Foreign Minister Carl Bildt?

Fluffiga anklagelser - DN.se: "Genom vägbygget gjorde Lundin Oil ett stort område som annars inte hade gått att nå tillgängligt för milisen, enligt rapporten. Därmed är Lundin Oil medskyldiga till folkfördrivningen, menar man och insinuerar helt utan bevis att företaget byggt vägen i syfte att underlätta fördrivningen."

It is interesting to see that DN.se has to kick Bildt for being nice to him in an article by saying he showed poor judgment. Charlie Weimers says on his blog that only 1/3 of journalists sympathizes with the center-right Alliansen which carries a possible explanation.

However, I cannot help finding it interesting that building a road, normally considered as an aid project, is used by interest groups to charge a Swedish oil company for vile behavior. What is going to happen in Afghanistan when roads are going to be built? Who is going to invest when they will become accused that the Taliban used their road?

It seems to me that going in in countries like Somalia, Sudan and Afghanistan with investments will have to consider those in power locally. The alternative is to stay out and leave these countries as they are. It is also my assumption the multinationals originating in the West are more favorable to a country than those emanating from authoritarian countries.

The article brings up a citation from Adolf Lundin, the Chairman of the Board of Lundin Oil where he states: "that they work without regard for political risks (...) the only thing that is important for us is that we are on to something really big". It seems to me that such a statement is a mere explanation of why investments in Sudan are being made at all. Companies are becoming aware of the need of showing more humanitarian concern, which is good, all the more reason then that they are on to something big in order to afford this.

Sudan--a Chinese Affair?

Sudan's election: Let those people go The Economist: "Just in the west and the south together, more than 9m people depend on food handouts from abroad. Mr Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court at The Hague for alleged crimes against humanity."

The 41m strong Sudan, to the area the largest African country, is about to break into two parts. Omar al-Bashir has promised that the south may secede. The north Muslim part with the capital city Khartoum and the south Christian and animist rebel part with the town Juba. 20% of the Sudanese import comes from China and they export 48% of their goods, mainly petroleum products, to the same. 32% of the export goes to Japan. al-Bashir runs the oil business from Khartoum which is quite developed. The periphery of the country is, however, in very poor shape. Transparency International ranks Sudan with Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq in terms of corruption, ie, the bottom four in the rank.

In 2005 after the longest civil war in Africa with 2m dead, the so called Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed between the north National Congress party (NCP) of al-Bashir and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) of the semi-autonomous south. As part of the deal was an election for democratization that happened this weekend. 25% of candidates in the parliament would be women. However, the so called Umma party, the Communists and the SPLM have boycotted the election due to overt fraud in the set-up which makes it a walk in the park for Mr Bashir at the same time as its relevance is minimalized.

Mr Bashir who came to power in a coup 1989 is supposed to be what keeps Sudan a notch over Somalia and his presence, despite the ICC warrant, is necessary for not inciting chaos his supporters claim. Early next year there is supposed to be a referendum held for the possibility of the secession of the south. Independence is not going to make the south prosper in the short run, unfortunately. A somewhat pessimistic account of the election is given in this New York Times article. Considered a warm-up for the referendum it has given a bitter taste.

Development?

Poor schooling slows anti-terrorism effort in Pakistan - washingtonpost.com: "With a curriculum that glorifies violence in the name of Islam and ignores basic history, science and math, Pakistan's public education system has become a major barrier to U.S. efforts to defeat extremist groups here, U.S. and Pakistani officials say."

Der Spiegel writes about a situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan that might be "spiralling out of control". The article in general, however, is up-beat in character since it advocates that military should withdraw from Afghanistan.

Well, one of the key problems in AfPak must be that there is recruitment to the enemy from from a pool of 30+170 million people. Therefore the problem and the amount of casualties have increased every year for all the nine years. Even if it is not possible to affect this recruitment on the timescale people generally dwell on for the AfPak discussion future regional stability will be affected. The fastest way of affecting recruitment might be to remove foreign troops.

The conclusion a person with average intelligence must draw from articles like those above is that the "battle" is already lost and what is interesting now is what happens next. How will this region of Western resistance affect the big picture in the future? Will the situation really get worse if no meddling in the affairs of these good people will remain?

I guess what I'm asking is what would happen if the West are not really able to indoctrinate, or otherwise convince, people in the Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan about the splendor of our civilization. Will they go on and live their lives or will they mobilize to conquer the West? My feeling is that they would rather stay by themselves. Europe in particular would be able to peacefully interact with these regions given our large immigrant populations.

These problems are epitomized with the discussion of whether or not Iran should be bombed to releave the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. The Economist have had that debate recently and there is a majority of 71% that don't think one should bomb. That means that a whole 29% actually think that one should go along and bomb a country quite extensively. 29% is furthermore up from 18% in a US poll half a year ago. However, you would not only attack Iran but also in principle all these other countries. Too big a deal and therefore not practical.

People are gathered in Sweden currently to discuss the defence of Sweden. Leaving the Muslim band alone could, if people there would be unwise, mean that Muslims in Europe rose in sympathy and millions of people migrated over to Europe and conquered her in what may sound like a Sverigedemocratic nightmare. In my humble opinion this is not really likely. Are we then afraid of battalions of suicide bombers? Probably not if there wasn't the irritation of foreign troops on their soil.

The situation in Afghanistan shows that the balance necessary for a reasonable discussion on how to proceed is not favorable. There is no meeting of the minds. Saddam Hussein caused the situation by his destabilizing activities. We need to reach for a new situation where the discussion can begin in earnest. We now that our civilization has its charms but they have no effect when propagated by superior looking military personnel.

Before we discuss if we want to be part of NATO or if the EU should act we need to now how we feel about the threat from this region from which we currently have quite a lot of foreign born people in our country. How many Swedes want to bomb Iran? We have not even disclosed this pertinent fact.

ICC och AL

Idag kan man läsa att Mr Bashir av Sudan som den internationella kriminella domstolen (ICC) jagar stöttas av den så kallade "Arab League".

Mr Bashir var på möte i Doha i Qatar idag och Qatar har inte ratifierat en medverkan i ICC så han kan inte arresteras där för sin brottslighet i Darfur.

Sudan är ju intressant också på grund av att de hjälper Hamas att via Egypten smuggla vapen till Gaza. Israeliska plan förstörde en konvoj med 17 lastbilar för någon månad sedan där lasten var raketer som kunde nå Tel Aviv. Mr Bashir var förövrigt på besök hos Mr Mubarak av Egypten före mötet i Doha, enligt The Jerusalem Post. Kina investerar mycket i Sudan och får en tiondel av sin olja därifrån.

USA har ju inte ratifierat en medverkan i ICC så det är intressant i sammanhanget att detta har blivit en konflikt mellan EU och Arabvärlden.

FNs generalsekreterare Ban Ki-moon medverkade på mötet och framförde sitt missnöje med att Mr Bashir hade skickat iväg många av internationella hjälparbetarna för Darfur området. Han ansåg att hjälparbete inte skulle politiseras.