Julian Assange to tell his secrets - but not just yet...

So Julian Assange might be making a move.  In a weird press conference a rather pasty looking Julian announced in that languidly disinterested tone he so seems to enjoy boring us with that “I’m Leaving but I’m not leaving yet”. There doesn’t seem to be any point to delaying the inevitable any further if that is the case. Perhaps he thinks there is still a little more publicity to milk from this saga. By his side sat the Ecuadorian foreign minister with a rather sickly smile on his face no doubt wishing he was somewhere else and who must surely have better things to do with his time.

 

I imagine that our Julian does not make a particularly easy guest and that, behind the scenes, the Ecuadorians would love to see the back of him after 2 years of hosting what we can probably, and charitably, describe as a very self centred, delusional, egotistical prima donna. That he should make a lengthy self-serving public announcement bewailing his sorry (and self-imposed) circumstances when the level of suffering in places like the middle east is so vast and terrifying, is a measure of just how out of touch he is.  The world has changed and moved on, where as Julian has stayed put, both very literally and figuratively speaking too.  Most likely, the Ecuadorians, fed up with him,  have politely (or not so politely quite possibly) given Julian notice that he has to move on by a certain date; hence the strange mixed-message press announcement. I wonder what they have said to him, perhaps they have told him he has to move out because they want to redecorate his room, or perhaps they need his room because the ambassador’s granny is coming to stay. Any excuse to move him along.

 

So has Julian decided to face his accusers? He is very keen for the secrets of others to be shared as widely as possible on his Wikileaks website, although I doubt he will publish his own secrets up there. However, two years on, it sounds like he is now prepared to answer those allegations of sexual assault. He wants to face justice, tell the truth to a waiting world and clear him name…but not just yet.

See Julian Assange reappears

Israel, Gaza, Syria and Iraq: An (Un) holy mess….

Sharing an opinion about the Middle East is like moshing in a mine field, so here goes, for a slightly different perspective.
 

 Accurate numbers of casualties in these conflicts is always difficult to establish with any reliability. Yet, for what it's worth, here are some very general ball park figures to give some sense of measure to these respective wars along with hopefully some sensible observations and assumptions (ok, that's being optimistic if it's about the Middle East).
 

 The raw data

• Syria: 170 000 dead and 9 million displaced both within Syria and in neighbouring countries.

·         Iraq (since the ISIS invasion): 9000 dead, displaced around 500 000

·         Gaza Strip:  Just under 2000 Palestinians (as at 08 August 2014) and 64 Israeli soldiers and 3 civilians dead. Minimal numbers displaced from Gaza yet significant shifting of the population within its borders. Only the figures for Gaza and Israel are going to be very accurate.

 It goes without saying that a mere casual recitation of figures around displacement does in no way illustrate the great trauma and distress of the refugee crisis.
 

 “Woman and Children”
 

 In the case of Syria the number of woman and children dead will run into many tens of thousands. One estimate is that this number is about 60 000. By November last year it was estimated that just under 11 500 children had been killed. By now that number will be much higher.

 

In the case of Gaza it is around 1500 civilians, almost 75% of the overall fatalities which are approaching 2000. Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Both Hamas and Israel must know that inevitably civilians will bear the brunt of the casualties. If Hamas want to fire rockets at Israel, almost inevitably therefore it will have to be from areas close to civilians. That they still do so must mean this is part of their strategy, for when Israel retaliates, as Hamas know they will, these civilians will inevitably suffer.

 

In Iraq the chaos and disorganisation in that disintegrating country means it’s hard to have a remotely reliable picture of this figure. Reports seem to suggest in the region of 9000 civilian deaths this year but this does not even begin to reflect the level of trauma being inflicted over a prolonged period of time. It currently appears to be reaching an apogee of terrifying inhumanity and ideologically driven barbarity and cruelty which has now forced a very carefully calibrated response from the US, naturally concerned at how any “humanitarian” intervention could be used as a precedent for formal Russian intervention in the Ukraine.

 

In all 3 conflicts there is or has been deliberate targeting of civilians. In Gaza however, whilst Hamas must by virtue of its military actions have this as a specific goal (including both Israelis directly and its own population indirectly), Israel has said it has sought not to do so and has gone out of its way to avoid doing this. This is logical because it knows that it will lose the media battle for the conflict's moral high ground if it does so (and which has already happened). This intention appears to have been undermined a number of times in excessive and brutal fashion. What is a fact however is that, if its intention had been to specifically target civilians, then the casualty figures would have been much higher given its overwhelming military advantage.

 

In Syria the targeting by the State of civilians forms part of a deliberate ethnic cleansing drive based largely upon religious belief (Alawites (Shia) and Sunni in this case). This is similar to the position in Iraq although in this case it is the invading Sunni terror-army of ISIS taking the lead against any faith not their own, yet with the Iraq state (Shia dominated) also politically guilty of this against Sunnis but not on the same crusading and murderous scale.
 

However it is in Syria where the numbers are the most horrifying.
 

The world's Media
 

Syria:
 

The media appears to have some ability to access and report on the conflict, however understandably this is not a complete picture, much material being “unverified” and any reporting from the Syrian State’s side is likely to be or have been heavily distorted or supervised. Despite its causality count dwarfing the other 2 conflicts, it receives the least media attention currently.
 

Gaza:
 

The reporting is the most comprehensive of all the 3 conflict zones, probably for several reasons.

·         It has long been a flash point and the media, like the BBC, are well established there;

·         The Palestinians will be more media savvy / experienced that those in the other 2 conflicts

·         It's a much smaller land area, making reporting much "easier" from a purely geographical and logistical perspective.

·         The conflict is at the fault line between Middle Eastern and Arab states and Israel, which is western backed

This is despite the causality figures and the levels of barbarity being far less than in the other 2 conflicts (which is not to down play the suffering in Gaza).
 

Iraq:
 

Media coverage is only from the Iraqi and Kurdish controlled areas, there is very little reliable reporting from ISIS controlled areas, for obvious reasons. The chaotic violence and shifting front lines no doubt also makes this very hazardous. However ISIS have demonstrated that they are social media savvy to a certain extent in recruiting new members and reaching out to and influencing new audiences in a recruitment drive

The questions about media coverage are very important. Whist “War is hell", apparently first said by General Sherman of the US Civil war, ever more so now, war is also about media management and manipulation (which, to use another conflict momentarily, is why Russians think Putin is a hero for what he is doing in Ukraine and the West thinks he is a murdering monster).
 

 All this raises some questions and observations:
 

 1. Why is there seemingly more media concern with the conflict in Gaza than in Syria or Iraq when the casualty count in Gaza is, for instance, less than 2% of the level in Syria? It has taken near genocide in Iraq to shift attention from Gaza.

 

 2. There have been angry demonstrations against Israel in many European cities.  I cannot recall any such comparable demonstrations against the tyrant in Damascus or his regime, either now or at the time when that conflict had led to a comparable number of casualties to those we have seen in Gaza. Why not even an equivalent level of public protest for a slaughter of Syrian innocents on a massively greater scale?
 

 3. Religion: each of these conflicts has religious ideology either as its basis or as a heavily contributing / influencing factor. This intolerance expressed in terrifying violence makes it seem almost impossible to imagine a time where peace might reign across all these regions. If all the protagonists were secular, would these conflicts be taking place, or, if so, would they be easier to resolve?
 

 4. In all the cases in "4" above there are different beliefs involved.

·         In Syria there are Shia, the Alawite (a form of Shia Islam) and Sunni Muslims.

·         In Iraq there are Shias, Sunnis, (which includes Kurds who are however the most religiously diverse and tolerant) Christians and ancient sects, like the Yazidis.

·         In Gaza it has of course been Judaism, and Sunni Islam in the form of Hamas,
 

In the case of Shias and Sunnis, they are different strands of the same overall religion. Believing different things, all these various, sometimes disparate sometimes related faiths, cannot all be right. Each of these faiths is of course convinced it is the true faith however, at best, only one can be right. But why should one be and not the others? For that matter, why should any be? Finding a political solution to wars that have such powerful religious underpinnings is almost impossible.
 

 5.  It’s an interesting observation that 2 of the world’s most secular countries, Denmark and Norway are also the rated the world's happiest and second happiest countries respectively. Whilst the latter measures are open to argument as lists always are, in does beg the question - would a little less God  be good for everyone in general and particularly good for the Middle East.

 

Amen?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Stupid Rules OK: GM Food

Using biotechnology, science is now increasingly able to grow GM crops or GMO (genetically modified organisms) as it is more correct known, that bring benefits that only a few years ago would have been inconceivable. Using this technology, increasingly drought resistant, disease resistant and more healthy crops can be grown. This is good for the environment  and also good news for farmers, especially in the poorer, more populated parts of the world in often drought prone regions. You would think everyone would be celebrating these developments - but they are not.

Many on the political extremes, left and right, the misinformed and scientifically ignorant and the gullible, object to GM food. This is largely because it's cast as dangerous and sinister. For example, the ever incandescent Daily Mail brands it Frankenstein food, reaching for depths of idiocy impressive even for that noisy, vacuous organ. Casting potentially transformational developments as the stuff of nightmare and horror fiction is right up the Mail's street, but as a whole, it and those who share its views are doing us all a major disservice. The debate is not about evidence or fact, it's all about fear and suspicion. Fear of completely speculative dangers unsupported by any evidence and suspicion that we are all being secretly poisoned by big, normally American, corporations with nasty track records who are secretly putting something new and experimental into our food.

Likewise, the green lobby is up in arms, along with the organic food industry ( no surprise there then), painting all sorts of wild images of the dooms we are about to bring down on our heads if we eat anything not grown naturally and no doubt fertilised with chemically free night soil.Ok, I made up the last bit, but Greenpeace have said that the "introduction of GM food and crops has been a disaster, posing a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health. In addition, the real reason for their development has not been to end world hunger but to increase the stranglehold multinational biotech companies already have on food production". What they do not say of course is that there is a  clear weight of scientific research to back up this view. That's because the evidence points to quite the opposite.

None of GM's detractors seem to be able to accept that those seeking to develop this technology might not be agents of evil corporations. They are scientists, who just might be motivated by the challenges posed  by trying to feed a growing world population with healthier,  more affordable food that can be grown in increasingly challenging environments.

I'm no scientist, and have no grasp of the complexities of genetics and biotech. So, in such a case, how do I make my own mind up? Well, we have to rely upon those who do understand it. What is the scientific consensus on GM food? It is that genetically engineered crops currently available to the public pose no greater health risks or environmental concerns than their non-engineered counterparts. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food.  The reason the evidence is therefore compelling is because the sheer reliable weight of it means the vast  majority of scientists agree with this view. That includes outfits like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Royal Society of Medicine and the Royal Society of London ( one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world), the French Academy of Science and its German and USA equivalents, the World Health Organisation, the U.S. National Academy of Science etc, the list goes on and on.

Perhaps they are all wrong and the likes of the Daily Mail and its odd bed fellows and allies out of left field are right and all these organisations are part of some vast global conspiracy  being orchestrated by the Monsanto's of this world. More likely though, as with virtually all popular conspiracy theories, there are no real, dull facts or stats to support it. However, if we let this vociferously vocal but uninformed lobby derail this science, then truly we are letting Stupid Rule OK.