Monthly Archives: October 2014

Britain, Iraq, Islamic State, Middle East, Syria, United States

Western support must include arming the Kurds. More from the West is needed…

ISLAMIC STATE

It was Respect MP, George Galloway, who said that the west must ‘strengthen the Kurdish fighters, who are doing a good job of fighting IS’. Mr Galloway gave that view during a House of Commons debate on Iraq last month.

It isn’t a contradiction to be anti-war and left-wing at the same time as being pro-Kurd and in favour of supporting and arming the Kurds. Many people have been long-standing opponents of western-led military interventions in the Muslim-majority world. All campaigns from Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003 to Libya in 2011, have resulted in civilian bloodshed and terrorist blowback. Many are not pacifist, either. To somehow hide and pretend that the response to those who carry out beheadings of the self-styled Islamic State need not involve an element of brute military force is either ludicrously naïve or disgracefully disingenuous.

And so too is the lazy obsession with airstrikes. General David Richards, the former chief of the defence staff, has repeatedly called for ‘boots on the ground’ and says that: ‘Wars, historically, have never been won by air power alone.’

Another foreign military occupation of Iraq – or, for that matter Syria – would be wholly disastrous. Further bloodshed would ensue, with yet more blowback. There are, however, secular and Sunni boots on the ground that the west should be backing against the jihadists of IS. There are Kurdish fighters not just in northern Iraq, where the peshmerga have fended off IS attempts to bring Erbil and Kirkuk under its terror-inspired caliphate, but also in northern Syria, where the People’s Protection Units (YPG) of the Kurds’ Democratic Union Party (PYD) have been heroically holding off IS in the importantly strategic town of Kobani for more than a month now.

These Kurdish units, which include all-women militias, have to all intents and purposes become the last line of defence against the genocidal fanatics of IS. But, while, in Mr Galloway’s words, they are doing a ‘good job’, they can’t do it alone. IS are equipped with US-made tanks seized in Iraq following the desertion of whole units of the Iraqi army in the face of IS threats. Progressives in the west, which should also include those of the anti-war variety, need to get behind the Kurds. A loud public voice needs to be heard. We should do so because we owe them. Kurds constitute the biggest stateless minority in the world, with a population of some 30 million, divided mainly between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. They have been bombed in Turkey, executed in Iran, gassed in Iraq and besieged in Syria. Not to mention how they have been repeatedly betrayed by the west.

The Kurds are worth fighting for. Take northern Syria. Here the three autonomous and Kurdish-majority provinces of Rojava have avoided the worst excesses of the civil war. They have engaged in what can only be described as a remarkable democratic experiment, ceding power to popular assemblies and also to women’s and youth councils. Why would any progressive want to stand and watch the revolutionary Kurds of Kobani to fall to the murderous thugs of IS?

Another reason, too, is because of Turkey’s reluctance to do anything. The ghastly crisis unfolding in Islamic State could have been an opportunity for Turkey, under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to build a new long-term alliance with his country’s embittered Kurdish minority against the brutal and barbarous extremism of IS. The PYD in Syria, however, is an offshoot of Turkey’s Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been locked in a violent conflict with Ankara over Kurdish autonomy since 1984. Mr Erdogan took the decision to seal Turkey’s border with Syria, but this gave the green light to IS militants to seize Kobani and massacre its PKK-affiliated populace. It then bombed PKK positions in southern Turkey for the first time since the group agreed to participate in a peace process in March 2013.

At a briefing on 4 October, Mr Erdogan said that for Turkey the PKK was the equivalent of IS. Other than shamelessly echoing the mantra of Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, that ‘Hamas is Isis, Isis is Hamas’, a clear irony emerges because if the PKK had been deemed the same as IS Turkey would have done a lot more to help. The Turkish-Syrian border hasn’t been closed to IS fighters, only to PKK fighters. On 20 October, Turkey finally agreed to allow Kurdish fighters to cross the border into Syria, but only Kurds from Iraq and not from Turkey – and not with heavy weaponry either, which has been the main request of the YBG fighters in Kobani.

It would seem that Turkey doesn’t care whether Kobani falls to the jihadists. The Turkish government insists it won’t be bullied by anyone and rejects world opinion as to how it should be acting to help. But to balance the argument it’s fair to say that western governments have never lifted a finger either to help Turkey’s Kurds – or, by extension, Syria’s. As is gaining evermore traction, these are the wrong sort of Kurds – the victims of a NATO ally, rather than a horde of jihadists. Look no further than the interpretation of the language: Kurds in Turkey are deemed ‘terrorists’, but Kurds in Iraq are associated as being ‘freedom fighters’. No one is quite yet sure about the present status of the Iranian Kurds.

Progressives, then, need to get behind the Kurds, especially those Kurds in Kobani. There is a danger, of course, that their struggle will be co-opted by western governments, particularly by those governments which often shape outcomes in the Middle East to suit their own interests. Progressives do not have an alternative stance to pursue given how squeezed the Kurds are between Bashar al-Assad, Erdogan and IS.

In the words of an old Kurdish proverb: ‘Freedom is never given but taken.’

 

Standard
Britain, Government, Islamic State, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Society, Terrorism

The reintroduction of treason laws is no solution in dealing with Islamic State terrorists…

NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE THREAT OF IS ATTACKS ON THE STREETS OF BRITAIN

 The recent disclosure by Britain’s intelligence and counter-terrorism chiefs that an ‘exceptionally high’ number of terror plots by British citizens against Britain’s people and institutions are being investigated should chill everybody.

Such reports are no-doubt alarming, but does it justify, as one senior government minister has suggested, that those who accused of planning terrorist acts are prosecuted under the laws of treason?

We should need no reminder of the type of terrorist threat we are now faced with. It is one unlike any that Britain and the rest of the western world have so far faced, with barbarous killings and beheadings staged live on social media by Islamic State, the extreme fundamentalist sect against which war is now being waged in Syria and Iraq. Some of the suspects implicated in the terror cases which have gone to court are people who have returned to Britain after being trained in merciless terror tactics by IS – people who seem clearly intent on putting into practice what they have learned at terrorist training camps and madrassas while in the Middle East.

As many as 2,000 young British Muslims, including about 60 young women, have been radicalised by what they have learned from extremist preaching over the internet. After heeding the call of IS to wage jihad many have headed to the Middle East in pursuit of establishing an Islamic caliphate. A few have been sickened by their experiences there, but far too many have not.

We should not underestimate either that many recruits to the IS cause may also have taken up their methods without ever having left Britain’s shores, as well as those who may have been recruited and indoctrinated by those Islamists returning. It seems only too real and likely that the dreadful trademark of IS, the ghastly beheadings, along with shootings and bombings, is repeated on British streets.

In responding to this challenge Britain clearly needs to be ready. Counter-terror officers are already under severe strain as they attempt to monitor every conceivable avenue in foiling an attack. If more resources need to be allocated, either by training additional staff or by acquiring better equipment and technology they need, then so be it. National security and the safety of British citizens must rank high on the government’s agenda.

But what use would it serve, as Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary has suggested, for those caught planning such offences to be charged under treason laws? These are laws which date back some 600 years and which were last used more than half a century ago to prosecute Lord Haw-Haw (William Joyce), who became notorious as a Nazi propagandist during the Second World War.

If such laws were reintroduced they would hardly serve as a deterrent. Treason is not punishable in the UK by the death penalty because that was abolished in 1965, but rather by a sentence of up to life imprisonment (the same as for murder). For any committed jihadist, a charge of treason to a state, for which they have a stated aim in destroying, is hardly likely to make them think twice.

Mr Hammond’s mere mention of reintroducing treason laws looks like a sign of panic amongst the political elite who have no clear idea of how to handle this particular threat within existing legal and moral boundaries.

A firm resolve and necessary resources are needed, which might also include the tightening of borders and entry points to the UK. For those seeking to gain access to Britain by harming us the tightening of security at air and seaport terminals should be underpinning all other aspects of national security.

Standard
Government, Health, Medical, Research, Science, Society

Why is a medical body giving accreditation to homeopathic medicine? It’s unscientific…

HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE

Recently, it was announced that all homeopathic practitioners can now opt to be vetted by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA).

As a result practitioners on the Society of Homeopaths’ register will be able to display the Accredited Voluntary Register (AVR) quality mark, a sign that they belong to a register which meets the robust standards of the PSA.

The PSA is a governmental body with two main duties. The first is to oversee the nine regulators of legally-defined medical practitioners – organisations such as the General Dental Council, the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Its second duty, however, is to assess the bodies which oversee those professions which aren’t considered ‘real’ medicine such as the British Acupuncture Council, or the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy. The PSA’s role here is to ensure that these bodies are meeting their own standards in areas such as education, training, management and the process of how complaints are handled. These are ‘voluntary registers’, and are essentially a form of industry self-regulation.

This dual role on part of the PSA is controversial, as its stated goal is to ‘promote the health, safety and wellbeing of users of health and social care services and the public’. Critics point out that these objectives appear to be contradicted by the endorsement of medical treatments which have never been proven to be more effective than the placebo effect in a clinical trial.

Homeopaths that are registered with the Society of Homeopaths, and who meet its qualifications, are now allowed to use the AVR quality mark signifying that they meet the PSA’s ‘robust standards’. This could mean using the symbol in an advert, or it could mean displaying it on homeopathic products. But this might mean the public buying something which they believe is medicine, but which is actually just an expensive bottle of ordinary water with an AVR mark on it.

Evidence suggests that homeopathy is an ineffective treatment for all health conditions and is no better than a placebo, and is a pseudoscience. It is classified as a complementary or alternative medicine, which, unlike conventional evidence-based medicine, relies on the premises that ‘like cures like’ (one where a substance that causes a specific symptom is also meant to alleviate that symptom) and that ‘ultra-dilution’ of something in water increases its potency. Both of these claims contradict fundamental aspects of modern medical science.

Homeopathic remedies are used as ‘cures’ for a wide range of conditions – such as mental health issues, asthma, diabetes and hay fever. While many patients have reported that they work, there is no evidence to show that these treatments are effective in any way beyond the established effectiveness of the placebo effect. Indeed, the Faculty of Homeopathy website even highlights itself that, up to the end of 2013, out of 188 research studies in homeopathy, nearly 60 per cent were either found to be inconclusive or presented a negative result. The PSA’s decision to give homeopathic practitioners a stamp of approval is, therefore, potentially conveying a dangerous or misleading message.

The PSA’s own stance on the issue is that it doesn’t exist to pass judgement on the effectiveness of any kind of medical treatment, be it dentistry or Freudian psychoanalysis – it’s just there to make sure that, if someone’s practicing in one of these fields, they’re meeting the standards that the body representing that field demands.

The PSA’s own standards for accreditation states:

‘The PSA recognises that not all disciplines are underpinned by evidence of proven therapeutic value. Some disciplines are subject to controlled randomised trials, others are based on qualitative evidence. Some rely on anecdotes. Nevertheless, these disciplines are legal and the public choose to use them. The Authority requires organisations to make this clear to the public so that they may make informed decisions.’

Yet this is the problem. The PSA’s task is to make sure that people are making ‘informed decisions’ about what they’re choosing when it comes to medical treatment. But the thing that gives the work of many of the voluntary register organisations, like the Society of Homeopaths, their legitimacy is the ARV quality mark. Something’s wrong with the system if a medical regulatory body is holding neurosurgeons and homeopaths to the same standard of proof, and telling the public that they’re equally trustworthy.

Standard