Just got back from the Cambridge Union where Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq, was speaking. Very interesting man, he certainly won some level of respect from me. As everyone stood to applaud him as he entered, I refused to clap. I would not applaud a head of state because of his title, I will applaud on the merit of his words. When he left, I applauded him. From what he has said and done in his lifetime, he certainly seems a progressive. It's such a shame that his government is a puppet to the Americans. I have a feeling that if Iraq was a stable country and if his government had its full authority, policy would be very different. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and I would still disagree with much of what he says, but I got the impression that as a politician he was considerably to the left of Bush and Blair....
Sounds fascinating. What did he say about the state of Iraq, his own politics and the future for Iraqi democracy?
I think he was optomistic about Iraq. The sooner American forces fuck off, the sooner Iraq can become a democratic country. All American forces are doing is, infecting the wound. I am not surprised Americans are being killed. They are not wanted and it is America's fault for ignoring the message.
Of all the questions put to him these were, of course, the ones he was least candid in answering. He did not deny that Iraq was in a troubled state, but at the same time he pointed to the Western media under representing progress and over representing the headline grabbing explosions. Whilst I'd say there's an element of truth to that, I would say that explosions make headlines for a reason, especially if they are daily killers. When asked whether the price for removing Saddam was too high, he naturally made the case that it was not. Here, although I'd say Iraq is much worse now than under Saddam, I felt he meant this. As a lifetime fighter for Kurdish rights and democracy in Iraq, I think he genuinely believes that no price is too high, though I'm sure deep down, he must recognise that the circumstances were far from ideal. He hoped American and British forces would leave in 1-2 years and Iraq can handle its own security. I expect that was a little over optimistic. As for his own politics, he talked of his time as a member of the Kurdish Communist Party, and of his lifelong struggles. He voiced his support for Palestinian rights, for the freedom of Tibet and, very curiously, his opposition to the death penalty. That left me utterly perplexed as to how he could purport to represent a sovereign government and oppose the death penalty, whilst presiding over the executions of Saddam and his associates. I think that, as much as anything else, points to the true power behind the throne. It was a very interesting discussion by the end. I would not say that I support his government, certainly not as puppets to the Americans, but I would afford him a certain level of respect, the kind of respect one might show to a worthy and conscientious political opponent....
Do you not think he is a realist ? - while he accepts at the moment the death penalty is ''the will of the people'' he also has his own opinion. At the moment his political and social realities might not reflect the ''will of the people'' he is edging towards attempting to disengage the populace away from the death penalty. It is often said ''the people lead the goverment follows''. It is not often the other way around - maybe he would like that to be the case. Why is his goverment ''puppets'' ?.
When the death penalty was abolished in this country in 1965 it was in spite of strong public support for capital punishment. I'd say in quite a few areas of progressive social policy it is often a government which leads and public opinion which catches up.
I'll be brief, because I think you know my opinion on that and I think I know yours. But the simple fact that it is America, not Iraq, that maintains the monopoly of the means of violence within that territory and that the Americans are propping up the Iraqi government at considerable human and economic expense, means that, by definition, the Iraqi government is not a sovereign authority. That is to say nothing of policy which, quite honestly, I don't think we need to drag up again....
Are you trying to bait me Matthew? And here's me thinking you weren't a troll. You know as well as I do that we've been over this ground a dozen times before. Doing so again would be a waste of both our times. As much as I enjoy deba(i)ting with you, I really do have more important things to do....
No i was not baiting you - I just thought your reasons streched further than what you were insuating. I could not understand why that made them a ''puppet goverment'' or him a ''puppet'' leader. Yeah I sort of gathered that from your earlier reply. Ok fair enough .
My reasons do, we've discussed them before, you disagreed, I'm prepared to leave it at that. The only point I had not raised with you was the general point on the sovereignty of nation states and governments resting fundamentally (in Weberian terms) on their possession of the monopoly of the means of violence within the territory they purport to control. And the point on which I wanted you to comment, was whether you genuinely believe that the Iraqi government possesses that? If it does not, how would you justify their sovereignty?
Well they effectively had their sovereignty given back to them. So on your interpertation i'd disagree with you - they have for all intence and purposes their sovereignty. Yes it is essential that a goverment has the ''monopoly of violence'' . I accpet the Iraqi goveremnt have not the ''Monopoly of violence''. I just wondered why that made them a ''puppet goverment''. That seems to suggest they are being told what do - have no control over what occurs - etc etc etc. I just thought the reasons that you may have - reached beyond that - i thought you knew of a particular occurence of having their decisions being dictated to them by [in this instance] the US goveremnt. Just allowing coalition troops to help and not kick them out immediatly - makes them a ''puppet goverment'' seemed a little harsh.
Well I've already talked about switching oil sales back to dollars, despite Euros being more profitable and I've previously mentioned the privatisation of Iraq's oil resources. The trial of Saddam is yet another factor, which we've been over. And security is a big factor in determining who has sovereignty. It is not simply about who creates policies, but it determines the framework within which policy can be made. As long as the Iraqi government is dependent on the Americans for their survival, they will always have to act within the framework of American interests. This does not mean the Americans dictate to the Iraqis, but it does mean that the Iraqis are limited in the scope of decision-making. For instance, if the Iraqis chose to nationalise American corporations working within Iraq, do you think the Americans would sit by, or do you think they would start to turn up the pressure? If the people of Iraq voted in a fundamentalist Shi'ite party, perhaps one close to Iran's government, do you think the Americans would permit that, or do you think they would intervene? There is too much at stake for the Americans here to hand over democracy and sovereignty on a plate. The Iraqis have been given freedoms, yes, but only as much as will not damage American interests.
Well i'd never have combined all of your theories and deduced this means this is a ''puppet goverment'' . Even though I think we have not got into directly half of the topics you mention [especially the petrodollar] - I accept you may have garnered what I think on those subjects. All in all I think it is a tad harsh - but yeah your theory is credible even though ofcourse i'm going to have to disagree with the premise of the majority of what you say. I thank you for making it more clear and ''deep''.
You do realise that he spent more than 1/2 his working life working for the CIA dont you and that he is primarily an american plant. The trick being that the USA has already done a deal with the side it is currently fighting. The USA pulls out of Iraq, then Iraq falls to some dictator and the USA feigns dissaproval while dealing with the dictator for 20 years then they make friends and the USA is once again in control of a united people with a dictator the people dont realise is so pro american he's got a yankee flag tattoed on his ass cheeks. The USA prefers to work with dictatorships and they will be soon after they leave iraq and their dictator in waiting claims he pushed them out to unite the people
I hadn't heard that Talabani had worked with the CIA for any length of time. Can you show me an article pointing to that? I know that Chalabi had worked with the CIA, is that who you mean?
