In Memory of Nelson Mandela. Terrorist and freedom fighter.

In another age the word terrorist was not synonymous with Muslim extremism. It was ore likely to be applied to figures of the left.

In today's world, where the name Mandela is almost universally revered, it is difficult, painful even, to remember that not only the South African apartheid government, but also the UK and US governments viewed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

Mandela has been a figure of inspiration. But an examination of his quotes gives us an understanding as to just how radical the youthful Mandela appeared in the eyes of the establishment. Mandela justified an armed struggle as "a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid". He also said that "

A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who

defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no

resource but to use the methods that mirror those of the oppressor.

At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire It is worth remembering that the ANC armed struggle was one of sabotage, rather than killing people. In today's world that such people, demanding nothing more than the vote, could be called terrorists seems more extreme than Mandela ever was. But his interest in and association with Communism during the cold war made Mandela dangerous to the West.

As ever one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

For his part in the campaign of sabotage Mandela was sentenced to life in prison. He served 27 years. Subsequent quotes give us an insight into a transition of sorts. For example
"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." But such sentiments presuppose a enemy willing to make an equivalent transition to partnership. This was, eventually, true for South Africa. And also for Northern Ireland. In the case of South Africa the manifest justice of the cause, allied with the magnanimity of the ANC allowed reconciliation to happen. It is, of course, easier to be generous when time is on your side. The inbuilt majority and the isolation of the regime made it clear the struggle would end in victory.

If we look to the rehabilitation of the ANC and Mandela for some hope for today's intractable conflicts, I feel somewhat disheartened.

Where is the leadership in Israel which will allow some settlement with the Palestinians? They have had their leaders, Barak could not bring the people with him. Rabin and Sharon could not live long enough to see it through. As for the Palestinians, since the loss of Arafat, there is no single leader recognised widely enough. Although Hamas as an organisation seems to have the potential.

As for America's wider war on terror, Obama could not even close Guantanamo. Bin Laden was a single leader, but the nature of al Qaeda is one of weak central command.

Without a settlement in Israel/Palestine a steady stream of recruits seems inevitable. How could any American president sit down to talk with Islamic insurgents? America's dominance of the battlefield being so absolute and the likelihood of some splinter group carrying on the struggle meaning the risk to Americans remains basically unchanged implies America has next to nothing to gain.

It is a truism of Great Power diplomacy that no military action should be undertaken without a clear view on how it might be brought to an end. George W Bush has been roundly criticised for many things. Most of it justified. The fact he began his 'War on Terror' and I still can see no way for America to end it is something for which he has not faced nearly enough condemnation.

Assad bailed by Friends

Not so long ago everyone who knew anything was numbering Bashar al Assad's days in power.

This was not simply a case of the West misunderstanding the Arabs (although Western analysts got it wrong). Nor was it a just case of the West seeing it all through Israeli eyes (although the Israelis got it wrong).

Because the Arabs and the Turks got it wrong too.

After the wave of the Arab Spring swamped dictator after dictator, we had all become used to regime's falling rather than standing. When Syria's turn came, why should that regime prove any different? Was Assad really so much stronger than Mubarak?

Apparently so. But why? Why has the unstoppable wave of the Arab Spring come to a halt in Syria?

I suppose we should begin with a note of caution. Assad is not yet ultimately victorious. Just this morning the US has decided to start (overtly) arming the rebels, that may have an effect. Assad has, however, already proven himself more resilient than Mubarak and Gaddafi.

Had the Shia of Bahrain received the sort of assistance sent by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to Syria's rebels, the monarchy there would probably have fallen.

So, after having watched it all, here is my advice for dictators to follow to keep themselves safe.

Firstly, you need powerful friends. Gaddafi had no real friends outside of southern Africa. While these people could send him militia, they couldn't veto action at the UN, or send him arms.

Secondly, democratic friends are only so much use. There was no way America would arm Mubarak in the same way that Russia arms Assad once the shooting began.

Thirdly you need friends in the neighbourhood. The role of Hezbollah in the battle for Qusayr may have been exaggerated. The Syrian army provided the artillery, air power and many troops, but Hezbollah guerrillas may have tipped the balance. Syria also has a highly significant border with Shia run Iraq, providing a bridge to a friendly Iran.

Fourthly it helps to be part of an ethnic minority. I don't mean a tiny minority of two or three percent, but 15% to 20% helps. It provides you with a ready core of people willing to fight. This is true for Assad, and also the al Khalifa monarchy in Bahrain, as it was for Saddam in Iraq.

Fifthly, foreign support for those rising up against you is a double edged sword. If you can retain the edge (having tanks and an air force really helps here) foreign support can discredit your opponents and galvanise your own people. Spending too much time worrying about outsiders won't help. Concentrate on your own friends abroad. Tell the Russians that you are a great advert for their weaponry. Does American support for the rebels really help them recruit? Does al Qaeda support for the rebels unite America behind them?

Sixth, while trying to stop foreigners supporting your opponents might not help, stirring up trouble in their backyards almost certainly will. Erdogan took a big risk in getting involved in Syria. It looks like it might be all downhill for him from thereon in. Note that trouble in Yemen has flared up again. I expect Bahrain to witness further stirrings over the summer. If Turkey and the Arabian peninsular are in turmoil, the rebel backers there will have bigger fish to fry. America will be much more cautious about intervening in the middle east.

Seventh, don't panic. Bashar may not have looked like a hardman dictator to start with. There was talk that it was his father's cronies rather than him that ran the show. But he has held on. Long enough to get sufficient Iranian and Hezbollah to decisively shift the momentum at Qusayr. It really isn't over yet, but if his forces can push on to Aleppo, it will be all but done. He has shown enough caution in the early stages, and now looks ruthless enough to finish the job. Had he shown that level of ruthlessness in the beginning, he would have killed unarmed demonstrators. Now he is fighting a civil war.

Eighth, be useful. This may look easier said than done, but how useful was Mubarak, really? Israel is the indispensable US ally. Whereas Syria really is indispensable to both Russia and Iran. You may get more for being indispensable to Russia than 'nice to have' to America.

Bashar al Assad may not have looked strong in the beginning, but whereas Mubarak had only the backing of democracies, Assad had Russia, Hezbollah and Iran, prepared to publicly veto resolutions and break any amount of sanctions to help him survive. Totally unconcerned about the human rights of his opponents,

While Gaddafi had battle hardened Africa militia, the equivalent of Hezbollah at is disposal, he had no help from major powers. Ben Ali was no strategic use to anyone.

Looking down my list you may see that nearly all of it is about how you manage relationships with allies. Assad has done that perfectly. Showing enough determination to win without making it too difficult for his friends to support him (like the Kims of North Korea).

So the two real biggies are look after your alliances, and a relationship with Russia or China will probably help more in a really tight spot than any amount of closeness with a democracy.

The Arabs are reputed to say "better be America's enemy than friend, America betrays its friends and appeases its enemies". For Arab nations, that may be true.

I think Assad will survive. As soon as I saw Hassan Nasrallah publicly commit to the fight I was sure he would survive. Not because I think Hezbollah are invincible (highly effective though they are), but because I think they are smart. Unlike the trigger happy arm chair generals of pundit land, I do not think they would be backing a loser.

The US seems to agree, that is why they have announced they will now overtly arm the rebels.

Assad needs to get to Aleppo before those arms get to the battlefield, then he will have won.

The price of Mohammed Katta's coffee

A young coffee seller in Syria has been tortured and murdered.

The murderers made a pretence of (Sharia) legalism, accusing the boy of blasphemy. But which court was he tried before? What witnesses were called? Only his accusers.

Witness accounts are given here:- http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/english-transcripts-of-witnesses.html

I wouldn't really recommend reading. It makes me angry and depressed. I doubt anyone can enjoy it.

Three Islamist fighters (at least two probably foreign) demanded free coffee (or coffee on credit) from a fourteen year old boy. He refused. His refusal mentioned the name Mohammed. They took him away, tortured him, brought him back and murdered him.

A crowd of three or four hundred men looked on, they did nothing.

Look at what this tells us about Syria.

What kind of men try to bully a 14 ear old boy to take away the coffee? Out numbering him three to one? Why did no grown man challenge them? How wounded was their fragile, infantile pride at the refusal of a fourteen year old boy to bow before their bullying?

We are told that the way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

Poor Mohammed did this. He paid with his life.

Western media portray him as some sort of liberal atheist. He was nothing of the sort. Just a normal fourteen year old boy, trying hard to earn a bit of extra money in tough times. Anxious to learn to be a man.

He knew more of being a man than the three sick murderers that took his life, or the three or four hundred that looked on.

The murder of this boy achieves a similar result for the opposition that the murder of Hamza al Khateeb did for the regime.

How is it that a crowd of men can look on while a young boy has his coffee stolen by three immature bullies? Let alone see a child murdered? Is the opposition so feared? So little respected, not a single man would even ask for justice? Surely these people will welcome the regime soldiers that are making their way to Aleppo as we speak. They may not love them, but they will not stand up to them.

May God judge these murderers by the same standard they judged young Mohammed by.

May the three or four hundred men of Aleppo who looked on burn with shame until they stand up to such bullies, whichever side they fight for.

Privacy through the PRISM of security

Is the US the NSA is collecting metadata. Should anyone be unclear, the difference between metadata and data is that metadata is generally data about data.

So many hours of recorded phone conversations would be 'raw data'.

Lists of which numbers were called, when and for how long would be metadata.

If you have both that is a complete data set.

Verizon have been caught giving up their data far too easily.

There are a whole bunch of major internet companies which have been cooperating with Federal requests to see data. Cooperating rather than challenging and certainly not resisting, requests fro data.

Obama has said that you have to sacrifice some level of privacy for security, and I think here is a trade off. But the fact this has been done in secret indicates at some level the authorities knew it was inappropriate. When did a politician ever hide vote winning policies?

Another defence, that it is all OK because it is only non Americans being spied on isn't that great. Firstly, if a conversation between an American and a foreigner is spied on, an American necessarily IS spied upon. Secondly I do not believe the assertion that only foreigners are targeted. Why would court orders that the Internet companies say they insisted on be needed if this were so? Thirdly, is the US federal government admitting it's actions are inappropriate for US citizens? So the rest of us should be worried, right?

Now the leaker has outed himself. Edward Snowden an ex CIA employee working at the NSA for contractors BoozAllen. He clearly planned this over some time. Taking piles of data over a period of time.

He had access to vast amounts of data because he was an IT specialist. And other people in the environment he worked in were clueless. I am a software developer. So far as I can see, the world splits into around three  groups. There are the IT specialists. there are those that fear IT, and there are those that worship IT.

It specialists are aware that IT is just a tool. Very few non IT people seem to think that way. Hopefully that will change for younger generations. Anyhow, this guy was managing to earn $200k with little by the way of formal qualifications. In IT, you don't need much to make that happen in a capital city. Security clearance was this guy's thing. Not easy to get. Anyone who had been an activist as a student would have been denied. Half the users of facebook would have left a data trail which would have precluded them.

So Mr Snowden has leaked his leak, and run away to Hong Kong. Citing the great respect for civil liberties that exists there. Apparently while maintaining a straight face. To be clear, Hong Kong is many things, but neither under British nor Chinese rule has I been a beacon of any sort of freedom, other than the economic variety.

So I am confused. I object to this intrusive monitoring of my private life, and my own government's spineless acquiescence along with its connivance. But Mr Snowden, in running to America's great rival, rather than Switzerland, or some neutral country, is looking something like a defector. It is either ill thought through or he has been working with the Chinese for some time. Strange that a guy would have been so meticulous in his leaking but not thought through his escape route. But there you have it.

More importantly it provides us a glimpse into the world of the future. We already have remote controlled robots fighting wars for us. Soon targets will be flagged up by data mining algorithm. Are we heading to a world where a big over arching networked machine will identify, track and eliminate targets without any human intervention?

Will it be possible to assassinate someone on the other side of the world just by updating a database?

Robots may not kill for emotional, vengeful reasons. Neither do they question orders. God help us if they did. They make Hitler's SS look moral.

Is there anyone of the whole earth who can withstand this sort of scrutiny? Surely we all have something to hide. We all have something to be ashamed of.

For those of us in IT, this is not really news. But hopefully the rest of you will now wake up to the surveillance society we have become. This is not democratising. Whoever controls the data will control which data is released. There will soon be enough data on everyone to destroy them.

Turkish Conspiracy Delight

I love a conspiracy theory.

I don't necessarily believe them, but I do nevertheless love them.

Perhaps it is a throwback to m youth, because it does have the word 'piracy' in there.

And while I think most of the bad things that happen are more down to 'cock up' than 'conspiracy' (that is more a case of the incompetence of those that are in charge than their malevolent evil) I am also of the opinion that the vast majority of those bad things do get stopped pretty quickly when there are adverse affects on people with power or influence. Whereas when the poor suffer, not too much happens without a long sustained campaign.

In a similar way, mistakes and incompetence which give money to the already rich and powerful continue unabated for years, for decades, for centuries or perhaps forever. When an error results in a poor person getting a bit extra, it rapidly ends in a court of law.

So while these things may not be the result of Machiavellian conspiracy, or piracy, the apathy which allows these things to happen is selective. There must always be individuals who know, and turn a blind eye. So it is with corruption.

But I digress. What I am really thinking about today is my favourite conspiracy theory. That the protests in Turkey are actually CIA sponsored, in the same way people allege the colour revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Iran were.

As I said, I don't necessarily believe in conspiracy theories just because I enjoy them. That does; mean you can't lean anything from them. On the contrary when a conspiracy theory gains currency, it tells you something about both those that peddle it, and those it mentions. So this idea tells us something about Erdogan, his supporters, the opposition protesters and the public image of America in Turkey.

In brief the conspiracy theory says that a Sufi leader by the name of Fethullah Gülen (Hocafendi  to his friends and followers) is actually in the pay of the CIA. Check out his history with google. Make your own mind up.

That these guys in the Gulen movement, while sill generally approving of the AKP have switched support from Erdogan to Abdullah Gul (current president) or Bulent Arinc (deputy prime minister) or Ahmet Davutoglu (foreign minister). And that is why Gul & Arinc are being much more conciliatory towards the protesters. This Gulen movement is also mean to have influence with a large number of police officers.

So the CIA have been stirring up the secular educated youth as they did in the colour revolutions. They have also been using influence in the security service to cause police to overreact, stoking the fire further. And they have been giving the nod to rivals in the APK to undermine Erdogan, so that a more Israel friendly leader can be installed.

As everyone knows, all conspiracy theories must involve Israel somewhere.

There may even be a little truth in some small aspect of this theory. But some of the things I think it tells us about the actors are as follows:-

1) The Gulen guys are mistrusted, in the same way a small religious denomination would be my educated secular youth in the West

2) Erdogan has got carried away by his power. I know that people saying something doesn't make it true, but conspiracy theories gain currency because they are believable. Whatever his role in this situation, people are starting to believe Erdogan sees himself as a modern day Sultan. He himself must take a large slice of blame for that.

3) Other significant figures in the APK are seen as more ambitious than they are loyal.

4) People dislike Israel (no biggie)

5) People see America as an interfering, imperialist behemoth. Like with Israel, this is not all bad. While it is better to be respected and loved than respected and feared, the latter will do.

The more that people subscribe to this view, the more vulnerable Erdogan becomes. Any democratic politician must lose power at some time, for his long term legacy, the sooner the better for Erdogan.

Abenomics part three

Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe has unleashed the 'third arrow' of his package to revive the Japanese economy.

He has declared a target to increase incomes by 3%. To be compared to his inflation target of 2%. That is real income growth (of only about 1%, but growth nonetheless). It seems Mr Abe has realised, at last, the key to a vibrant economy is widespread prosperity. No amount of trickle down from a super rich elite will do. You need either an expanding middle class (like the BRICs) or expanding middle class incomes, like the post war west.

So actually what you really need is expanding aggregate income for ordinary people.

That is just what Mr Abe plans.

So far, all the asset buying, quantitative easing as they call it, a kind of modern day money printing, has seen a lot of newly minted money falling straight into the pockets of those rich enough to own assets. You may think that we all own these sorts of assets via pension funds, but that is less true by the year. And given the requirement for pension funds to own Sovereign debt, and the price manipulation we have seen in the market for sovereign debt, pension funds for ordinary people have been a particularly poor way of transmitting this historical largesse to people on he ground.

What has been striking during this crisis is the vast amounts of money thrown at supporting financial markets, i.e. the rich. And the preferred methods of paying for it? Target ordinary people. Via social security, medical benefits, publicly funded education. Whatever else you can think of.

Looks like Mr Abe is showing at least some intention of facing these vested interests down.

The squeals of the elite can be heard all the way from Tokyo. "'Abenomics' should not lean toward a planned economy and market players are attaching greater importance to deregulation, not these numerical targets."  said Hideo Kumano, chief economist at Dai-ichi Life Research Institute.

I have news for the economists of  Dai-ichi Life Research Institute, we have tried your neo liberal economic policy. We have tested is to exhaustion and destruction. It failed.

Share markets fell at the news. Cry me a river.

Turkey, Democracy?

There have been riots in Turkey.

The young over educated but under employed elite have taken to the streets to challenge the political establishment.

This kind of looks like a hybrid between the colour revolutions in the former Soviet Union and the Arab Spring.

Erdogan, prime minister and leader of the AK Party faces a strong challenge to his authority. The AK Party is described in the West as Islamist. But it rejects this description. It is certainly conservative. And in the same way French conservatives would make a virtue of their Catholicism, or German conservatives call themselves 'Christian Democrats' the AKP is generally religiously conservative. It was founded in 2001, the core of founders splitting from the Islamist virtue party. So an outright and total rejection of any link doesn't seem honest. I generally view the AKP as 'ex Islamist' in the same way as Eastern European parties of the left can be 'ex Communist'.

Erdogan was elected. In a sign of the maturing of Turkish democracy after several years, or even decades, of a secular, socially liberal, politically conservative military based elite holding the reins of power, the election victory of the AKP was recognised. Initially Erdogan was denied the office of prime minister, because of Islamist actions in his past. His wife's wearing of a headscarf was a times legally problematic. But the party has been in power pretty much constantly since 2002.

The democratic weight of the conservative, rural poor delivering victory over the heads of the wealthy, liberal, urban elite. Parallels could be drawn with Thatcher and Reagan.

Turkey, one of those countries in which there genuinely seemed to be a 'deep state'. Where the military saw itself as the ultimate guarantor of the secular state, and democracy, saw ex generals brought to trial and convicted.

These were huge steps forward for Turkey. Whenever people hold power without being held to account, corruption takes hold. As we all know, power corrupts. The holding to account of such titans of the establishment may be called sweet revenge. To me it looked like an example to many more established democracies further west.

Today, the boot is on the other foot. Today, the AKP is the political establishment. Erdogan, once undefeatable at the ballot box and surefooted in foreign policy, is challenged at home and isolated abroad.

The initial Foreign policy was 'zero problems with our neighbours'. Turkey started to look like a real leader of the Islamic world. Ready to stand up to the US and refuse use of NATO airbases for the Iraq war. The early revolutionaries of the Arab spring saw the Turkish model of democracy in a Muslim country as an inspiration.

Turkey also managed to combine NATO membership with friendly relations with Iran. No mean feat.

Turkey was becoming a real player in the international scene. A bridge between east and West, Israel and the Arabs, Muslims and Christians.

Naturally the relationship with Israel suffered.

But now? Turkey is on better terms with Israel than with either Syria or Iran. And with over 15% of Turkey's citizens being Alevi, closely related to the Alawites of Syria, which include much of the regime, backing the opposition doesn't look too clever. Turkey has made a big mistake first in buying into the Sunni/Shia division of the Islamic world, and second in picking a side.

I used to think that anyone who bet against Israel was sure to lose. Now I think that anyone that bets against Hezbollah is certain to lose.

For Turkey it was a big mistake to pick a side in the Syrian conflict. To pick the wrong side would be unforgiveable.

For Turkey, allowing the AKP to take power was an important test of democracy passed. Now, after a decade in power, how the AKP is removed from power is the next test.