Ramanisblog

Tag: International relations

  • Nick Griffin uses BBC appearance to attack Muslims and gays.

    One need not agree with Mr.Griffin;but certain points are to be noted.
    The language he used ,may be incorrect.
    1.Islam is not only incompatible with British Society of today,but of most societies in the world of today as well.Many of us are scared to voice this opinion because it does not seem to be the right thing to say.
    2.Homosexuals are definitely an aberration;accept it;they are abnormal and sick;do not justify them,but treat them.
    His remarks on coloreds are not appropriate.
    If people were to retaliate they can say that ,in fact Britain was colonising the world till yesterday.May be, sins of fathers are visiting sons!
    More over, Britain today depends on coloreds for their survival, Brown in paritcular.If they decide to leave,you shall be in a bleak island, a US surrogate.
    3.His remarks on Holocaust is totally abhorrent.Totally inhumane.
    4.However ,BBC has done a good job of interviewing him.Democracy is all about discussion and clarification and no gagging.

    Story:
    Mr Griffin said Islam was not compatible with life in Britain, while describing homosexuals as “creepy”.
    The remarks provoked indignation from other members of the BBC panel and hostile parts of the audience, some of whom booed, calling him “a disgrace”.

    The BNP leader could not explain why he had previously sought to play down the Holocaust and defended his use of Sir Winston Churchill on BNP literature on the basis that his father had fought in the Second World War.

    He claimed that Churchill would have been a member of the BNP and was “Islamaphobic” by “today’s standard”.

    Asked whether he denied that millions of Jews and other minorities had been killed by the Nazis, Mr Griffin would only reply: “I do not have a conviction for Holocaust denial.”

    He was then chastised by David Dimbleby, the host of the programme, for smiling.

    The controversial statements were made in response to intense questioning by members of the audience from ethnic minorities.

    BBC Television Centre in west London came under siege as filming took place, with MPs joining hundreds of protesters behind lines of police. There were six arrests as dozens of protesters attempted to storm the studio.

    BBC studios in Hull, Scotland and Wales were also targeted by demonstrators. The cost of the police operation was estimated to be more than £100,000.

    The BBC was certain to be questioned over why it allowed Mr Griffin to air such controversial views but executives were hoping that the intensive questioning that he faced would justify their decision to invite him on the Question Time panel for the first time.

    The BBC, which Mr Griffin denounced on the programme as “ultra-Leftist”, had claimed that impartiality rules meant that it had little choice but to invite him on to the programme after the BNP won seats in the European Parliament in elections earlier this year.

    He was joined on the panel by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, Baroness Warsi, the Tory spokesman on community cohesion, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, and Bonnie Greer, a black American playwright.

    Mr Griffin was seated next to Miss Greer.

    One of the most controversial moments came when Mr Dimbleby asked the BNP leader why he had been pictured with David Duke, the former leader of the Klan. Mr Griffin claimed that parts of the racist group, officially classed as a “hate organisation” in America, were “non-violent”.

    However, he insisted: “I’m not a Nazi and never have been.”

    He claimed that he was “the most loathed man in Britain” among British fascists.

    He was questioned over his views on Islam and said it had “good points” but “does not fit in with the fundamental values of British society”. He was also attacked for describing white Britons as the “indigenous” population who faced “genocide”. We are the Aborigines here, he said.

    Amid angry scenes, one Asian member of the audience asked Mr Griffin where he would like him to be sent and then suggested that he himself might find the South Pole a good destination because it was “a colourless landscape”.

    Mr Griffin boasted to BNP supporters before the programme that he was “relishing” the prospect of “political blood sport”. “I will, no doubt, be interrupted, shouted down, slandered, put on the spot, and subjected to a scrutiny that would be a thousand times more intense than anything directed at other panellists,” he said. “It will, in other words, be political blood sport. But I am relishing this opportunity.”

    Speaking after filming had finished, Mr Griffin claimed that he had been able to “land some punches”.

    About one million people voted for the BNP at the European elections, leading to Mr Griffin taking up one of its two seats in the European Parliament. As a result, BBC executives said strict impartiality rules effectively forced them to include the party in Question Time.

    Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC, said the Government should ban the BNP if it felt that Mr Griffin should not have been allowed to take part in the broadcast.

    “If there is a case for censorship, it should be debated and decided in Parliament,” he said. “Political censorship cannot be outsourced to the BBC or anyone else.”

    He said the BNP had “demonstrated a level of support that would normally lead to an occasional invitation to join the panel on Question Time”.

    Politicians from minor parties, including George Galloway, the Respect MP, and Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green party, regularly appeared on Question Time.

    Mr Thompson insisted that Mr Griffin had been invited so that the public could challenge his views, rather than any “misguided desire to be controversial”.

    Speaking before the programme, Gordon Brown said the BNP’s appearance was a matter for the BBC and that he was confident that Mr Griffin would be exposed for his “unacceptable” views.

    “I hope that the exposure of the BNP will make people see what they are really like,” the Prime Minister said.

    However, there were fears that Mr Griffin’s appearance would lead to an increase in support.

    He had said he was hopeful his party would be propelled into “the big time” as a result of the broadcast and described his appearance on the show as “a milestone in the indomitable march of the British National Party towards saving our country”.

    Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and the chairman of Unite Against Fascism, claimed that the broadcast could lead to an increase in racist attacks and views.

    “For the angry racist it’s a trigger that turns into an attack,” he said.

    “We first saw this when Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech. There was a huge surge of attacks on black conductors on our buses, and that is why I think you apply a different standard to the BNP to those parties that do not legitimise this sort of violence against minorities.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6410764/BNP-on-Question-Time-Nick-Griffin-uses-BBC-appearance-to-attack-Muslims-and-gays.html#

  • Will Beijing and the Dalai Lama ever resolve their differences?

    No. China will not even entertain Talks with the Dalai Lama, especially after section of his followers expressed their disillusionment with him on the ground he is too soft.China will be more wary of dealing with him now though it has never encouraged him..China is not known to cede territory, whether own or annexed..

  • Obama notes ‘transition’ in U.S.-Iraqi bilateral ties

    Whatever might have been the motive in inavading Iraq,including contol of Black gold,it is well past.
    While focussing on maintaining Security in Iraq ,by slowly transfering the management of Iraq’s affairs to them,it is imperative that the main cause of discontent among Iraqis, namely occupation by US,conduct of elections and massive investments to kick start the economy shall be in order.
    All said and and done it is economic prosperity that keeps a Nation satisfied and makes people comfortable.
    High time international community stops harping on terrorisml litany with regard to Iraq and start developing it ,with out fleecing it.

    Story:

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Obama said U.S.-Iraqi ties are entering a new period, a change marked by a decreased emphasis on security and an increased focus on the Iraqi economy.

    Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, left, and President Obama pose for a picture in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

    1 of 2 Appearing before reporters Tuesday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Obama said the men discussed a wide-range of issues and didn’t fixate on security or the military. Al-Maliki was in Washington to attend the two-day Iraq Investment and Business Conference and meet with American officials.

    “What is wonderful about this trip is that it represents a transition in our bilateral relationship, so that we are moving now to issues beyond security and we are beginning to talk about economy, trade, commerce,” the president said.

    Obama cited Iraq’s “continuing progress,” strides on investment, and “a commitment to democratic politics.” He also cited the election legislation delayed in Iraq’s parliament because of disagreement on several issues. The scheduled January 16 parliamentary elections might not be held if legislation isn’t passed soon.

    U.S. and Iraqi officials are concerned that a delay in the voting, or a resurgence of violence ahead of the election, could unravel the country’s growing stability and its “increasingly attractive” environment.

    “We are very interested, both of us, in making sure that Iraq has an election law that is completed on time so that elections can take place on time in January,” Obama said.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/20/us.iraq.trade/index.html

  • Is NATO relevant?


    ‘International War on Terror’ seems to be more in the rhetoric of US and UK.Other countries of the NATO are routinely sending troops, as a Govt.clerk shall forward files. Every Nation is strengthening its defenses and ,most of them seem to realize, rightly so, that war on this front can be fought only in their respective countries and not by going into a country of which they know very little.
    Again,in an Unipolar World,what role NATO has to play?There is no USSR,you are scared of North Korea, shiver about China, and do not know what to do with Pakistan.
    You can not deploy NATO in any of these areas as there is no consensus and even if you decide to do so,member countries are reluctant to participate.
    In short,NATO is a white elephant which accommadates Generals who have to be kicked up,Other than that it has no purpose at all

    Story:
    There is almost no sense anywhere that the war in Afghanistan is an international operation, or that the stakes and goals are international, or that the soldiers on the ground represent anything other than their own national flags and national armed forces: Most of the war’s European critics want to know why their boys are fighting “for the Americans,” not for NATO. Most of the American critics dismiss the European contribution as useless or ignore it altogether. As Jackson Diehl pointed out Monday, the central debate about future Afghanistan policy is taking place in Washington without any obvious contributions from anybody else. I’m not going to blame the U.S. administration alone for this: It’s not as if Europe has put forward a different plan — and there was certainly a moment, back at the beginning of this administration, when that would have been very welcome.

    The fact is that the idea of “the West” has been fading for a long time on both sides of the Atlantic, as countless “whither-the-Alliance” seminars have been ritually observing for the past decade. But the consequences are now with us: NATO, though fighting its first war since its foundation, inspires nobody. The members of NATO feel no allegiance to the alliance, or to one another. On its home continent, NATO does precious little military contingency planning, preferring to hold summits. Above all, there is no recognizable alliance leader who is willing or able to engage in the national debates of the various member countries, to argue in favor of the Afghan mission or any other. President Obama could in theory do this, but I’m guessing the idea doesn’t fill him with inspiration.

    None of this might matter much in Afghanistan, since the outcome of current deliberations may well be some version of the status quo. But the next time NATO is needed, I doubt whether it will be there at all.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902510.html

  • India, a case of reverse imperialism: Forbes

    For a change nice to hear about India.Unfortunately,unlike China,does not know how to flex its economic muscle in the Diplomatic arena.
    Story:
    India is still labelled an emerging market, but the Forbes magazine has argued that the country’s economy has already emerged. And as the economy spreads its wings, its companies are turning to new international markets, perhaps beginning a reverse imperialism.

    For proof, the US business magazine lists not only the recent high profile acquisitions by Indian firms, but also facts such as four of the top 10 billionaires in the world are Indian, and that with an annualised five-year total return of 42.2 per cent, India comes second after Brazil in terms of the growth of the world’s largest public companies.

    In comparison, the growth percentage in Britain and the US are 17.1 per cent and 11.1 per cent respectively, indicating that the balance of economic power in the world is starting to shift, the magazine said in a commentary piece in its latest issue on Friday.

    -“The reason for this reversal of fortunes is that for established companies in the US and Britain it is difficult to grow as quickly as those expanding from nothing, as is the case for start-ups in India.

    During the 18th century, when the British colonised India and started exploiting the subcontinent’s vast natural resources and to expand trade, tea became an important commodity and came to symbolise British colonial rule.

    In a case of reverse imperialism, Tata Tea, part of the diversified Tata Group, bought Tetley, Britain’s largest tea company, in 2000. Tata Tea has since become the second largest tea manufacturer in the world by volume, surpassed only by Unilever, based in London and Rotterdam.

    This March, in another example of British brands being picked up by an old colony, Tata Motors acquired Jaguar and Land Rover from Ford for $2.3 billion. Tata Motors hopes the acquisitions will boost its ability to be a “meaningful player” in the global market.

    India’s monetary muscle is strengthened by a cheap domestic labour market and its companies’ high price-to-earnings ratios, the magazine quoted Tarun Khanna, a professor at Harvard Business School’

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/News/chunk-ht-ui-worldsectionpage-focusindia/India-a-case-of-reverse-imperialism/Article1-315907.aspx