Postcards from my life

I was just reading an article about Lynndie England. She is the woman that has become famous due to the tortures at the Abu Grahib-prison outside Bagdad. She is the woman that held the dog leash that was tightenend to a dog collar around one of the detainees necks. She has been released after serving half her prison sentence, one and a half years. She says that she wants the leaders whom sanctioned the torture methods to be the ones being punished, not the people that just did what they was told.

It's a very fine balance to walk. To what extent is it the men and women's fault? To what extent should they be charged for their actions? In one sense, everyone can say no. Anyone can walk up and leave when they have to do something they do not agree with. However, if getting up and leave will make you a 'traitor' then how far can it be expected of that person to get up and leave? Lynndie England has now been kicked out of the army. For following orders. I am not condoning what she did. But I do believe that we have to look further. How is it that political leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Habyarimana, Pol Pot, Mugabe, the list can go on. How come they are remembered for the atrocitites they did not only do themselves, but what they made other people do in their name? I know this is pulling it to a stretch, so don't judge me too quickly. But it's like with the imperius curse in Harry Potter (I know it's only a book, and I know it's fiction, BUT it does contain moral lessons on so many different planes so I'm gonna use it anyway!). People are forced to commit crimes. They are manipulated, and in some cases even threatened. If there is the option between doing what your leader says and keeping your job, family and in some cases your life; or going against your leader and risking all that. I honestly do not know what I would do. I don't think anyone of us do. Except those that have been in those situations. And we should not be too quick to judge. Instead we should judge the cowardly people sitting at their fancy desks in an other part of the world pushing through orders. Orders that means that they are not only harming the people these orders are inflicited upon, but also the people that have to execute them. I wrote an entry at the beginning of this blog that relates to this. About a man working at Guantánamo and about two theories that relate to this topic. The Stanford Obedience Experiment is an experiment that deduced that good people do evil things when told by an authority. So then, is it the authority or the person that should be sent to trial and sentenced? Tricky question indeed. And I cannot say what I think should be done to the men and women that did these actions in Iraq, Gunatánamo or other places around the world. I find it difficult in my head to say that they shouldn't be trialed for their actions. At the same time I do believe in the Stanford Obedience Experience and the Lucifer Effect (good people do evil things in in evil environments.) I do believe though that the authorities, in the case of Lynndie England this would be the former US-administration, should be trialed for what they did.

And that might also be a way of the US to show that what they have done is wrong. Not only to the world, but to their own people as well. To not take responsibility for your actions, to not do anything to show remorse, is to me something America can't afford. Everyone, I believe, sees the different way US has turned since Obama took over the presidency. However, I do not believe this is enough. We see his will. We see the will of the American people. Unfortunately I don't believe that one man, together with his administration, has the power to change the world view. It will take time to heal the wounds Bush and his men gave their own country. Perhaps a first step would be to apologise. To stand up for their actions and admit that they were wrong. But considering their view of the world I doubt that will ever happen. I do believe that in some messed up way they believed they were doing the right thing. They told themselves it so many times that for them it became true.

It's scary how little it takes to break something done. And how long time it takes to build it up again.
Will the world ever forgive the United States of America?
-I hope so. Because with the problems we are about to face. Environmental, economical and political, I think we will need the superpower of the world. I think they have to face their mistakes. Deal with them. And move on. Because wether we like it or not. We need them. They're too powerful and too big to neglect. I just hope they stop using their power for evil. They're like Anakin Skywalker I just realised (many fantasy-connections today!). He used evil for what he believed to be a good purpose. And then he became Darth Vadar. He saw his mistakes though in the end. And faced them. Lets hope the US can do the same.

Anything new in the world today? I'm sure there is but since I am stuck with revision for upcoming exams (all though today has been a day away from the books, which was needed I can tell you!) I don't really have the energy to make myself aware of the world outside of uni. In other words I am stuck in the world of the UN, Rwanda, the foreign policy of the EU, the French Revolution, the revolutions in Europe of 1848, the socialist movement in Europe, Rousseau, Burke, Marx, Communism and so on. It's actually interesting stuff! Most of it...

Anyway. I recieved an e-mail today from Human Rights Watch about their film festival in New York. How I would have loved to go! But New York is unfortunately not on my travel agenda in the nearest future. I read about this movie they're showing. That's premiering on 20th of June. My Neighbor, My Killer. It's about Rwanda. But it doesn't seem to be the 'normal' Rwanda movie. It's not about the events of the genocide. Nor about the UN. It's about the people. It's about the people after the genocide. How they had to go on with their lives. How they now had to become neighbours again after these horrible events. Suddenly they had to coexist. It sounds amazing. I really, really, really want to see it. Thus I will keep it in the back of my mind for now and hope it will come to Sweden in the summer. Or atleast be out to buy in the future.

In the future I would love to have an area of expertise as it is called. I've always found the idea of knowing a lot about one specific topic enthralling. Fascinating. Being an expert on something. However. I have no idea how I would choose that. How do people do that? Luckily I have a few years left of university so I don't have to think about it yet. Atleast not on the detailed scale as I would like in the future. For now I'm happy with having the UN. And maybe some Hezbollah. Because they're fascinating.

This weekend I'm going to watch Shake hands with the devil. I feel that will inspire another entry about Rwanda and the UN.... It's too interesting, I can't just not write about it! Not an option :) 

After two days of reading about the United Nations and the Rwanda genocide I can't helpt but write another entry about the United Nations. It's always easy to cast blame. It's always easy to look back and see what should have been done. I believe, as many others, that the UN acted poorly before, during and after the genocide of 1994. However, we have to remember to look at the events from the viewpoint of the time. Not the viewpoint of today. If look with today's eyes it should be to learn. To see what lessons has come out of it. But in criticisin whom are we to just claim that the UN is to blame? I read this amazing book by Michael Barnett today. Eyewitness to a genocide : the United Nations and Rwanda. It was about why the UN did what it did. And why it is important to remember that in 1993 and -94 the UN staff did not know what was going to happen. They were not aware of what was about to take place in Rwanda. What people always, always, forget when they claim that something is the fault of the UN, or that the UN is not functioning, is that the UN is not a government. The UN is only what the member states make of it. And unfortunately the states of the world tend to fall back to power politics. To them, often, it's a matter of self-interest and personal gain. Like with France and the US during the Rwanda genocide. France had personal interest in the crisis. They had since long connections with the Rwandan government. They even supported the military and covered up the human rights violations going on within the country. Thus, when the genocide started the French did nothing. And the US did nothing. They had the memory of Somalia fresh in their minds and were not going to risk more soldiers to yet another African conflict.

What confuses me, and confused Dallaire (the leader of the UN peacekeeping force UNAMIR in Rwanda) was that these powerful countries had no will what so ever to help in protect the civilians of Rwanda. Mainly the Tutsi population since they had been marked by the Hutu power. However, these powerful states did manage to evacuate their own people without any problems. And they told Dallaire that this should be his main priority. Evacuating the 'people of the West'.

And then, when the Tutsi rebels managed to fight back and the Hutu's were being murdered. THEN the French set out an operation named Operation Turquoise. And this to help the Hutu's that have been displaced and no longer have homes. But still doing nothing for the 1 million Tutsi refugees.
The US decided to get involved when the conflict entered Zaire. That's when the conflict suddenly might affect their own interests.

I don't know. To me it seems like while the UN did do mistakes throughout this whole catastrophe. They are nothing compared to what France and the US did. Together with Belgium while Belgium was still a colonial power they created, spured on, and then ignored the problem.
How can that be the fault of the UN? If these countries are running the UN. If these countries have seats in the Security Council. The US and France holding veto power and Rwanda had a non-permanent seat. How then does anyone expect the UN to work? They need these countries support. They cannot act on their own accord. That is not how the UN is structured. Not how it is supposed to work. Maybe that's what we need.. I don't know. But I think it is very naïvely of people to just blame the UN. It's a very ignorant view.

I believe in the UN. I believe in their work. I don't believe their free from faults. Far from it. There's alot that can be done. But at the same time, and I know I keep coming back to this, if the member states don't want the UN to change, it won't. The UN is nothing more than what the members make of it. Atleast not when it comes to peacekeeping and Security Council issues. Which are the issues that people connect the UN with the strongest. To many that's the only thing the UN does, or so it seems to me. What a wrong assumption...

I'm sorry for yet another entry on the UN. But it seems like a point that is worth making over and over again. Maybe one day people will start to understand. Maybe one day they will stop claiming thing without having all the facts. Then they are free to believe whatever they want! They might hate or love the UN. I don't care. As long as they know all the facts.

Just a short entry..
But has everyone heard the news? The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka have been defeated. Their leader is dead and now the rebuilding of a nation might be able to begin. Depends on how the government acts. If they allow international aid. Lets hope so. For the people of Sri Lanka's case.
I believe it's been 18 years of war on the island. Maybe this can be a new start for the many citizens?

One starts to wonder where the world is headed... Just read the front page to a Swedish newspaper's website and I get shocked by the cruelty people can do. Three people have been shot in Asker, just outside Norway's capital. At a German high school students were attacked by a man carrying knifes. And UN reports today that 100 children have died in Sri Lanka during an artilleri attack. It is indeed a scary world we live in.

What I was going to write about was Pakistan. How thousands of people now are fleeing due to more fights between the talibans and the regime. UN says that 360,000 are now displaced. I can't but to start wonder. Start thinking. In today's seminar we discussed the war on terror. Our teacher brought up the issue of what the fundamental reasons are for terrorism, and for the war on it. My own thoughts are: who created terrorism? In the West we say that Sayyed Qutb is the man that started the idea of Islamist fundamentalism, and thus also the creator or modern terrorism. I the Middle East terrorist movements are seen as freedom fighters. Hezbollah in Lebanon are a legitimate political party! And at the same time classified as a terrorist organisation by the US government and the Canadian. But not by European countries, or others for that matters. This leads me to my next question. How come it's always the same countries who classifies terrorism? Doesn't that mean that it is these  countries that came up with the concept? How can they say that the Islamic fundamentalists of the Middle East came up with a concept, when it is themselves that insist (or atleast instead) on using it? I am sure you will never a Hamas-member or someone from the Muslim Brotherhood call themselves a terrorist. With the end of the Bush-era and the beginning of Obama the term 'war on terror' has been removed. The war on terror does no longer exist. Does this mean that the war is over? Or that there never was a war? Or have we, the West, just come up with a different word that sounds different, but in its true essence still means that same? Like globalisation is by many seen as neo-colonialism (which I just wrote an essay about by the way! Interesting stuff!).

I don't know. I don't claim to have any answers. But I do believe that it is very naïve of us in the West to blame the fighting of the talibans, the death of thousands of civilians in Iraq, etc., etc., etc. solely on these countries regimes and on terrorist groups. Can it ever be justified to kill civilians? Or any one else for that matter. No. It cannot. So how can countries like the US and the UK justify them going to Iraq? Or how can Israel justify the bombings of a shelter in southern Lebanon during the 33-day war in 2006? How can Hezbollah justify shooting missiles at remote villages in northern Israel (allthough they did warn the Israeli-government, Israel did not warn Lebanon for 'attacking' shelters, but my view on that is a whole other story..)?

I guess the question it ultimately comes down to is this: would we like it if someone did these things to us?
Something we've been tought since we were little kids. Atleast back in Sweden they teach this, and I assume it is taught all over the world. The so-called 'Golden Rule.' Don't do anything to anyone that you wouldn't want them to do to you. As simple as that. But apparently not. It goes back as far as the old political philosophers. They struggled with the same questions we struggle with today! Is survival only reached by fighting each other? And is the human natural state wicked and evil and selfish?

How come that we all get taught the Golden Rule. We all understand it when we are six. It makes sense. Then how come it is so quickly forgotten when we grow up? How come that sentence suddenly is alterated? It is slowly transformed into another classical 'rule.' And I wonder if Orwell knew that he didn't only talk about the Soviet Blosheviks when he wrote Animal Farm. But about all power hungry human beings. Which unfortunately means a very large population of the world. At least a large proportion of the ruling people of the world. As I said, it's a scary world we live in.. Where pigs become humans...

And all animals are equal. Some are just more equal than others.....

Today during my seminar for my European Politics module we were comparing the EU to other international institutions, such as the UN. A person in my class came with the statement that the UN is deadlocked due to the Security Council and therefore is very ineffective in different situations. My teacher, whom is very good by the way, reminded this person that he was only refering to 'high security' issues. My techer went on to saying that one has to remember the so-called 'low security' issues as well. I really, really like this comment cause I always get very frustrated when someone makes the general claim that "the UN isn't working." Do they know what the UN is? What it does? Or does their knowledge about the UN stop when issues regarding anything else than what the media reports on is discussed? What everyone hear's is that the Security Council is deadlocked due to the veto by the permanent five (US, UK, France, Russia, China). Do this people know that the UN serves as an umbrella organization for so many smaller ones? Do they know how much time and effort people around the world put into small local organization that promotes the UN and world issues? Are they forgetting about UNICEF? Or the World Food Program?
I just get very annoyed when people make generalisations like that without considering everything the UN does. The enormous job that is being undertaken by them and the thousands of volunteers that are working every day to help make the world a better place. How condescending isn't it to those to say that "the UN doesn't work?" I agree that the Security Council is not working to its full potential, but if you criticise, then come up with a better solution! What would you have instead? Exactly.. Didn't think so.

And just so you know, this new world is scaring me. A world where companies act as police, where governments want to monitor everything we do on the internet, where certain states wants to keep record of other states populations travelling. What happened? When did we all become so suspicious and stopped trusting eachother?