EU Terrorism List

I was looking at some other blogs out there and this one caught my eye.  It involves a list put out by the European Union and the fact that they have not put Al Qaeda on their main list of terrorist organizations.  The website for this has moved, but the site that I viewed it on still works: http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/for_the_europea.html

Anyways, so apparently the European Union has a main (and secondary) list of terror organizations.  The secondary one is similar to the United Nations list; however, the European Union had a debate on whether or not to put Al Quaeda on their main list.  This particular blogger was confused as to why they EU a. has two lists, and b. why Al Quaeda was not on both.  He felt that even though Europe defines terrorist groups differently, there should be no reason why Al Quaeda was not on it.

 I obviously don’t know all of the particulars of why Al Quaeda would not go on the list, and I must admit I’m a little confused too, since they fit into the category of a terrorist group (as outlined in What Terrorists Want).  Although, I don’t understand why they would not be on a list which meerly lists terrorist organizations, I could potentially understand why they would not be on a list if it was for, say, top European terrorist enemy organizations.  I can understand why Europe could not want to always ally with the United States and take our fights as their own.  Especially, since many don’t agree with  US policies in the Middle East to begin with.  However, I honestly don’t have an explination for the topic brought up in this blog post.

 As for the blog itself, it came from the Counterterrorism Blog which appears to be a very credible blog.  The biographies of some of the authors were impressive, and I didn’t initially notice a particular bias.  I would definately recommend taking a look if you have a chance!

Zimbabwe and the EU

The EU governments are extending sanctions against Zimbabwe.  This includes a ban against the leaders in Zimbabwe.  This is due to the history of human rights violations in the country. 

As for the Zimbabwean government?  They say that the EU countries made their decision due to pressure from Great Britain.

Now, I don’t know much else about the history of the situation (or why Great Britain would be applying pressure), but this artice is interesting in seeing how organizations affect country relations.  (ie: banning travel of the President of Zimbabwe to member countries, etc.)

Just as a side note, this came from a Russian newspaper.  I just thought that it was interesting that the article wasn’t in a paper directly related to either country/group (Zimbabwe or the EU).

What do terrorists want?

So my posts are generally supposed to be on the European Union.  But as I was reading Louise Richardson’s What Terrorists Want, I was struck by a particular quote.  She states that

“What appears to drive some people to violence is not their absolute levels of poverty but rather their position relative to others.  Northern Irish Catholics did not cmpare themselves to southern Irish Catholics, who enjoyed a much less generous social welfare system at the time the civil rights movement emerged; rather, they compared themselves to Northern Irish Protestants.  Impoverished Palestinians are not comparing themselves to other impoverished Arabs in Egypt, Jordan, or elsewhere, but to the much wealthier Israeli settlers.  With global mass communications and American TV shows broadcasting American affluence around the world, it is not difficult to mobilize a sense of resentment of American wealth.  Previously one compared onself to others nearby, but the contrast between American wealth and Arab poverty is now being broadcast daily into people’s tiny homes.”

I kept thinking about the realist theories and that they seem to have more credibility in situations such as this.  (Realists focus on relative gains and relative loss of power in relation to others, while liberals focus more on absolute gains in relation to others.)  Even though these actors aren’t states, they seem to take these realist ideas and apply them to their own individual lives.  Rather than comparing what they have to what they could have, they chose to put their efforts into trying to gain relative wealth/power in an “unfair” system.

Turkey and the EU

In the Turkish Press , there was recent article showing how Turkey was changing and becoming more “open” in the hope that they will be accepted into the European Union.  The article opens with the following:

Turkey`s Chief Negotiator Ali Babacan praised his country`s rapid transformation toward openness.

“Turkey has become very open, very fast,” Babacan told Christopher Power in a commentary published in the “Business Week“.

The assassination of Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink “looks like an anachronism,” Babacan stated. “It`s not compatible with the open society we are looking for.”

I’m a little confused by this.  He says that it looks like an anachronism (“amething or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, esp. a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time”according to dictionary.com in case you were wondering) and that it is “not compatible with the open society we are looking for.”  I’m not sure exactly what this means.  Does he mean that it is not in line with what they are “looking for” or is it not in line with what Turkey actually is today.

With the recent addition of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (under an extremely strict monitering system), there are some in the European Union who do not favor any more immediate expansion (bad news for Turkey).  I guess we’ll just have to see how it develops further!

No Holocaust?

In an article from February 2 in BBC News, Germany hopes to pass a measure in the European Union which would “criminalise, and possibly imprison, not just those who downplay the Holocaust but also those who belittle genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.” Germany views it as a responsibility they have (think World War II); however, others (even though they admit that anti-Holocaust, genocide, etc. remarks are not in the best taste) worry about freedom of speech .  The article goes into various cases in which this lack of freedom could present problems. 

Germany has tried to push legislation like this through before, but it was rejected.  (The forefront of the opposition then was Italy, but Germany hopes that it will be received better this time around with a new ‘centre-left’ government there.)  The last comment in the article is by Hugo Brady, who is a research fellow.  He feels that “these proposals prompt debate – but I predict nothing more.  They are from the heart, not the head.”

A lot of Americans especially have a hard time with a measure such as this becauseof our strong history in the belief of freedom of speech.  Unfortunately, not everyone has had this history.  I don’t think that Americans (or really anyone outside of the European Union) can judge this issue fairly because culture and history is driving this, something that unless you’re directly involved, you cannot fairly evaluate.  There’s an emotional issue involved with this, not just political, with Germany trying to push this through.  (It is already the case in Germany and several other European states, but not EU-wide.)  All in all, I agree with Brady.  It’s understandable why they would feel so strongly about this issue, but in the end, it is going to be extremely difficult to implement it politically.

Another Global Warming Warning…

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/science/earth/02cnd-climate.html?hp&ex=1170478800&en=7f0ce59ee7d312e5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 This article began with another dire warning about how our world is continuing to get warmer and weather patterns are changing due to gasses in the atmosphere which are a direct result of human activity.  An energy and climate expert at Harvard University (John P. Holdren) state that the “report powerfully underscores the need for a massive effort to slow the pace of global climatic disruption before intolerable consequences become inevitable.”  The article goes on to explain what some researchers predict the consequences will be, various rough timelines, etc.  Scientists say that even now, if we act quickly we can “stop” the path that we’re headed down. 

 At the end of the article, this snippet caught my eye:

“Policy makers paid us to do good science, and now we have high very scientific confidence in this work — this is real, this is real, this is real,” said Richard B. Alley, one of the lead authors and a professor at Penn State University. “So now act, the ball’s back in your court.”

I just find this ironic.  It feels like policy makers want you to think that they’re doing all they can for the environment and I’d like to think they care about bettering the world.  However, sometimes it seems like that’s all they do.  Look at what’s happening, and stand by while it continues to do whatever it’s doing.  It’s understandable I suppose, it would be easier to make it look like you’re trying to change the environment, but a lot of voters are short term thinkers.  By actually acting on a lot of the changes that are necessary to improve the environment, it can take away popularity in the short term because it can be counterproductive to getting re-elected. (ie: more taxes to pay for initiatives, or not getting something your constituents want) 

I hope that the suggestions are acted upon in this case.  If not, then I think they should stop doing these studies.  Save more time and money all around if that’s your aim.