Can Afghanistan be governed by Kabul?

NOTE: This article was published on the site "Open Democracy" on November 27th.

SUMMARY:

The Afghan problem appears insoluble, and the recently decided "surge" will not contribute to a solution. The issue of decentralization has not been sufficiently addressed, and ought to be taken into account.

TEXT

The inauguration of Afghanistan’s president Karzai, in a capital city turned into a deserted fortress for the occasion, has doubtlessly constituted one of the very lowest points in the painful history of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and its dreadful follow-up.

The Afghans are a patient people: it took almost ninety years for them to convince the British that any attempt permanently to occupy the country would be futile, and they also fought the Soviet invasion for almost a decade. NATO has been there, now, for eight years, and has yet to consolidate its presence, even in the capital city, Kabul, which, at times, such as the day of this infamous inauguration, appears totally occupied and blockaded, with checkpoints every few hundred meters and military presence visible at every corner, but yet can be the theatre of frightful attacks on foreign troops and – unfortunately – afghan and foreign civilians.

The invasion of Afghanistan was greeted with approval and understanding by almost all the world’s Governments as an apparently justified reaction to an act of terrorism ostensibly masterminded in Afghanistan itself, but very lame and contradictory justification has been given on the maintaining of a massive military presence there after the expulsion of Al Qaida – the achievement of the initial “casus belli”.

Whether or not there were also covert reasons to encourage the United States and at least some of its NATO allies into extending the Afghan operation from a simple surgical strike against Al Qaida into a “regime change” venture is open to conjecture, and constitutes one of those subjects seldom approached by international commentators. It would be a mistake to ignore the fact that a “western oriented” Afghanistan would be of extreme usefulness to the major western powers because of the greater ease of access to the energy reserves in Central Asia. With “friendly” governments in the Central Asian republics, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, oil could be pumped through these countries to Karachi with fewer political problems, avoiding “undependable” Iran. This solution was already the subject of speculation in the pre-Taliban days, and is probably still being considered by some of the interested parties.

There is the suggestion that NATO’s presence in Afghanistan is an integral, if not a dominating part of the world’s struggle against terrorism, and there is no doubt that the Al Qaida headquarters, and some of its training facilities, were in Afghanistan at the time of the invasion. The question needs to be asked, however, if the current Taliban – and not only Taliban – insurgency in Afghanistan does actually pose an international security threat and is not, instead a natural, typically Afghan, reaction to the presence of foreign troops while the core of the Al Qaida inspired terrorist activity seems to have spread elsewhere.

At this moment negotiations with the Insurgents would be conducted from a position of relative weakness. The concept itself, however, has been evolving from being an absolutely unmentionable anathema to a seemingly realistic option. Some three years ago, instead, when I was in Herat, and was actually approached by people connected to Mullah Omar, the Taliban were in a weaker position than now and it would perhaps have been a more favorable moment openly to talk to them. When I reported these contacts I came upon a firm veto, which was based on two contradictory, but very obtuse and dogmatic dictates: firstly that “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” and, in second place, “the Taliban are not interested in negotiations”. I am sure that I was not the only person approached, and a greater flexibility would perhaps have been a better idea.

Should the concept prevail that Western forces have to remain in Afghanistan to bring stability, good governance and democracy, at least in some acceptable form, the question should be addressed as to whether the present Afghan Constitution really reflects the social and political needs of the Country. There is an important historical fact to consider, namely that in the course of its long and tortured history, Afghanistan has very seldom been successfully and efficiently administered by a strong central Government in the capital.

Is a centralized presidential republic really the ideal system for that country or, indeed, could it ever be made to work no matter how much effort is put into the attempt? This is an extremely complex problem which should involve careful analysis and much consultation with a credible cross-section of Afghan political and civil society. It is my idea, however, that by creating a number of more autonomous regions it would be possible to enhance the differences, which already exist, in the approach to some of the non-military problems (e.g. human rights, corruption, etc.) which seem to slip further and further away at this particularly dramatic moment in the history of the NATO and International operations in Afghanistan.

This, among other things would entail two very delicate issues, the necessary reformulating of the Afghan Constitution and the renewed involvement of at least some of the so-called “war lords”.

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has been prepared with great care and approved by the Afghan Parliament. It does not, however, fully take into account the Country’s peculiarities, nor does it seem founded on the basis of local and tribal traditions. A radical change in the Constitution need not be a traumatic event, as long as all sides are allowed to participate, and as long as preconceived ideas are abandoned.

As far as the “war-lords” are concerned, it is important to distinguish between those who have emerged from the violent civil war years and are little more than glorified gangsters, and those, instead, who obviously wield an authority greater than what can be imposed by fear of retribution, but which is based , instead, on family and tribal realities. Serious attempts could be undertaken to involve some of these local chiefs – rather than the Kabul nominated provincial Governors.

Carlo Ungaro

Rome

November 27 2009

AFGHANISTAN ON THE BRINK

The official rhetoric, and the reports emerging from Afghanistan reveal an air of futility, almost of hopelessness. Perhaps attempts should be made to see things as they really are, and not as they are presented in a growingly fictitious NATO scenario offered by a largely obedient international press.

It is not improbable that the current, massive military operation taking place in Afghanistan’s Helmand Valley will result in a perceptible tactical success, thus possibly giving rise to further official declarations of optimism on the ultimate demise of the Afghan insurgency.

Much of the triumphant language on the conflict with the Taliban, complete with childish catch-phrases implying that the enemy is “on the run” has recently shifted from an Afghan to a Pakistani scenario. This, unfortunately appears to lessen the concentration on the war in Afghanistan, where the Allied forces are as far from victory now as they have ever been. The situation, there, appears ever more reminiscent of past Afghan conflicts, dating back to a distant past, and certainly to the increasingly quoted British Imperial misfortunes in the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries.

It has to be said, however, that some encouraging signs are emerging and there appears a new willingness, on the part of the occupying forces, to discard some of the pre-existing prejudices and to embark upon a novel and perhaps more daring analysis of the problem, seen in its entirety.

Hostile though I am to acronyms and clever abbreviations the emergence of the term “Af-Pak” seems to me rather encouraging, in spite of the danger it entails of confusing one conflict – the one in Pakistan against a specific and perhaps ultimately “defeatable” insurgent – with another, in Afghanistan which, instead, is waged more against a cultural reality than an identifiable insurgent organisation.

There are moments in which there seems to be much clearer thinking on the inside of the Military command structure in Afghanistan than on the outside, and many of the Afghan “experts” who so frequently and generously share their intelligent insights with us could soon find themselves displaced by unsuspected wisdom from the very same sources which, until yesterday, fed them all the wrong and misleadingly optimistic information which they so eagerly passed along. Anyone who has spent time in the present Afghan situation can easily identify the sources of the “information” which is blithely passed on by eminent journalists: a cup of coffee at ISAF Headquarters in Kabul, a chat with diplomatic officers – preferably British or American – or a “power-point” briefing at one of the many PRTS disseminated around the Country, plus, of course, the inevitable encounters with representatives of Afghan “Civil Society” who, by now, have learned precisely what to say to impress their foreign interviewer.

The sad result is that most of what one reads today about Afghanistan seems to range from the monotonous (victory just around the corner) to the ludicrous (e.g., the need to persuade the two Governments to “recognise the Durand Line”) with little or no attention being reserved for the realistic (Why are we there, do we intend to stay, and, if so, on what terms, and, above all what is meant by “victory”, is it at all possible and what do we do after we have “won”).

Similar questions, of course need to be asked about the impending elections, a subject which is painful to those of us who had the pleasure of monitoring the overall successful and peaceful parliamentary and local elections in the Autumn of 2005. Here, again, we should ask ourselves, with cold realism, whether it is worth the risk of going ahead with the elections even at the peril of serious disruption on the part of the insurgents – perhaps at the cost of civilian fatalities. Are these elections necessary, or even useful? Should they take place everywhere, even in the most dangerous zones?

Returning to the original queries, it has to be said that any contemplation on what we wish to achieve should be preceded by a close and pitilessly honest analysis of what we have achieved so far. The result is depressing. Areas which, until a few months ago, were relatively secure (e.g. Herat) have now become dangerous. It is no secret that the level of corruption and the lack of confidence in elected or nominated officials have reached a new high point, and rightly so, this in spite of the presence of numerous men and women of quality and good will whom we seem unable to assist. That is why the questions “why are we here” and “do we intend to stay” are far from specious.

While the reasons for invading Afghanistan were clear and, to a large extent, accepted, those given for the Allies’ need to remain there, especially in the present conditions, and indeed for constant and repeated requests for further escalation of the conflict are far from convincing. It was perhaps true up to two or three years ago that the West’s military presence, especially in the form of the “PRT’s” (Provincial Reconstruction Teams) had a stabilizing and reassuring influence at least in some parts of the Country. The very sad, indeed tragic, truth is that, at present, the Allies have lost the positive momentum and it is they, rather than the insurgents, who have a growing destabilizing effect. When, in 2005, reacting to overtures from insurgent emissaries, I ventured to suggest – from my post as Political Advisor to the PRT in Herat – that the moment was ripe to talk with the Taliban, who had indirectly approached me, my suggestion was dismissed on the doubly misleading, and contradictory, grounds that “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” and that “the Taliban don’t want to negotiate”. At that moment, from a position of greater strength, the Allies could have achieved something through negotiations, now it will be much more difficult.

Even if the Pakistani forces should achieve a victory of sorts against their own insurgency – and it is certainly not impossible – the question remains as to what could be considered a “victory” by the Allies in Afghanistan, particularly if the term is considered on purely military grounds. But even in the event of a political settlement of sorts, would it be wise to remain in Afghanistan on terms similar to those now existing, building up a growing surge of hostility against foreign troops, and by reflex, also foreign civilians?

Radical rethinking is necessary and urgent both for the short term (the August 20 elections) and for the long term, i.e. the ultimate aims of our presence in that unfortunate Country.


Carlo Ungaro

THE CHRISTIAN TALEBAN ARE ALIVE AND WELL

I tend to think of myself as unshockable, but time and again events show me the error in my ways and I realise that I still can be shocked. Perhaps it’s a good thing, after all.
I was, if I may say so, shocked but not overly surprised to see that the recent murder of a Doctor who specialised in abortions was greeted with grim satisfaction on Fox “News” (I have to put the word in quotation marks and I don’t understand how they are authorised to qualify themselves as a “news” program).
Indeed the screen was filled by people who were quite literally foaming at the mouth in explaining how the doctor deserved what he got. I don’t remember the names of these correspondents, except for Mr. O’Reilly, but there is also a youngish, rapier thin lady who seems to have two sets of teeth and all the charm of an alligator. I remember her because she used to go into veritable paroxysms at the mention of some names, such as Michael Moore or Jon Stewart, and she frightened me a bit, thinking I could possibly meet her in a dark alley during one of my frequent visits to the U.S.
I fully understand that the issue of abortion raises strong, justified emotions (on both sides of the argument), but in my view the gist of the reportage was oriented in the direction of persuading viewers that this was not murder, but a richly deserved execution (not, of course, in so many words).
Isn’t this what Al Qaeda and the Taliban are supposed to be about?
Is a new breed of “Christian Taliban” emerging from the “Bible belt”?
I hope not, because Christian fundamentalists frighten me much more than their counterparts of other faiths.

"WAR ON PIRACY" WOULD BE A TRAGIC MISTAKE

Summary:

The Somali pirates cannot be defeated by the force of arms, and the International Community should try to find out the core reasons behind this dangerous situation.

Text:

Even as I was rejoicing at the successful operation to free the last remaining US captive in the hands of Somali pirates, the sight of the immense amount of naval and military hardware which was brought into play in a very short time inevitably led me to fear the possibility of an exaggerated military response on the part of the damaged countries to the undeniable threat posed by the growing number of Somali pirates and the growing sophistication of their methods.

Some historians, and I can recall, for example, Barbara Tuchman, have attributed the outbreak of the First World War principally to the tremendous build-up of modern armaments which, in a certain sense made war seem inevitable and even desirable. Some decades later, president Eisenhower, a source whose opinion was made all the more credible because of his brilliant military career, warned against the build-up of influence “whether sought or unsought” by the industrial-military complex.

Although I share the general feeling of confidence in the sagacity of president Obama, his Secretary of State and his other advisers, I felt apprehensive and feared that in the United States a momentum may be building up for a “war on piracy”, which would mirror, in its apparent ease and predestined doom, the ill-fated “war on terror” the consequences of which we have not yet ceased to suffer. Some symptoms in this direction are already emerging, indeed, this “war on piracy” has practically been declared. This is understandable within a culture which – more or less since the days of Theodore Roosevelt - has felt the need to identify an enemy, large (The Soviet Union, International Communism) or small (Cuba) on which to focus the country’s just wrath, and, therefore a move in this direction would probably arouse approval, perhaps even enthusiasm in some strata of public opinion, but it would constitute a tremendous military and political mistake.

The liberation of the American hostage was achieved through an extremely well executed “surgical” operation, which, however, could not be repeated with similar success for the hundreds of hostages, of diverse nationalities, currently in the hands of the Somali pirates.

A massive maritime operation, using modern and sophisticated naval hardware with the intent of knocking out the entire ramshackle Somali pirate “fleet” would be just as ill-advised, firstly because it would put the lives of all the captives at risk, and secondly because the very vastness of the maritime space involved, combined with the small size and uncertain number of pirate vessels would make any “search and destroy” mission almost impossible. Nor is there a viable land based alternative: of course, given the military means available, an invasion of Somalia by a “coalition of the willing” would be relatively easy, easier even than the famous “slam-dunk” operation in Iraq. Hunting out the pirates on land, however, would be no easier than hunting them out at sea, and the invading troops would be subject to growing hostility and violence which, in the long term, would force their withdrawal.

There are parallel reasons which can explain the current surge of piracy, and I think that the problem should be approached by analysing and tackling these issues, with an open mind and a willingness to admit past errors of judgement.

Somalia has been in a state of virtual anarchy since the early nineties. The reasons behind this are complex and unique, as I found out in the course of the years I spent as head of the Italian Diplomatic Delegation to Somalia and participated in the peace talks which were held in Kenya from 2001 to 2004.

Errors were doubtlessly committed by all, with no exception, during those long negotiations, but, in the end, for the first time in many years a Federal Constitution, an Assembly, a Government and a President did materialize with the full backing of the International Community.

The Institutions which emerged from the Conference proved, however, to be inadequate and, for many reasons which ought to be carefully analyzed, failed to bring about the stability and peace we all were hoping for. A state of total anarchy was circumvented by the appearance of the “Islamic Courts”, which brought about a semblance of order and social peace. Unfortunately the West has a tendency to knee-jerk reactions when it hears the term “Islamic”, and this autochthonous endeavour was violently subdued by the International Community, which added insult to injury by sending Christian troops to invade and subdue an Islamic Country, failing, moreover, to take into account the atavistic dislike and suspicion nurtured by the Somalis against the Ethiopians.

Recent events have brought the country back to a state of total anarchy, and I would not place excessive confidence of the present Government – certainly not representative and virtually devoid of authority – to restore order and to fulfil its tasks and obligations by actually governing the country. This weakness at the centre is, of course, the main cause of the current phenomenon, in that a Somali pirate can count on almost total immunity from any restraining or punitive action on the part of his Government.

It is certainly true that the growing number of young Somali men who have chosen this path are criminals, and dangerous criminals at that, but it must be borne in mind that they are also angry and desperate, and the causes of their anger and desperation ought to be examined and tackled. The cause of their anger goes well beyond the recent deployment of Ethiopian troops in Somalia, and has to do, on the one hand, with the massive and shameless exploitation of the waters they see as their own by foreign fishing fleets, and, perhaps principally, on the continuous use of their coasts as dumping grounds for toxic waste on the part of some European countries. In recent years an enterprising young Italian Journalist, Ilaria Alpi, was murdered, probably in connection with investigative reporting which she was carrying out on these and other subjects.

Their desperation is perhaps easier to understand, for there are few ways in which a young Somali can hope to make a living legally in his (or her) own country, as can be seen not only by the growing criminality, but also by the desperate and dangerous attempts to emigrate to foreign lands.

The problems caused by the Somali acts of piracy certainly constitute an immediate problem, and urgent measures have to be taken to protect the international shipping which legitimately uses those waters. This, however, would be useless without a serious attempt to resume intense negotiations with all the Somali interested parties – including the Islamic factions, which I frequently met and who are not (or should I say “not yet”) interested in acts of international terrorism.

I believe that a Conference should be convened as soon as possible, perhaps not in a neighbouring country, and a further serious attempt should be undertaken to eliminate the state of anarchy and to enable Somalis to undertake, with international help, the difficult task of reconstruction and reconciliation.

ITALY’S “NOUVELLE VAGUE” OF NEO - FASCISM

A glance, however cursory, at most of the world’s press gives the chilling sensation that the situation has gone out of hand and that Governments are no longer fully in control, no matter how determined and well-intentioned. The prime example comes to us from the United States, and I express my doubts not in a critical “anti-American”, or even “anti-establishment” frame of mind, but rather with the anguished thought that if president Obama, with the support enjoyed by him at this time, gives an impression of impotency in the path of an advancing juggernaut, what hope do weaker, less prosperous and less efficient Governments have?
Some – and the Italian Government is among them – appear to be seeking alternative strategies, which, in the light of historical precedent, are potentially dangerous and rather frightening. The idea is simple and not at all novel, for it has been used in the distant and recent past. It consists of building up an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, convincing the people that only a “strong” government, untrammelled by the inevitable intricacies associated with the Rule of Law, can bring about the country’s salvation. Around 100 B.C. this tactic was successfully used by Sulla, who thus contributed in the destruction of centuries of Roman republican rule and opened the door for the Empire and absolutism. It has been repeated, with variations, on many occasions and in many different societies, including the United States (the McCarthy years, the “terrorist threat, etc.), and, of course, in Italy and Germany in the twentieth century, paving the way for Fascist and Nazi rule.
If I concentrate attention on the Italian situation it is simply because Italy has had a historical tendency to act as a leader in many trends both positive (the Renaissance, architecture) and negative (Fascism, organised crime).
The current Italian Government is headed by Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, who is the owner of all the private TV networks which have a strong nation-wide appeal (there is only one exception, and it is being strongly discriminated against). As head of the Government he of course also has some say in the running of the very drab, predominantly idiotic, but much followed public TV networks. It is not surprising, therefore, that an atmosphere of subdued panic has so skilfully been created, particular care being taken – after staunch denials of either xenophobia or racism – to ensure that, in the public eye, the principal responsibility for the current atmosphere of insecurity lies with the immigrant community.
Many legislative and administrative measures have either been passed or are planned, which will do much to transform the very nature of democracy and of Italian society, usually considered rather open and permissive. Here are some examples, out of dozens:
- Medical staff, even in emergency wards, will have the obligation to report “illegal foreigners” who require treatment;
- children born of foreigners without residence permits will not be registered and will therefore not get a birth certificate;
- bands or posses of “unarmed volunteers” will be formed to patrol towns and cities by night in defence of “public order”;

These are just a few of a growing number of projected measures most of which will probably pass thanks to the current Government’s overpowering majority in both Houses of Parliament.
Italy has thus become the country of prohibitions, some of which are mind-boggling or bordering on the ridiculou: in some public parks it is forbidden to form groups of more than three people (“sedition”), in others anyone sitting on a park bench will have to prove either that he (or she) is an invalid or over the age of seventy (park benches have traditionally been used as resting places by the jobless or homeless, ergo, in today’s Italy, by “foreigners”).
The media are quick and eager to contribute to the image that the responsibility for all this “insecurity”, lies squarely and exclusively on the shoulders of foreigners living in Italy – at this time particularly Romanians. This is giving rise to an ever increasing number of xenophobic or racist incidents, some of which are extremely violent (an Indian homeless person was almost burned alive and an Eritrean youth was brutally beaten) and which do not meet much public disapproval.
In all this the Catholic Church, which, in Italy, has practically unlimited access to the media, plays an unpleasantly populist waiting game, occasionally rapping the Government’s knuckles over some perceived minor “misdeeds” against immigrants or the poor, but this only to gain support among the Catholic members of the hapless opposition Democratic Party, thus transforming it into a passive accomplice in the creation of a growing climate of repressive legislation. As a result Laws will be approved in the near future denying a terminally ill patient the liberty to refuse artificial life support.
A note of hope, however, can be sounded. This “Nouvelle Vague” of Italian neo-fascism is not the result of a deeply thought-out plot, and there is no sinister hidden figure pulling the strings. The very transformation of Italy’s society into a new “regime” would have to overcome a fundamental obstacle in the legendary inefficiency of the Government apparatus and of all endeavours which rely on Government support. Therefore, just as the Italian Banking system was saved from major disaster mainly because of its inefficient, slow moving and ponderous inability to react, so it can be hoped that the creation of a frightening police state will be held back by bureaucratic obstacles and the incurable Italian attachment to improvised solutions..

AFGHANISTAN: THE INEVITABILITY OF A GREEK TRAGEDY?

Summary

Afghanistan’s ancient history has Grecian - Macedonian elements, and some of its greatest cities (e.g. Herat) have been founded by Alexander the Great. Slight shifts in NATO and US policy seemed to offer a glimmer of hope, but recent developments paint a dark picture.

Text

Afghanistan keeps returning to the forefront of international attention, its prospects darker than ever. There can be no miracle cure and there will be no miracle worker, with the power and the ability of bringing about an appreciable change in a reasonably short term. The appointment of Richard Holbrooke does, however, justify some optimism, not only for his proven qualities as a tough negotiator, but also because of the backing he receives from an Administration whose utterances on the issue have been more pragmatic and less ideological than what we have been used to hearing. Further grounds for a more positive evaluation are the Afghan-Pakistani talks in Washington, even though the internal political situation in Pakistan gives little reason for excessive hope.

I met Ambassador Holbrooke in Afghanistan, some years ago, when I certainly had no idea that he would shortly be playing such an important role in the country. I was, at the time, very impressed at the idea of meeting him because I had spent six months in Bosnia from the beginning of January 1996: much of the Dayton agreement can and has been criticised, and the situation in Bosnia is certainly not solved, but, nevertheless, it was impressive to see people civilly seated round a table, who only a few weeks earlier had literally been at one another’s throats.

Ambassador Holbrooke has very probably understood that the first step in the attempt to find a solution to Afghanistan’s problems should, of course consist in trying to define what is meant by a “solution”, since a credible and realistic political plan, a “Nation Building” plan for Afghanistan, has never existed, certainly not since the unfortunate Soviet attempt to transform it into a Socialist Republic. At this stage it would seem much to late to implement one. The only plan left is to salvage what can be salvaged, in the attempt to put in place a structure which could somehow contain the activity of the Taliban, albeit without excluding them from the future power structure.

There are many pitfalls in this complex matter, and the greatest mistake of all would be to draw too many parallels between Iraq and Afghanistan: two totally different historical, political and military realities. It is a cause of particular apprehension that, citing the “success” (a debatable term, at best) of the “surge” in Iraq, some seem to persist in the belief that the numerical increase of the troops on the ground in Afghanistan by a few thousand units would actually help bring about a solution of the problem. In reality, this measure will probably only enhance US isolation, also in the eyes of the NATO partners who have shown no eagerness to contribute further combat units.

There, again, numbers do not tell the entire story. Many NATO countries justify their reluctance by pointing out that they already have a large number of troops on the ground, but, in reality, most of these are not combat troops, but basically units which serve as a security cover for civilian activities (The so-called “Provincial Reconstruction Teams” or PRT’s), and are seldom, if ever, by their own volition engaged in military confrontation with the insurgents.

Despite the insistence on the enhancement of the military presence, there seems to be, however, a growing consensus, both in the international media and among the principal world leaders, that a military solution in Afghanistan is practically impossible.

This is where strong international political leadership and guidance are greatly needed, because the situation, cannot be tackled without taking into urgent and serious consideration the following:


- Afghanistan is not a monolithic bloc but a very complex ethnic and tribal reality: this has to be kept in mind especially in matters concerning the future role of the Taliban, who are detested and feared in some areas (e.g. Herat and most of the North) and, instead, considered as rather representative in the East, in the neighborhood of the Pakistan border. In one way or another, however, they will have to be included in any political design for the future of Afghanistan.
- If it is true that the situation in Afghanistan depends very much on Pakistan’s ability to keep its own tribal areas in check, but the reverse is also true: Pakistan will not be able to maintain internal political stability unless the border issues with Afghanistan are finally tackled, to the point of always keeping in mind the question as to whether Pakistan can continue to exist as a Nation State within its present borders unless its is governed by a strong military dictatorship (which has been the case for most of Pakistan’s existence).
- The United States and NATO will not be able to solve the Afghan question without the cooperation of other interested parties. Should wider and stronger International involvement be called for, it would be sheer folly to exclude Iran, who is a major player – and not necessarily a negative player – on the Afghan scene. We must not forget that Persian – in a slightly modified version known as Dari – is one of Afghanistan’s two official languages.
- It will also be essential to tackle the problem of corruption with the greatest possible energy, because the level of corruption in today’s Afghanistan is actually creating a sense of nostalgia for the Taliban regime, which, though indubitably authoritarian and restrictive, had a reputation of incorruptibility.

Many other major problems - the Narcotics trade, just to mention one – remain on the table, but these cannot be taken into practical consideration until a decision is taken, and implemented, on the future status and position of Afghanistan.

These would be the words of advice that I would take the liberty of giving to Ambassador Holbrooke in the very unlikely event of meeting him again.

THE SHOPPING SEX, OR, WHERE DID DARWIN GO WRONG?

The winter sales are over, in Rome, and one sees many men who, by their prison pallor, show that they have just emerged from their bunkers or hide-outs and returned to a normal life. There is no doubt that men and women have two very different approaches to shopping, and this seems to hold true from Patagonia to Reykjavik, from Honolulu, due East, to Smolensk.

If a guy – for example me – needs a pair of shoes, he will amble down a less fashionable street and, having spotted a likely pair in a window will pop in to ask if these are available in black and in size so-and-so. If the answer is affirmative, he will try them on only to give the attendant something to do, and dash back home again in time for a cup of tea and a relaxing pipe.

The lady of the house, instead, will start fretting about footwear some ten days earlier, casting despondent glances in the closet where her 28 pairs of assorted shoes are stored, and then, catching the man unawares will drag him, kicking and screaming, to the poshest street in town. They will trudge from shop to shop, and an infinite number of shoes will be tried on, while, at the same time, a side sortie will be made to buy a necktie for the man, who really doesn’t want one. Finally, battle scarred and barely cognizant, the head of the family returns home and unburdens himself of parcels containing at least four pairs of shoes, two pairs of gloves, the much resisted necktie and sundry other items.

The question, which has Darwinian overtones is not whether this happens, nor, really, why, but actually when did this begin.

If we cast our minds back a few millennia, to, say, the stone age, we see that the man of the cave did the shopping: he would take his club, foray out, bash in the heads of some edible creatures and, possibly, of some obnoxious neighbours and, upon returning to his cave would explain exactly how he wanted his Tournedos Rossini, and they better be done right.

Nor do I think that Beatrice took Dante window shopping in the magnificent streets of Florence and the closest perusal of the correspondence between Abelard and Eloise will show no mention of winter or summer sales.

I believe that this tendency – one of the many symptoms of the end of civilization as we know it – began sometime in the second half of the Nineteenth Century, probably in England, when all the goods brought back from Imperial conquest made it imperative to create a consumer society and women, to whom so many pleasures were denied, seemed like the ideal candidates to fulfil the role of consumers, while their men were in the Tropics making the world a safer place by pacifying successive groups of natives, thus reducing their numbers and making them much more subservient and useful producers of ever more goods to be consumed.

Does anyone have a different theory?

Facebook | Pope-a-Dope - The Daily Beast

Facebook Pope-a-Dope - The Daily Beast

TOWARDS A NATO DEBACLE IN AFGHANISTAN

SUMMARY

Important recent events have pushed Afghanistan away from the limelight and the headlines, but the problems there are intense and growing. The NATO leadership is wrong if it believes that a purely military solution is possible, and it is also wrong in wanting, at all costs, to exclude an important player like Iran from any international discussion on the subject.

TEXT


In the past weeks the world has been dealing with events – Gaza and the inauguration of the U.S. President - weighty enough to push Afghanistan out of the limelight. This does not mean, however, that the Afghan situation has calmed down or improved, and, indeed, a recent attack in the very centre of Kabul shows a growing build-up of Taliban confidence and efficiency. Another attack in the Heart area, which up to some months ago was relatively secure shows that this surge in Taliban confidence and efficiency is not limited to the Capital but is spreading over the entire nation.

A fundamental refocusing of ideas therefore seems long overdue, and fresh thought has to be dedicated to unsolved problems which have long been maturing, and which will have to be tackled with cool, rational thinking to prevent a major Western debacle in Afghanistan. This new approach can only be achieved at the cost of showing sufficient courage to admit previous errors and radically to change political and military strategy.

It would be useful, in the first place, carefully to analyze the generally accepted opinion on what is seen as the “original” error, that is to have left the Afghan mission unaccomplished in order to invade Iraq, thus leaving the Al Qaeda command structure basically intact. This is only partially true: the failure to pursue the Al Qaeda command across the mountain passes and into Pakistani territory did indeed create basic political problems causing the West to lose momentum, and therefore credibility, in the so ineptly named “War on Terror”. It is, however open to question whether the Taliban, as a basically native party, could ever have been militarily defeated or neutralized. It is evident that this goal is impossible to accomplish now, but it probably would not have been possible to accomplish even then, given the historically and traditionally resilient character of Afghan resistance movements.

Instead of proceeding exclusively along the lines of a replication of the Iraqi “surge”, and asking all the NATO partners not only to increase their participation numerically, but also to send contingents with more unified, and, in any case more aggressive and combative rules of engagement, serious collective thought should be given to alternatives to military action which, in its present nature, is doomed to failure no matter how large or efficient the reinforcements.

There is no doubt that one of the main causes of the current institutional weakness in Afghanistan, and the subsequent rise of insurgency, can be found in the growing, and largely unpunished, corruption in all levels of Government (National, Provincial or Municipal), and of course in the entire Police and Justice system, with some notable, very brave, exceptions. Collective human memory tends to be selective and, within a growing sector of Afghan Civil Society memories of the harshness of the Taliban regime recede, substituted by those which enhance the unquestionable basic honesty and incorruptibility of the Taliban leadership.

If the expression “Hearts and Minds” is to make any sense at all, this is an issue which should be tackled with the greatest urgency and as ruthlessly as possible, at the risk of offending some of the Afghan leaders.

The International operators in Afghanistan should also pay closer attention to the complex web of geographic-ethnic-tribal relationships and undertake a serious attempt to understand Afghan realities, at the cost of having to jettison well meant but highly impractical preconceived ideas on the country’s democratic aspirations.

It would be a hopeless task to attempt to tackle Afghanistan’s problems without involving other Countries in the area. It is of course of paramount importance to reach some form of regional security, but also in this some basic rethinking is indispensable. It is received wisdom that Afghanistan’s security depends greatly on political stability in Pakistan. This is undoubtedly true, but so is the reverse: due to the complex ethnic and tribal nature of its frontier province, Pakistan cannot hope to achieve political harmony or stability if its Afghan neighbour is in turmoil. The time has certainly come to tackle the famous border issues squarely, seriously and with the greatest possible energy, to the point of considering the question as to whether Pakistan as a unified State with its present borders, is still a viable proposition without a strong military government.

These are serious and far reaching issues which cannot be solved by NATO with the cooperation of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sooner or later an International Conference will have to be convened, bringing together all the interested parties: it is amazing that, at present, whenever the need of international intervention is mentioned the one most interested and most influential party is never taken into consideration. While the names of India, Iraq, the Emirates, Turkey and others are freely offered, any mention of Iran is studiously avoided and this gives a measure of how unprepared the International Community is on this issue.

Iran is a neighbour whose historical, political and cultural influence should not be underestimated: it should be enough to remember that Persian, in a slight variant known as “Dari”, is one of Afghanistan’s two national languages. There are, furthermore, strong and credible indications that Afghanistan is one of the issues which could be used to come to more general agreements with Iran allowing it to fulfil its natural regional role, and finally putting to rest the shameful, ridiculous “Axis of Evil” epithet.

THE AXIS OF EVIL REVISITED: IRAN

SUMMARY.

The uncertain outcome of the Gaza war, as well as the political changes in the United States and in Israel, should facilitate an essential rethinking of Iran's role, clearing the air of all the old clichés and allowing Iran to play its obvious and essential role in the Gulf Region.

TEXT.

There is some hope – albeit very slight - that the murderous events currently taking place in Gaza will contribute to clear the air around the only remaining active member of the “Axis of Evil”; I refer, of course, to Iran. The conventional wisdom about Iran, carefully nurtured in the United States and now adopted by many obedient Governments around the world depicts that country and its regime as a diabolically wicked historical enemy of the “Democratic West” and its values, armed to the teeth and ready to strike at our vital interests with ruthless efficiency. This, according to the same scenario, is compelling us to build “star wars” type barriers, which, of course by sheer coincidence, pose a direct threat to Russia, at the moment on the borderline and about to cross into – or, rather, return to - the “Evil” family of Nations.

This circumstance throws my mind back to the build-up for the invasion of Iraq, when Prime Minister Tony Blair could be seen wildly pacing the Parliament floor, hair flying in disarray ranting about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and not hesitating to compare the situation to the infamous appeasement associated with Munich, 1938. I was amazed, at the time, that not one of the major commentators or columnists came out with a simple assertion, just to say: “Mr. Blair, you are not Winston Churchill, and President Bush is definitely not FDR. Iraq is not Germany. Saddam is not Hitler, and, above all, the Iraqi army is not the Wehrmacht, nor is Saddam’s Republican Guard comparable to the Waffen SS.”

The mainstream international press remained stunningly and obsequiously silent, while leading columnists, perhaps fully convinced by the spin doctors, all seemed ready to rewrite the history of World War II. As a result the new Crusaders enthusiastically went to war, in a Quixotic endeavour to eliminate nonexistent Weapons of Mass Destructions and to eradicate imaginary terrorist bases.

There are striking parallels between those attitudes and the ones prevailing today In spite of the recent lesson of Iraq, none of the major international Newspapers or Periodicals have undertaken serious attempts at a cool, detached analysis of the Iranian situation, before embarking on grandiloquent tirades against the arch-enemy of the moment (things were easier during the Cold War when the arch-enemy’s identity didn’t change so often). This constant, mantra-like repetition of clichés, once the speciality of totalitarian regimes, once again seems to be an accepted substitute to investigation and research as an instrument for bringing correct information to the general public.

It is, for example, absurd to depict Iran as a military threat to Israel, the Middle East or Europe, for the simple reason that Iran’s military capacity is actually rather limited in comparison to most of the other countries in the area such as Saudi Arabia, The Emirates, Egypt and, of course, Israel itself. This can be deduced by the relatively low military expenditure in Iran, both in terms of total amount spent and in terms of percentage of National Product.

Iran is also depicted as an authoritarian dictatorship, while, of course, the above mentioned countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt are models of Democracy. In reality, the Iranian Government is one of the most democratic in the area, in spite of its theocratic origins and superstructure, and Iranian leaders are much more accountable to public opinion than the leaders in many other countries in the area, as can be witnessed by the political changes which occur at almost every general election.

Is Iran, finally, such an implacable and intractable enemy of the West? I would say that the situation is quite the reverse. At the onset of the 2001 military action in Afghanistan, Iran offered its assistance in combating the Taliban, of which it does not approve, and, similarly, Iran has offered to help stabilize the situation in post-invasion Iraq, an offer which was refused with contempt. It is probable that what Iran was hoping to obtain in exchange was nothing unacceptable to the West, but rather a recognition of the legitimate role it has to play in the Gulf area and of its interest in being bordered by a stable and peaceful Iraq and Afghanistan. It is even possible that important concessions could have been obtained in terms of a weaker support to organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, but this, of course, is only speculation.

It is perhaps not too late to engage Teheran in serious negotiations, which will not be easy, but will certainly alleviate the tensions which exist in the area and which have been exacerbated by the recent events in Gaza, which, if nothing else, with the impending political change in Israel, could have considerably diminished the political clout and the prestige both of the Fatah leadership and of some of the nearby Governments who chose to ignore popular feeling in their respective countries..

RELIGION AND FUNDAMENTALISM, AN INEVITABLE COMBINATION?

The flourishing of fundamentalist tendencies within many of the World’s great Religions arouses fear, disapproval and some amazement.

Much of this derives from the misuse of the term “fundamentalist”, which has somehow come to be associated with intolerance and violence, whereas, in reality, it refers mainly to a strong attachment to the basic tenets of the religious belief to which the “fundamentalist” belongs, and above all to the persuasion that this, and only this particular Religion or Sect has the definite answer to all the Transcendental questions.

From a strictly logical perspective, it is utter nonsense to assert that “all Religions are true”, because there is only one possible alternative: either all Religions are false or one, and only one Religion is true, and from this assertion we could conclude that, actually, again from a strictly logical point of view, fundamentalism makes much better sense than ecumenicalism.

Whether we like it or not, this perception seems to be growing and fundamentalism is the leading trend. People in the West, however, should not limit themselves into considering – and therefore fearing – only Islamic Fundamentalism, and ignoring, instead, the fundamentalist strains in other leading Sects and Religious Movements.

These tendencies are less evident to us because we have got used to them and they blend into our environment, but nonetheless they exist and present tangible dangers. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, which in the early sixties set an ecumenical example with Pope John XXIII, has been led by fundamentalist Pontiffs since 1978, although, it has to be said, John-Paul’s striking political acumen, as well as his great personal charisma and charm, hid his basically fundamentalist policies rather efficiently. The present Pope, instead, is openly and aggressively fundamentalist and obviously ill at ease when talking to leaders of other religious sects, be they Christian or otherwise.

Signs of unrest emerge also in the East, and we are confronted today with a phenomenon which would have been unbelievable only a few years back: i.e. Hindu fundamentalism.

I believe that the phenomenon deserves investigation and comment, and I would be curious to know if any of my Facebook friends or readers of my blog have come to similar, or absolutely opposite, conclusions.

MY BRAIN HAS BEEN WASHED, HOW ABOUT YOURS?

A recurring theme in the history of the United States has been the quasi-constant need for a visible adversary, often transformed into a sinister enemy, seen and almost revered as a fundamental threat to the very existence of the Nation..

The first of these, of course, were the Native Americans, them pesky injuns, who had to be eliminated in order to allow freedom to flourish.

A time also came when the role of public enemy was played by the emancipated African slaves, and this, with some variations, continued over many generations.

Then came the turn of the Spanish, and then - for a brief but intense period - the Germans and Japanese.

When I, as a teenager, lived in California, the great enemy was Communism, with its close running dog, Socialism, and this brought to the glorification of Senator Joe McCarthy and his “Un-American Activities” Committee.

The very term “Un-American” is an eye-opener, and has no real equivalent in any of the other major Democracies. The unlikely accusation of being “Un-Italian”, “Un-Austrian”, “Un-Dutch”, etc., would arouse incredulity and some amusement in Italy, Austria or the Netherlands and could certainly never be the basis for any legal or political action against the accused.

At the collapse of the Soviet Empire (The “Evil Empire”, forerunner of the “Axis of Evil” – in truth, John of Patmos, the Author of the “Book of Revelation”, would have had a remarkable political career in the United States) there suddenly seemed to be no credible adversary, no enemy of “Freedom”, until, mercifully, the Islamic Extremists appeared and reminded American opinion of the fact that the Arabs and Muslims were the enemies of Israel, and, therefore of all that was decent in the world.

What followed is recent history: the “War on Terror” (i.e. Christianity’s latest Crusade against the Heathen), turned out to be, and continues to be, a magnificent recruiting tool for a growing number of terrorists in Southern and Central Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. Within the United States, however, within that truly wonderful Country where authentic democratic aspirations so often are turned into a soft version of Fascism, survival depends on the ability to believe the predominant political pronouncements and to repeat them incessantly, while exhibiting one’s flag-waving patriotism beyond any possible doubt. As a result, the same type of majority which once firmly believed – and in a certain sense still does – that people who showed any sympathy for Communism or Socialism were a danger to the Nation, now seems to see an even greater threat in the activities of Muslim Governments or organisations, wherever they may be, and therefore, by association, in people who show sympathy or understanding for Muslim causes or even for Muslim culture.

All this raises a question in my mind, to which I have been unable to find an answer, even after all these years (over half a century) since living in the United States. Americans have never had a “Ministry of Culture” or a Government censoring machine to filter out from publication items which go against official policy. Nor is there a “Ministry of Propaganda” to ensure a constant stream of “correct” messages to the people. And yet, in spite of this, in spite of the unquestionable freedom of the press there is greater conformity in thought and opinions than can be found in most European Countries, and for this reason one has the feeling, at times, that people in the United States have been brain-washed into perceiving events as positive or negative, as encouraging or threatening, and are, therefore, extremely resistant to information which moves in a different direction. Just as it would have been unthinkable “in my time” (the early and mid fifties) to attempt any justification of Soviet policies or attitudes, so it seems a hopeless uphill struggle, now, to try to point out flaws in the blind, unreasoning anti-Iranian, or, for that matter, pro-Israeli stances adopted by the entire American political spectrum, a truly bipartisan approach to illogicality which seems unassailable.

How and why does this happen? How is it achieved? Are there hidden powers behind it? Is this a reality or a figment of my imagination?

I have never been able to find a satisfactory or convincing answer to these questions, except for the last one: I know that this is not my imagination, because I was myself caught up in the mechanism as I realised when, after five years spent in California, I arrived in Europe at the age of 17, in the mid-fifties, as a totally brain-washed American teenager. The proof of this can be given by the fact that, living in France, I was horrified – and somewhat frightened – when I heard that the French Government of the time was led by a Socialist. I gazed about me in wonderment, amazed at the fact that people still lived in seeming carefree joy, that everything still functioned, in spite of the evil ideology which seemed to inspire the leadership.

It only took a few weeks to shake off that feeling, but I have a very clear memory of how amazed I was at the very possibility of leading a normal life with a “Socialist” government, just as I’m sure, it is difficult for present-day Americans to understand that people in Muslim or Islamic Countries lead pretty normal lives and are not bent on the destruction of the “Great Satan”.

The mystery remains on how such behavioural conformity is achieved and maintained.

NEWSPEAK REVISITED

SUMMARY.

The International Media - with some exceptions - has shown itself a very obedient pawn in the propaganda war waged by Israel and its allies in the course of the Gaza military operation.

TEXT.

The events in Gaza have transformed me into a Television addict, and, as a consequence, for a great part of the day, I gaze at the screen in muted disbelief, my mind inundated by the International Media (with some notable and laudable exceptions) as it incessantly repeats all the familiar Israeli arguments which, through this constant repletion seem to acquire a life and even a veracity of their own. The opposing side just does not have the material to counter this constant barrage of half-truths, platitudes, shibboleths and downright falsehoods which mercilessly tell us why “we” are right and hence “they” are wrong. Of course, propaganda, especially in times of armed conflict, tends to be mendacious, a bit like political messages or publicity campaigns, but what strikes me here is the massive support that this particular type of mendacity seems to be receiving from the International Community, at the highest level of Government and, of course, from the Media.

A succession of pathetic scenarios is served up and constantly adjusted as the situation on the ground worsens and becomes more and more difficult to justify. For example, what began as a “rain of Hamas Rockets” has now been transformed in the image of “a million Israeli civilians terrorized by rocket attacks for the past eight years”, with the implication that during this period the people in the Gaza Strip were living in luxurious penthouses sipping Daiquiris and enjoying the spectacle of Israeli civilians being massacred, and not, instead, trying desperately to cope with an illegal and brutal foreign occupation.

The double-talk incessantly thrown at us from the highest Government officials to anonymous spokespersons is faithfully echoed, almost verbatim, by world leaders around the Globe, with very few exceptions (e.g. Iran, the Arab States and some others, including, to some extent, the Holy See) We are therefore repeatedly told that Israel, by invading Gaza and undertaking what can only be described as a killing spree is actually engaging in a “defensive action”.

We are also told – and at this stage the double-talk becomes nauseating – that, contrary to the Palestinians, the Israeli have “respect for human life”, without adding that for them non-Israelis are scarcely considered human (should I use the term “untermenschen”?). Those who tell us this gaze unflinchingly at pictures of children’s bodies being brought to the morgue, but this only because, of course, they were being used as “human shields”.

The double-talk becomes a fresh version of “newspeak” when Governments are comfortably classified into two categories: “moderate” (i.e. those who agree with Israel) and “extremist” (those who disagree).

The list is long, and this whole tragic farce seems set to continue until the enemies of Israel will be cowed or, better still, annihilated.

GEORGE W. BUSH: A CLOSET INTELLECTUAL?

Very few Italians – with perhaps the exception of our Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi – can be described as admirers of the outgoing President of the United States, who, in this country, as indeed in most of Europe, is largely a figure of ridicule. It can therefore be imagined with what surprise Italians read, on December 31, in the pages of one of the main newspapers “la Repubblica” an article by one of our best foreign correspondents, Vittorio Zucconi who, extensively quoting an article by Karl Rove in the “Wall Street Journal”, informed us that George W. Bush was, in fact, what we could call a closet intellectual who regularly read close to “one hundred books a year”.

It has to be said that Zucconi, in his elegant prose, wrote the article with his tongue very firmly in his cheek, and didn’t seem to believe the truth of Karl Rove’s assertions. It is however interesting that, in a desperate attempt to give the President some stature, his acolytes have now brought out the image of a studious book-worm with an absolutely incredible capacity at the absorption of books, to the tune of about three a week some of which, like the Holy Bible (which he allegedly reads every year) are not exactly light reading.

I am what is generally thought of as a “speed reader”, and, being retired, can dedicate plenty of time to reading. I have not counted ho many books I read in 2008 (I have this quaint, “old-European” idea that the quality of the books one reads is slightly more important than the quantity) but I have some doubts as to whether I have reached the magic number which would put me on an intellectual par with the President of the United States.. Even if all his alleged reading material were to consist in “non-books”, such as “Jurassic Park” or some Stephen King booklets, and even if he were actually capable of reading, I doubt that a man who ought to be busy at least in an attempt to undo the damage caused to his own and many other Countries, and who has with great modesty defined himself as “the decider” could even come close to that number. Some of the material he has allegedly read seems extremely serious, absorbing and thought-provoking (e.g. Albert Camus, “The Stranger”, or “Team of Rivals”, by Doris Kearns Goodwin) and it just makes me wonder if we have all misjudged the man.

Or perhaps, but we don’t dare imagine this, Mr. Rove was lying.

DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, president Bush stated that the people behind them indulged in terrorist acts because “they hate freedom”, As is unfortunately all too often the case in the President’s pronouncements, this statement was extremely superficial and uninformed. Al Qaeda does not “hate freedom”, but rather the western ideologies, rooted in Christianity, which are, rightly or wrongly perceived as being historical enemies of Islam.

The most absurd aftermath of this tragic episode was the invasion of Iraq, an action which, in the course of time, received many different justifications and explanations, none of which was even remotely acceptable. The most enduring justification consisted in the need to “bring Democracy” to Iraq, which was then led by a ruthless dictator who had subjected some of his people to acts of considerable savagery. According to current Conventional Wisdom, Democracy is now flourishing and, as a consequence, the people of Iraq are now “free”.

This statement begs a question, in the sense that a correct definition of “freedom” has to be agreed upon, and an assessment then has to be made as to whether this freedom now exists in the newly democratic Iraq to a larger degree than in the preceding years.

Two factors, among many, could easily be chosen as parameters, mainly because in the western psyche they are very intimately connected to the concept of freedom.

The first of these, of course, is the position of women in society. It is safe to say that in the recent past women in Iraq had much greater freedom than they have now, and participated much more actively than they do now in social and political activities. The outlook for the future seems very bleak.

Freedom of Religion also comes to mind: In the pre-invasion Iraq, people of different religious beliefs seemed able to live side by side and even intermarry. The Christian community, a rather small minority, lived in peace and even flourished, while now the Iraqi Christians are intent in fleeing a country in which they seem to have no future.

In many Countries which have never been “liberated” and in which “democracy” has not been imposed these basic issues don’t seem to be a problem.

The concept of “freedom” cannot be limited to the dubious privilege of being allowed to criticise the existing Government, but has to encompass an entire spectrum of social and moral factors.

The fact is that “Democracy” – which means “the rule of the people” – and “freedom” are not synonyms and that these definitions should be reconsidered before new attempts at imposing democracy bring about further debacles. I strongly believe that if the rule of some of the twentieth century’s most ruthless dictators (for example Hitler or Stalin) had been subject to a completely “free and fair” referendum, the existing government would have been confirmed by a landslide. On the other hand, organizations which come to power through perfectly legal elections (I’m thinking of Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which I respect and understand) are not necessarily committed to the safeguard of freedom as we understand it.

The next time a Western Power decides to impose elections – as was the case of Gaza some years back – a firm decision has to be taken beforehand: either the results of the elections are accepted no matter how distasteful they may appear, or else all the western democratic expertise on election-rigging has to be put in place in order to ensure the triumph of the most obedient, acceptable and “freedom-loving” party.