden the sovereignty of the Peace of Westphalia. It's evolution, however, distasteful to some, is inevitable though as the world becomes flatter. 

Those countries looking to join can saw hope from the fact that no matter what the countries seeking to change the EU may think the world is moving and it is moving towards a closer union. 

Uncertain future for a free Afghanistan

WHEN British troops pulled out of Afghanistan last week, ending a 13 year conflict which has claimed the lives of 453 British service personnel, it was hailed as a moment of change in the country.

In a display of marked solemnity the flag was lowered over Camp Bastion and once again the future of Afghanistan was left in the hands of the Afghanis. 

Despite the reassuring rhetoric of Western leaders it is an uncertain future at best. British Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted at the time: "I made a commitment that I would get our Armed Forces out of Afghanistan by 2015 and today sees the end of combat operations in the country.

"We will always remember the courage of those who served in Afghanistan on our behalf and never forget those who made the ultimate sacrifice." 

There are few who seem the rate the likelihood of the Taliban rising to power again as a likelihood. Too much has changed in the intervening years. For people given a taste of freedom, with girls now being educated in allied built schools and the ability to live their own lives without threat of brutal reprisal, returning to a life under Taliban rule holds little. 

The Taliban are not defeated, however, they still hold power in large parts of Afghanistan and its neighbours and for many they offer a form of stability and security preferable to the now uncertain future without them.

Warning of the threat still posed by the Taliban Professor Malcolm Chalmers, of defence think tank the Royal United Services Institute, was reported as saying that it was still "a very capable organisation".

"What we have to do to prevent the country slipping back is support the Afghan state - the civilian side, making sure that teachers and doctors and nurses are paid, but also critically the armed forces," he said.

"The Afghan army has come a long way in the last few years but they're still dependent on foreign money to pay their wages and right now there's a question mark over how long that will continue."

Even without the threat of the Taliban Afghanistan is far from being the bastion of peace and freedom which politicians led people to believe that it would be 13 year ago. Afghanistan is ranked as the third most corrupt country in the world. Not a position which was hoped for when Western forces stepped in to install democracy in the country. It has a weak government which many believe unable to provide coherent governance from a centralised location for the whole country. This just adds to the likelihood of disparate groups springing up around the country. If a group similar to the so called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria does not make itself known then the opportunity for powerful militia leaders to set up their own fiefdoms may prove too compelling for some.

When Russian forces were forced out of the country in the 1980's America declared that it was a new period of freedom for the people of Afghanistan. A century earlier the same had been claimed of the disastrous British route from the country. If diplomatic efforts are not increased and support still provided then for Afghanistan it may all just be a little bit of history repeating.

West prepared to sacrifice Turkey for security

ONCE thought of as a key ally of the West Turkey is becoming the scapegoat for all America and Britain's own fears.

While politicians in London and Washington wring their hands and promise increasingly sceptical and war weary electorates that they will not send in ground troops they have little compunction about demanding that Ankara does just that.

In a stunning display of arrogance and lack of foresight American lawmakers in particular have condemned Turkish government reluctance to provide support for Kurdish fighters battling Islamic State of Iraq and Syria terrorists.

The lynchpin moment has become Kobani, a town on the border of Syria and Turkey which has been pushed to a position of prominence in global politics its inhabitants would once have considered impossible. 

The French author Bernard Henri Levy wrote a widely published piece questioning whether Turkey should be allowed to remain in NATO if it does not deploy ground forces to protect the embattled holdout. 

At the same time the United Nations Security council held back from issuing a place on the Security Council, something which may have demonstrated that it was prepared to acknowledge that there were long term strategies for combating ISIS, in favour of that well known bastion of stability Angola.

While liberal thinkers may be happy to condemn Turkey for not throwing its full military might behind the West and its institutions they seem oblivious to the the implications for long term Turkish security, or the hypocrisy of claiming that American airstrikes can only do so much without Turkish ground troops. Not British, American, French et al but Turkish soldiers on the ground risking their lives in a battle they are being bullied to take part in.

From a realist position Turkey must focus on maintaining its own security. While international institutions such as NATO and the UN may be seen as necessary it is the authority of the state which is the highest authority in the international system. 

At present ISIS is unlikely to launch an attack directly against Turkey, although it undoubtedly has the ability. Alternatively Kurdish terrorists from the PKK have long made it clear that they are prepared to do just that. 

From a security position Turkey would at most risk individual acts from ISIS, which it could easily control with its experience of handling terrorists incidents, if it allowed its allies to use its airbases to launch airstrikes. If, however, it was to expand military forces and equipment in a ground war in Syria and Iraq it would spread itself across the region to protect the interests of its allies while weakening its ability to fight a longer term battle for its own internal security. By supporting Kurdish fighters against one threat officials in Ankara run a significant risk of giving them legitimacy which could lead to internal splits within Turkey further down the road.

Despite allowing Kurdish fighters to cross its borders to engage with ISIS this is no enough for Western powers who, in a stunning display of hubris, have yet again only seen the need to combat an immediate threat without any thought of the long term implications.  

Rise of right down to the fear it creates

WITHOUT realising the world seems to be sleep walking into an era of increasingly right wing and xenophobic principles.

All you have to do is look at the number of people reposting the supposedly harmless links from groups such as Britain First, many doing so without realising what and insidious and dangerous organisation this truly is.

The recent win by the United Kingdom Independence Party of a parliamentary seat in England is yet another sign of the inexorable rise of the right wing and the closing of minds across the world.

It is not just in Britain that this steady rise of the politics of fear and hatred has been seen. It is increasing across the globe, as with it brings a diminishing opportunities for solving the very problems which are pushing people towards the extremes of the spectrum.

Fears over terrorism, economic woes and increasing calls for isolationism are driving the focus of voters while hiding from them the long term impact removal from the international system would have.

Using Nigel Farage's UKIP as an example again, his calls for an exit from the European Union play well with voters but what would it actually mean for the country? Has anyone actually considered why so many countries want to join the bloc? Turkey has been in negotiations to join for years, is this merely because it enjoys the process? Of course not. It is because it knows that the benefits of joining far outweighs the negatives.

"I'm not prepared to wait for three years. I want us to have a referendum on this great question next year and if UKIP can maintain its momentum and get enough seats in Westminster we might just be able to achieve that," Farage told the BBC.

Essentially what he is saying therefore is that he is not prepared to wait until all the facts are in and people have had time to rationally analyse the arguments rather than being pushed into a decision which could, and will, diminish Britain's power in the international system for generations to come.

Parties on the far right play on fear. They attract the dispossessed not because they are any more motivated to move towards them than anyone else but because they make people believe that they are dispossessed. 

It is all too easy to think of xenophobic bigots as tattooed shaven thugs, and some still are. They have learned from the lessons of the past though. They are using social media to get people to share their insidious views, often without realising it, they preach there messages of hate coached in the language of sense by using half truths and distorted facts. They play on ignorance and fear. 

At their very worst, and here we go far beyond the hyperbole of Mr Farage's party of malcontents, and the recruitment by the global far right has much in common with that used by terrorist groups such as that calling itself Islamic State. The truth is that fear one is driving people to support the other. It is only through teaching tolerance and inclusivity that both can be defeated because it surely must happen that go one to go so must the other.