Tag Archives: Miliband

There Is No Such Thing As War On Terror

The greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people by George Bush was not searching for WMD but waging a war on terror. The word “terror” is ambiguous since one person’s terror is another person’s delight. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband strongly denounced the Bush program of a war on terror which has led to the debasement of the rule of law. “The idea of a war on terror gave the impression of a unified enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama bin Laden and al-Qeda.” As Miliband pointed out, “the reality is that the motivation and identities of terrorist groups are disparate.” Bush attempted to give the impression these terror groups were somehow united and under a central direction.

A nation can not wage “war” against an idea-terror-it can only wage war against an entity comprising some form of organization and coherence. The notion of a “war on terror” is a mistaken one which has confused the issue of how to organize efforts to win people over to the cause of democracy. Why do people anywhere in the world support terrorists? This question should be among the key ones posed by those who wish to lessen the impact of terrorists in the world. Bush always believed armed force would defeat “terrorism” and that will probably be his enduring mistake in history.

UK Urges Obama To Focus On Iran Diplomacy

Britain’s Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, urged Barack Obama to support a policy which seeks to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear arms, but avoid use of military force to attain that goal. He made clear the “prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran poses the most immediate threat to stability” in the Middle East, and UN efforts to impose sanctions are not an attempt to overthrow the present Iranian government, but seeks to ensure peace in the region. “We are 100% committed to a diplomatic resolution of this dispute. We will work closely with the new US administration on this issue.” There has been concern for years the Bush administration might employ use of force to end Iran’s nuclear development program.

Miliband also made clear there is a growing fatigue about the ongoing never ceasing discussions between Israel and Palestinian leaders and they are “tiring of the conflict, they are also tiring faster of efforts to resolve it.” Perhaps, for the first time in decades most Arab nations are also tired of the ongoing conflict and ready to recognize Israel if they can obtain assurances the 1967 borders will be restored. It is time for all parties to reach a compromise. A compromise means each side must surrender some of its desires.

Mugabe Warned To Respect Democracy

The government of Robert Mugabe was warned by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband the world was prepared to help Zimbabwe, but only on condition he respects and abides by the power sharing agreement he signed with Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change. Nations are prepared to help the people of Zimbabwe emerge from the decades of disastrous economic policies of Mugabe, but money will not be handed over to a man whose policies have failed and now has promised to share power. Aid will come, said Miliband, only if “the democratic process is respected, the new government is formed reflecting that process and action on the ground reflects a new approach.

Most countries understand Mugabe and know he will attempt every trick in the book to avoid sharing power with his enemies. During the past few days, Mugabe has been ranting on about “illegal sanctions” and blaming the world for his own mess. He will not willingly change, he must be forced to adhere to agreements.

Did Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov Use The “F” Word?

In the midst of financial crises, a vice presidential nominee in the United States who doesn’t know the meaning of the Bush Doctrine and her knowledge of Russia consists of going to the movies or looking out the window, a new significant issue is gripping the world — what did Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov say to British Foreign Secretary David Miliband? The Daily Telegraph insists the transcript of phone conversations between British and Russian leaders during the crisis in Georgia was so laden with obscenities that is has been difficult putting together a transcript. In Moscow, a spokesperson denied the accusation and said there was a campaign to “attain political ends by pouring oil on the flames of hysteria surrounding Russian actions in the Caucasus.”

Unfortunately, there appears to be some miscommunication in the Russian Foreign Office because Lavrov publicly admitted he used some rather choice words to express himself while engaged in conversations with Miliband. However, Lavrov insists, he simply quoted to Miliband what a “European source” said about Saakashvili who was described as a “F—— lunatic.”

British Foreign Minister-We Won In Iraq Or Did We?

David Miliband, Great Britain’s foreign minister said creation of a peaceful and stable Iraqdid not follow the path desired by those initiating the conflict. He claimed “the war itself wasd a remarkable victory. It went beter thn most people expected, but the truth is that buiilding the peace after the war has been much more dififcult than people expected.” However, he feels encouraged by developments in Iraq over the past year. His optimism was seconded by General Barney White-Spunnder who believes the situation in Basra is “getting better all the time.” However, Lord Boyce, Britain’s senior military officeer at the time the war began expressed “dismay” at what subsequently happened and blamed it on the inept American “de-Ba’athification” program which disbanded the Iraq army.

Jonathan Powell, chief of staff for Tony Blair, was told by General Richard Dannatt in October, 2006, he questioned the usefulness of Britain’s continuing military presence in Iraq. He said Britain should withdraw “soon” and noted planning for the postwar phase was “poor.”

It is strange for a foreign minister to claim the war was a remarkable victory but the postwar phase just didn’t add up right. The purpose of the war in Iraq, according to President Bush, was to create a stable, democratic nation. If the goal was not accomplished then the war was not remarkable at all, but a failure.

British Foreign Minister Concerned About US Trials

Britain’s Foreign Minister David Miliband admited his nation had “some concerns” over the upcoming trial of those charged with being behind the 9/’11 attacks. The trial before a military tribunal raises questions as to the legality of the process since Miliband notes his nation apparently has a different definition as to what constitutes torture. The use of “waterboarding” is illegal in the British system, but President Bush obviously believes it can be used on certain occasions. “There is absolutely no question,” said Miliband, “about the UK government’s commitments in respect of torture, which is illegal and our definitioin of what torture is.”

Unlike President Bush, the British Foreign Minister believes those fighting terrorism must never resort to the beliefs and attitudes of groups which are against the basic tenets of democracy. “We always assert our system of values which is different from those who attacked the U.S. and killed British citizens on September 11, and that’s somehting we’d always want to stand for.”

The United States stands ready for an election in the fall, and hopefully an individual will be elected who stands for democracy and all that concept of life represents. We Americans can never find justification for torture and abuse of people. Even the worse criminals who served the cause of Nazi Germany were tried in a civilian court.