Turkey, a bridge between cultures

'The religion of Islam will be elevated if it will cease to be a political instrument, as has been the case in the past.' - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. 

If the world were an enormous jigsaw puzzle, certain pieces would have more important, strategic linking roles than others. Turkey, bordered by eight countries, would certainly represent one of these.
Linked to Europe (Bulgaria) via the Bosporus Strait, Turkey could be regarded as the bridge between two major cultures, the difference of which seems as radical today as ever.

It's plausible to believe that the history of Turkey, throughout the Ottoman Empire epic, would generally qualify the nation in management of coexistence between peoples of varied ethnicity, despite what could be one or two exceptions.
The Empire lasted an incredible 600 years, from 1299 until 1923, and at its peak it spanned three continents, (South-eastern Europe, the Middle-East and North Africa) 29 provinces, numerous vassal states and certain islands. The Ottoman Empire of which the capital was to be Constantinople (Istanbul) was therefore the governing centre between eastern and western worlds for six centuries, and could be considered the Muslim successor of the Byzantine Empire.

'Ottoman' derives from 'Osman'. Osman I (1258-1326) was a Ghazi emirate pioneer responsible for extending the Ottoman frontiers. Many legends have been written in honour of this much admired, brave warrior and ruler.

When Constantinople was conquered by the Ottomans in 1453, the Empire's power in south-eastern Europe and eastern Mediterranean was fully established. Its formidable naval force also greatly contributed towards further expansion and trade control. This was reason enough for Columbus to attempt reaching Asia by sailing West, to avoid passing through the dangerous waters controlled by the Ottoman Muslims.

The history of the Ottoman Empire is intricately vast. It's fall was partly caused by the breakdown of centralised government, the rise of European powers, regression of what were renowned institutions due to intransigent conservatism, and the general increase in the natural need and desire of former States and provinces to establish and express their own ethnical and national identity.

In 1914 the Ottoman Empire allied with Germany which also led to its downfall. In 1915 the fear that the ethnical Armenians of the Empire would take advantage of the war and create a fifth column, led to the arrest of their leaders and mass deportation and execution. An estimated 1.5 million Armenians died in what is recorded as 'the Armenian genocide'.
After the First World War the allied powers attempted to reduce the remainder of the Empire with the Treaty of Sèvres.

But Turkey was to be extraordinarily modernised by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938). He successfully led the Turkish national movement against allied forces thus establishing the independence of Turkey, and on the 29th October, 1923 this man of rare spirit and great providence became the first president of the National Assembly of the peoples Republican Party, and supreme commander of the Turkish forces. It was the first time in the history of a Muslim State that a laic, republican regime was adopted.

In view of the relatively recent resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism, Atatürk's reforms of the twenties and thirties, listed below, seem even more boldly revolutionary today than perhaps they were considered at the time they were adopted. Indeed the present Muslim world would categorically reject such reforms today.

Perhaps such a brief outline of the history of the Ottoman Empire might serve sufficiently as a rough 'backcloth' to highlight the importance of Turkey, not just as a mere member state of Europe, but as a leading nation, historically qualified and strategically situated to assume a major responsibility as part of an eastern Mediterranean, if not eastern and southern Mediterranean alliance. Assuming the idea of this alliance will be adopted by all the countries concerned, Turkey, also a powerful member of NATO, should have a leading role.

The importance of the idea of a Mediterranean alliance is considerable. It could contribute towards the balance of powers of this vulnerable part of the world and be a moderating influence with its own constitution. It could represent a guaranty of sovereignty and security to much smaller States such as the Lebanon. With the arbitrage of Egypt and Lebanon it could persuasively contribute to help solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem. It could counter religious fundamentalism and be an additional safeguard against this common threat.

Geographically, Turkey can hardly be considered a part of Europe, and European membership could impede the nation from assuming a more significant role. It could create complications regarding the neighbouring southern and south-eastern countries of Syria, Iraq and Iran, and possibly by extension, an additional security problem for Europe.

In spite of the admirable, farsighted reforms of Atatürk, the history and culture of Turkey have naturally delayed the development of its democracy in relation to that of western countries.
What might be regarded as a daunting shadow of the Ottoman influence still seems to wield an uncompromising sword regarding issues such as the problem of the Kurds, whose claims are not unreasonable in terms of democracy. And democracy also requires a modern nation to confront its less honourable past with integrity, in order for it to advance in the same way. But then one wonders how many nations can pretend that there's no possibility that such a suggestion could still apply to them?

__

Turkish reforms under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

1922.

Abolition of the Sultanate. (Sovereignty belongs to the people, without reserve or conditions).

1924.

Abolition of the Caliphate.

Reform of head dress. The wearing of the fez is prohibited for men. The wearing of the veil is prohibited for women.

1926.

Ancient Koranic law is replaced by the Swiss civil code, the French criminal code, the Italian penal code and the German code of commerce.

Equality of the sexes is proclaimed. Polygamy and repudiation are prohibited. Marriage and civil divorce are recognised.

The Gregorian calendar (occidental) replaces the Muslim calendar.

Vast economical and agricultural reforms are introduced.

1928.

Islam is retracted from the State constitution to separate the influence of religion from political, social and cultural affairs.

Reform of the language. Arab manuscript is replaced by the Latin alphabet, which greatly contributes towards correcting analphabetism (formerly at 90%). General moderisation of education.

1932.

Creation of a Turkish linguistic society.

1934.

Women have the right to vote. (In the 1935 elections 17 women become parliamentary deputies).

1935.

Sunday replaces Friday as the day of rest. The law is past that Friday is the day of prayer but no longer the day of rest.

1937.

All Turks must take a family name. (Until then one was addressed by one's first name followed by that of one's father).

__

Sources: planet-turquie-guide and Wikipedia. Satelite image, with grateful thanks to NASA.
Text © Mirino (PW) April, 2009

Une Crise Capitale

Adam Smith- 'Capitals are increased by parsimony, and diminished by prodigality and misconduct'. (The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III).

L'initiative individuelle et la concurrence du marché libre entre les entrepreneurs est le fondement du capitalisme occidental. Ce mot qui suscite souvent la polémique évoque davantage le manque de confiance pendant les crises économiques, mais c'est un système aussi vieux que l'homme, et d'ailleurs partie instinctive de sa nature.
Prétendre que l'on puisse vivre sans un tel système serait en somme renoncer à la démocratie. Mais même sans démocratie, il faudrait toujours un système capitaliste, donc celui de l'Etat prendrait automatiquement la relève.

L'histoire nous enseigne que cette dernière forme qui avait commencé de manière plutôt utopique, ne fonctionne qu'à court terme, car empêcher l'individu de prendre ses propres initiatives selon ses capacités, veut dire fondamentalement l'étouffer. C'est donc freiner la naturelle évolution sociale et économique d'un peuple.
L'Etat ne peut jamais assumer le rôle de l'individu, malgré toutes les théories ou prétentions les plus avancées.

D'ailleurs le célèbre économiste écossais, Adam Smith, (1723-1790) croyait que lorsque un individu poursuit son intérêt personnel, il favorise le bien de la société plus que lorsque son premier objectif est de faire bénéficier la société.
'Ce n'est pas grâce à la bienveillance du boucher, du brasseur ou du boulanger que nous obtenions notre dîner, mais grâce à l'égard qu'ils apportent à leurs propres intérêts...'

Il va sans dire que si on ôte aux boulangers l'incitation de faire du bon pain, et encore meilleur que ceux de leurs voisins, ce ne serait pas dans l'intérêt de la société.
Il est aussi évident que pendant les années de capitalisme de l'Etat de l'USSR , il n'y avait jamais un grand enthousiasme occidental pour les voitures fabriquées, sans jamais être sérieusement assujetties à la concurrence mondiale, en Russie.

Même à son époque, Adam Smith était aussi bien informé des méfaits du capitalisme extrême. Il était contre le monopole, l'esclavage, le colonialisme, l'impérialisme et toutes formes d'exploitation injuste. Il estimait que le plus modeste travailleur ne devrait pas être considéré 'intellectuellement inférieur à un philosophe'. Et quand une entreprise est bien gérée, le respect réciproque règne, et personne ne se sent inférieure à personne.

Le traitement impersonnel, l'abus et l'exploitation commencent lorsque les entreprises deviennent des monopoles, des machines multinationales, de même que ces maux commencent dans un système étatique également énorme car le phénomène est pareil. On s'est rappelé alors des livres '1984' et 'La ferme des animaux' d'Orwell, car à la fin il n'y a pas grande différence entre le traitement dicté par le totalitarisme du capitalisme étatique et celui dicté par le capitalisme multinational. Ces deux extrêmes du capitalisme sont donc condamnés à terme malgré leurs façades toujours grandioses et imposantes.

Nous avons vu les petites maisons d'édition mangées par les plus grandes et ces plus grandes remangées à leur tour, enfin à l'avantage de personne et encore moins aux résultats publiés, jusqu'au point de leur propre éclatement d'indigestion chronique, laissant un dernier sillage triste et dégoûtante de médiocrité impersonnelle.
Un problème semblable existe chez les fabricants géants américains de voitures, qui pour leurs vieux clients fidèles, eux aussi peut-être inconscients du monde changeant, continuent à produire des marques quasi obsolètes plutôt par habitude que par conviction.

Il y a aussi le problème européen des hausses de prix, criard après le passage à l'euro et rendu encore pire par ce qui parait être un acharnement déraisonné de la BCE de ne céder un centime de sa valeur trop élevée, perpétuant toujours la disparité monétaire mondiale. Car avec le temps il est naturel, du moins en France, de traiter l'euro comme s'il s'agit du franc. On oublie vite que si on achète une baguette pour un euro aujourd'hui, pour le même montant on aurait pu en acheter plus que huit il y a seulement huit ans.

Il y a aussi la dérive des banques plus occupées par leurs affaires et les bonus hors de proportion des patrons pour condescendre à veiller mieux sur les intérêts de la majorité de leurs clients avec la même attention accordée il y a 20 ans.

Tout ceci représente une dérive du capitalisme donc condamnée à terme, simplement parce que les dirigeants n'assument pas leurs responsabilités, ou ils ont oublié leurs vrais objectifs, leur cause et leur raison d'être.
Le premier devoir des banques, y compris la BCE, est évidemment envers leurs clients, envers ceux qu'elles sont censées représenter et non aux affaires du monde extérieur. Voici les patrons qui ternissent le mot 'capitalisme', car les bons patrons existent et ont toujours existé.

Mais la crise n'est pas uniquement à cause des mauvais patrons. On a tous une part de responsabilité.

J'ai trouvé quelques lignes très intéressantes dans 'Les Carnets de guerre 1914-1918' d'Edouard Cœurdevey. Il avait rencontré un grand fermier intelligent à Brasseurs, qui, après son père, a su monté une ferme moderne et immense. Il parlait de la difficulté de main d'œuvre: 'Pour nos ouvriers agricoles, le patron c'est l'ennemi' (...) 'Leur manque de dévouement, leur paresse, leur jalousie, le peu de rendement qu'ils fournissent' (...) 'Ils se gardent bien de se faire tuer, eux, que le patron soit français ou boche, cela leur importe peu, ils seront toujours, croient-ils, les exploités'. Puis la page suivante- 'Il y a une réaction déjà commencée contre les billevesées socialistes. C'est par la coopération des patrons et des ouvriers que l'on se sauvera. Il faut les intéresser au succès de l'entreprise, leur donner leur part de bénéfices. J'oriente mon jeune fils vers cela'...

Voici donc ce que témoigne Edouard Cœurdevey au mois de juillet 1915. Le même dilemme, aussi vieux que le monde. Les mêmes vieux préjudices perpétués, sinon par quelques cas de mauvais patronage, certainement par les socialistes. Car gérer mal une entreprise n'est jamais une fatalité, mais c'est un défaut isolé grave qui va à l'encontre des intérêts de tous, et sera la cause éventuelle de sa propre faillite.

Ce n'est donc pas le système du capitalisme qui est en cause, mais l'abus du système ou l'incompétence de ceux censés le gérer.

Si personne n'a anticipé l'ampleur de cette crise, personne n'en a été assez conscient du mal latent.
Peut-être l'unique fatalité serait alors la faiblesse ou la cupidité de l'homme. Ce sont elles qui font perpétuer les mêmes vieilles erreurs, comme si rien ne change ou comme si on n'apprend jamais assez de l'histoire.

___

Italiano

Text and image © Mirino (PW) April, 2009

Consequences. Ireland..

 

 Éire derives from the old Irish Ériu, a legendary goddess

One might imagine that the recent resurgence of violence in Ireland would make the 'old warlords' sigh dismally and turn once more in their graves. In such tragic cases the cowardly attacks seem more to stem from callous ignorance and belligerent nostalgia than anything else.

The war in Ireland is over, or at least it should be. Dominion status was granted to the Irish Free State (renamed 'Éire') in 1936 and full republican independence came in 1949. Sinn Féin, ('we ourselves') founded in 1905, is now the second largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and an important party in the Irish parliament of the Republic of Ireland. If not officially considered the political wing of the Provisional IRA, it certainly has close, historic ties with the movement. Such results and representation could be regarded as essentially what the IRA had always been fighting for.

The numerous PIRA attacks include the callous assassination of Earl Mountbatten with members of his family in 1979. Also notable and tragic was the death of IRA member Bobby Sands, leader of the 1981 hunger strike in Maze Prison. He had been elected member of Parliament for the Northern Ireland constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

There are much older wounds, some which date back to the sixteenth century. Their healing process always seems to have been hindered by intolerance, Irish obstinacy and intransigent, historic celebrations.

Since Henry VIII, who in fact had never intended to renounce Roman Catholicism and was firmly anti-Protestant, imposed his Act of Supremacy of 1534, also as head of the Church of Ireland, this led to increased repression of the Irish Catholics. Irish subjugation had little to do with religion. It was a question of power, wielded then by the Vatican. Roman Catholicism then represented a threat to the newly acquired independence of the English Crown.
The repression led to revolt (the Irish victory of Battle of Yellow Ford in 1598). The increased repression and confiscation of land continued into the following century when in 1649 the Irish Catholics loyal to the Stuarts were massacred at Drogheda by Cromwell.

One of the most important and determining events of Irish history was the Battle of the Boyne which took place some forty years later.
For the French and their king, Louis XIV, James II, a Catholic and last of the Stuart monarchs (also known as James VII of Scotland) was the legitimate king of England. For the English however, it was essential that the crown of England maintain its independent status from the Vatican. The 'glorious Revolution' consisted of the replacing of abdicated James II by his hero son-in law William (of Orange) and his daughter Mary, and a restatement of the Bill of Rights. This included a token of religious tolerance towards non-conformist Protestants, although Unitarians and Catholics were excluded from public office and universities. William and Mary had to accept the Bill of Rights which established the supremacy of Parliament above the Monarchy.

Fortunately for England most of Scotland accepted William and Mary, although those under Viscount Dundee loyal to James (including the Camerons) won a costly victory at Killiecrankie (July 27, 1689). Provided they swore allegiance to William before the 1st January, 1692, the king had agreed to pardon the chieftains. All but the Macdonalds of Glencoe did so, and this led to their treacherous massacre by the Cambells.

But to return to the battle of the Boyne.
William arrived in November 1688 with an army of 15,000 English and Dutchmen. His real interest was the defence of Holland from the threat of the then powerful and ambitious France of Louis XIV, but he claimed to have come to safeguard the reformation, and to have no particular quarrel with James, his father-in-law.

Helped by France, James II landed with French troops in Ireland in 1689. On the 1st July, 1690 William crossed the river Boyne with his army and completely routed Jame's mostly inexperienced and badly led recruits. History alleges that William and the Dutch were aghast by the savagery of the English who massacred the Irish prisoners and drove heavy carts over the bodies of the wounded. Such unjustified, needless cruelty could have been incited by the siege of Derry in 1689 when this fortified city of northern Ireland, considered disloyal to James, suffered appallingly from the siege of 105 days beset by the Jacobite army. 4000 died of starvation during this siege, twice as many as those who perished in the battle of the Boyne.

The battle of the Boyne should not be regarded as a religious war either. There were Protestants with Catholics on both sides. In fact the Dutch Blue Guards even flew a papal banner, for many of them were Dutch Catholics. It was however a crucial battle not only for interests of land and patrimony, but above all for the maintenance of independent English sovereignty, and for European political and strategic interests.

Thus William's victory saved the 'Glorious Revolution', and it is thought to have saved Europe from eventual French domination as well. But the Catholics of Ireland lost everything.
Ironically, to add to their suffering, they were even abandoned by Pope Innocent XI who had supported William of Orange against the ambitions of Louis XIV. This was claimed to be in order to maintain a balance of power on the continent. He didn't even disapprove of William's accessions to the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland. In fact on hearing the news of the victory of the Battle of the Boyne, the Vatican celebrated the event with a Te Deum.

Both the siege of Derry (Londonderry) and the Battle of the Boyne are celebrated annually with the Maiden City Festival (the siege) and the Orange March (Battle of the Boyne). Considering the deprivation of the Irish Catholics of virtually every human right, including education, as a result of William's victory, the Orangeman's Day celebration especially, could be regarded as an insensitive and arrogant annual reminder of the unjust and demeaning consequences inflicted on the Catholiques. As such it seems a contemptuous way of aggravating old Irish Catholic wounds, shunning good will and thus the possibility of full, sincere reconciliation.

The war is over. The page should be turned, and all those who have perished due to the interminable conflict, should finally be allowed to rest in peace.

_____

Sources: F.E. Halliday 'A concise History of England', 'An illustrated History of England' John Burke, Battle of the Boyne, Wikipedia, 'The Irish Experience' Thomas E. Hachey, Joseph M. Hernon, Lawrence John McCaffrey. Satellite Image by kind courtesy of Nasa.

Text © Mirino (PW) March, 2009.

La Chute des Anges

Lucifer, réputé être le plus fort et le plus beau de tous les anges, se considérait trop important pour être au service de l'homme mortel et trivial, comme lui avait commandé Dieu, et comme c'était toujours entendu. Car les anges sont les messagers, les porteurs du verbe de Dieu, les serviteurs.
Lucifer cultivait donc son orgueil et influençait d'autres anges rebelles pour défier la volonté de Dieu, ce qui déclencha la guerre entre Lucifer, ses séides (Belzébuth, Bélial, Abaddon), et l'archang Michel et les fidèles de Dieu. Ces derniers réussissaient à chasser Lucifer ainsi que tous les anges rebelles à Dieu, à jamais du ciel.
Lucifer était destiné à devenir l'opposé de Dieu. Il incarne le diable, Satan dont les lettres pourraient signifier: Sacrilège, Athéisme, Turpitude, Antéchrist, Négation.

Si selon la loi de la polarité, Satan est le 'mal nécessaire', la chute de Lucifer ne serait-elle pas un événement de principe précipité par Dieu lui-même? Ce mal nécessaire comme l'exemple essentiel que l'homme a besoin pour mieux s'orienter 'tant bien que mal' sur le chemin de sa propre vie?

C'est en effet un message primordial. Peut-être le plus fondamental des tous ceux qui constituent les religions de l'homme.
Si être religieux est croire en une doctrine établie, personne n'a besoin d'être religieux pour en tirer cette leçon, tant qu'elle est essentielle et évidente. L'humilité ne dépend pas sur la théologie. Elle dépend sur une conviction personnelle que l'on n'est pas grand chose par rapport aux merveilles qui nous entourent, à la vie même, à la beauté du monde, à l'ordre planétaire incroyable, aux mystères de plus en plus vastes qu'au fur et à mesure que nos capacités de comprendre progressent pour pouvoir commencer à les discerner, semblent toujours nous fuir encore plus loin.
Elle dépend aussi sur la conviction que nous sommes quand même une partie infime mais essentielle de cette merveille, et que peut-être, sans le savoir, ce chemin sur lequel on s'oriente, tant bien que mal, est déjà bien tracé.

Le destin fatal des anges déchus projette la lumière de sa braise dans les coins sombres où se trouvent les négationnistes, les orgueilleux, ceux qui commettent le mal au nom de Dieu. Prétendre ainsi que l'on a des droits divins de s'imposer, de tuer, de ne pas respecter ou tolérer la vie ou le droit d'exister des autres, de répandre la haine, c'est défier Dieu. Et dans cet égard il n'y a jamais deux côtés, l'un qui a raison, l'autre qui a tort. La vanité de ceux qui prétendent- ou veulent bien le croire- mériter le paradis éternel, même pas pour avoir fait du bien aux autres, mais pour leur avoir fait du mal, est encore plus condamnable que celle de Lucifer. Autant que ceux qui prétendent être le bras droit du Seigneur pour mieux subjuguer un peuple sous le joug de la tyrannie. Ils sont tous les séides du mal.

La vie est bien trop précieuse pour être ainsi abusée. Même si la conception du paradis céleste et de l'enfer abominable n'est qu'une conception spirituelle et métaphysique, mieux ne pas se tromper dans sa vie pour ne pas alors courir le risque de se tromper dans sa mort.

__

Text and Image © Mirino (PW) March, 2009

Le jour de notre naissance nous sommes condamnés à mourir. Tel est le temps. Le feu, même le plus sauvage et destructeur, peut être contrôlé et éteint. Mais jamais le temps. Lui, il nous échappe toujours. On n'arrive jamais à l'éteindre, tandis que lui, semble pouvoir tout éteindre.

Mais ce Chronos qui dévore ses enfants n'est pas pour autant un monstre goyesque aussi cruel. Il a le loisir de nous enseigner, si nous avons le désir d'apprendre. Et finalement il nous révèle toujours la vérité, si nous sommes aussi disposés à la connaître.

S'il peut détruire les hommes qui méritaient mieux pendant leurs vies, il peut aussi les élever plus tard au ciel glorieux d'une immortalité relative.

Avec nos vies, nos réussites et nos échecs, nos tribulations et nos jours de bonheur, il nous sculpte inlassablement comme la mer ronge la falaise.
Comme un parfum exquis d'une fleur balayé par le vent d'un instant, même les souvenirs les plus chers deviennent les éclairs du moment d'une vie.
 
Mais il y a une seule chose que le temps insatiable n'arrive pas à prendre. Jamais il ne pourra l'éroder ou l'emporter.

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temporate.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimmed,
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimmed;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st,
Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st.
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
__

Qui mieux que Shakespeare peut le souligner, peut nous faire sourire à notre réflexion dans le beau miroir du temps, en nous rappelant de ce qui émane aussi de l'art à travers les siècles de la civilisation? L'amour est aussi intouchable que l'éternité.

__

Italiano
 
Shakespeare's sonnet  from 'A Lover's Complaint'. Text and Image © Mirino (PW) February, 2009

The Iraqi Dream

Like life itself, nothing good, real and true is born easily. And the birth of the democracy of Iraq was especially difficult and complicated. One closely followed the whole painful process, pacing outside, aware of the dangers, the carcinogenic forces of evil and destruction sapping the strength of a people who had made its choice and was making that infinite sacrifice that life demands of us, when life itself is the creation.

For if life is freedom, then so must also be democracy.

The first election should have been proof enough, but there was scarcely an international nod of approval. Certainly not a European one, with the exception of the courageous few who have always understood that freedom is not necessarily 'made in America'.

As truth is revealed, hypocrisy often accompanies it. When the former Secretary General of the United Nations suggested that Iraq was better off under the Saddam Hussein regime, it was an incredibly thoughtless and revealing declaration for one who is supposed to represent freedom and international law.
Today one still hears the 'concocted for the occasion', contrite, purse-lipped phrase from those who pretend to have so much experience in the matter- that "one cannot export democracy".
As if an entire population is so mentally retarded as to take the trouble to lay the foundation stones of its new democracy just to please the Occident! Surely this enormous engagement entailing so much sacrifice merits a bit more respect and consideration.

One wonders how much courage those who wave away a new democracy with such pompous disdain would have in comparison with the elected representatives of the first newly formed Iraqi government who risked their lives every day for the very sake of their new democracy?

If the first election did not merit the applause of Europeans perhaps spoilt by too many years of freedom, this second one didn't do much better to raise their approval either. Yet it is even more significant. Monitored by almost 300,000 local and international observers it confirms the freedom of Iraq. It confirms the end of the American occupational of security forces, for also on the strength of the results, the state of law has won in all nine southern Shia provinces, thus introducing new power and greater control. Barack Obama should, in principle, be now more able to accelerate the withdrawal of American troops. No one expected such an achievement, especially in Basra, Nassiriya, Kut and Samawa.

In his words of praise, also to Nouri al-Maliki, Barack Obama alluded to it as "a victory for all the Iraqis".

They have every right to be proud of their achievement. And when such a birth is so painfully demanding, in blood, tears and so much sacrifice, then the new born child of freedom can only be all the more cherished, fiercely defended and protected. For whatever the opinions of those who do not wish to see, it represents the realisation of the Iraqi dream.

___

Text © Mirino (PW) February, 2009
(With grateful thanks to the AP for the use of the image)