You shall kill, sometimes?

Åkesson tar Svenssons plats Politik Debattämnen Debatt Aftonbladet: "I så fall behöver Jimmie Åkesson bara bli varm i kläderna, för att klara av vad Göran Hägglund misslyckats med, det vill säga bli en värdig efterträdare till Alf Svensson i svensk politik."

Torbjörn Tännsjö seems to say that Alf Svensson is against immigration and I guess that Svensson will have to answer for himself. Åkesson and Svensson are apparently both against abortions. When he says "honorable" successor of Svensson, I guess he reveals much about his own character and political views.

However, what I want to comment on is the low rating of humans that Tännsjö is advocating when he claims that people don't care about what is claimed by a politician as long as it has a high contrast. I thought that when people vote for a person rather than when they vote for a party they make an evaluation of that person's character as it appears. The character of a leader is going to have a profound impact on how they will act not only today but also in the future. This is why Reinfeldt is so much a more promising candidate than is Sahlin. He projects as a better leader. The conservative right is moving leftward in Sweden, which might be another explanation for KDs low ratings.

Apparently Tännsjö has written a book called You shall sometimes kill (Du ska understundom dräpa). This title makes the probability for my reading of it very low. I, like Göran Hägglund, don't think physicians should kill. Not even sometimes. There was a debate on the radio in the program Studio Ett the other day where this issue was discussed. Apparently, the county's physicians are improving the means of caring for people that are about to die. It will be possible to lower the consciousness of a patient if pain, anxiety or other ailments can't be managed in another fashion.

Tännsjö is apparently a humanist and as such seethes a highly critical attitude against religion which is apparent from his article. This attitude is not longer understandable since approximateely 80% of the population is known to believe, most of which have some kind of faith. I myself belong to this majority of mankind that has faith, I call my faith religious humanism, but without any disdain for people who do have faith in Christ.

Is Google leading the way out of a "business as usual" paradigm on China?

The last week has featured a series of columns that have been highly negative on China. This development now seem to have culminated with the news that Google might leave China, even if not entirely. They have been there since 2006, despite their motto to not be evil. The current debacle is derived from a brutal cyber attack on activists that is believed to originate in China.

Taking a stand on the issue of whether or not concerns for human rights should influence how we do business with China or not is becoming increasingly difficult. Among the negative articles about China recently was one in The New York Times that pictured China as a ship in a storm with the most efficient, fastest responding, crew. Being able to make fast decisions and making people carrying them out would in future economic warfare be something others would have to emulate to be competitive.

Is China in this fashion challenging the whole democratic West? I for one believe that we should just continue our democratic business as usual and be confident that this paradigm holds. Emulating Chinese practises would be a disaster. To operate a country like it was in a disastrous environment all the time cannot be a winning scheme. There is not time for regular life and too much all the time has to be brushed under the carpet. There is too little time for maintenance and repair.

Should Iran be bombed?

There is an ongoing Debate in The Economist about the notion that Iran's nuclear facilities should be bombed.

Economist Debates: Iran: Guest: "The question posed by the house captures perfectly the problem with the debate on Iran in the West. It embodies a decade-old approach to Iran that reduces this major country into a single variable problem, Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Every non-nuclear development is either viewed from the prism of the nuclear programme, or is simply ignored."

I recently commented on the idea of Trita Parsi that the Obama Doctrine might have caused the post-election Green Uprising in Iran. Today he weighs in on the issue of whether or not Iran should be bombed, an opinion advocated by The Economist, although 68% of people voting on the debate think this is not the way to go.

I agree with Parsi, bombing Iran would put an end to the democracy movement of Iran for good. It is of course interesting that a highly initiated crowd reading The Economist are reasonable on Iran despite the indoctrination of "The House". Parsi is, however, not proposing, like I do, that further approachment of Iran by removing sanctions should be tried. President Obama is, however, grateful to the Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan for keeping a door open to Tehran.

There is today also information that Turkey would possibly be able to negotiate with the Taliban for an "Afghanization" of the situation there. Recent words in the press on the membership deal between Turkey and the EU have indicated that Turkey is becoming distanced to this development. It would of course be interesting if an axis of European influence on these trouble spots could be mediated by Turkey. In this case Turkey would have found an important role for itself that would be highly appreciated by both sides.

Lady Catherine Ashton and EUs position on foreign affairs so far

Catherine Ashton was interviewed today at the EU parliament for three ours as part of the parliament's investigation of the new commission of Jose Manuel Barroso. Gunnar Hökmark said in his blog that Ashton pointed to Russia and China as strategic partners which is in line with her position as trade commissioner. EU is lining up with Obama's administration on this one as with the Iran question.

EUobserver / EU's new top diplomat remains cool under fire: "She hinted she would back further sanctions against Iran if the country continues to ignore international calls to open its nuclear programme to scrutiny. 'If we don't have the rules kept to, then we have to take action in some form,' she said."

Unfortunately there is not much that actually can be done if Iran goes their own way, especially if you want to be partners with Russia and China. Ashton also had a milder tone on Israel than she had when questioned by MEPs before Christmas. She is for a two-state solution but did not criticize Israels occupation of Judea and Samaria.

Ashton apparently is going to focus on Ukraine and their election as well as on the Muslim extremist infested countries between Somalia and Pakistan during the upcoming weeks.

Charlemagne weighs in

Did the Obama Doctrine cause the Green Uprising in Iran?

Ett år med Obama i Vita huset - Konflikt - sr.se: "I studion finns också Trita Parsi, för att ge synpunkter på hur presidenten hanterat krisen i Iran. Parsi har bakgrund i Sverige och är idag ordförande i National Iranian American Council och bosatt i Washington."

Trita Parsi put forward the idea that Obama with his new approach to the Muslim world caused the Green Uprising in Iran. This is a very interesting idea that if correct would point at a clear advance of the Obama Doctrine over the Bush ditto during the last year.

People in Iran might have been gloomy over the prospect of a war between the US and Iran and when the pressure waned they finally visualised a path to a final integration of Iran to the World community rather than, what for any intelligent Iranian must be a very dismal idea, The Iranian Revolution across the world.

This line of thinking would point in a direction of removing sanctions towards Iran. This would further the hope of an approachment with the West and significantly strenghten the opposition. Parsi meant that supporting the democracy movement would be the most important issue over 2010. He said that the only possible mistake of the Obama administration vis-à-vis Iran was the neglect of forcefully denoting the regime crackdown on the green movement. My own line of thinking on that subject was that it was very important for Obama not to intervene during the riots which would have strenghtened the possibility for the regime to blame the West via the non-urban population.

Removing sanctions is, however, removing what many think is the only means of blocking Iran to produce nuclear weapons. As I pointed out before, the problem with this is that Iran if they want to can produce nuclear arms. Neither the US or the EU would stop them. Israel might however try, they are united as a country against Iran. They simply do not trust them with nuclear weapons. This dilemma is hard to solve.

Parsi's priority then is to generate a slightly more democratic Iran. The question then is if this is enough to solve the dilemma?

Are we doing the right thing in Afghanistan?

Avatar (2009 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Worldwide, Avatar grossed an estimated $232,180,000 on its opening weekend,[15] the ninth-largest opening-weekend gross of all time, and the largest for a non-franchise, non-sequel and original film. After 17 days in release, it became the fastest film to reach $1 billion in box office receipts[16] and the fifth to gross more than $1 billion worldwide. Less than three weeks after its release, the film became the second highest grossing film of all time worldwide."

According to reviews of the film, I have not seen it myself, the US army is beaten up by a spiritual people called Na'vi in a sensitive ecosystem, a planet Pandora. In other words there is both save-the-earth and anti-war sentiments that seem very popular. It is fascinating to observe capitalism in action against its main proponent. Don't misunderstand me, I'm very grateful that it is the US that has the largest military in the world.

Yesterday I referred to a speech by Hillary Clinton, the US State Department Secretary, where she spoke of development as a means of lowering risks to the US in the future from states that are on the verge of failing. Military would be used to secure such operations. She makes use of an axiom: if we don't invest in this today, it will be more costly tomorrow. Is this axiom correct if the countries in question are indigenously hostile to the West in general and to the US in particular? Because, development will not work under such circumstances and it then smells of waste of good money, not mentioning the loss of lives. Making war, polluting and devouring raw materials apparently do not make the US, China or the EU popular.

Used as a world opinion poll Avatar might be more important the many seem to think?

Speaking of Yemen

Hillary Clinton on Development in the 21st Century Foreign Policy: "But whether it's to improve long-term security in places torn apart by conflict, like Afghanistan, or to further progress in countries that are on their way to becoming regional anchors of stability, like Tanzania, we pursue development for the same reasons: to improve lives, fight poverty, expand rights and opportunities, strengthen communities, and secure democratic institutions and governance; and in doing so, advance global stability, improve our own security, and project our values and leadership in the world."

Carl Bildt is very concerned about the development in the band of countries stretching from Somalia to Pakistan in his blog today and a comment on how the problem is approached is furnished by Hillary Clinton in a speech yesterday. I guess Clinton is striking while the iron is hot now after the plane bombing attempt by a Nigerian trained in Yemen.

It is interesting reading and as Clinton points out it works in some countries but not in others. Afghanistan looks like a failure today with its eight year in a row escalation of problems and a foiled democracy attempt in the recent election. The Taliban is apparently attempting a shadow government of their own as well. People like the Taliban would of course refuse the benevolent help of the US and EU. Let's hope the next one and half year will turn the tide.

If you don't have time to read the whole speech there is a short version in the Christian Science Monitor today. The key word is help with development: teach a person how to fish and they can feed themselves for a life time. Partnerships with countries risking to become failed states can do good.

A good question is what to do if the countries Bildt is talking about are beyond repair? Move in with the cavalry and mobilize them over 30 years or just let them necrotize. The last scenario is of course very difficult given a humanistic point of view. When the first alternative looks gloomy the whole story becomes very frustrating. A challenge that has to be met.