” The measure of a man is what he does with power” Pittacus
Military power alone exhibited by any leader does not make the leader a candidate for being a strong leader; but the lack of wisdom in the exercise of military power definitely disqualifies him as a strong leader.
Equally, there is a difference between strong leaders who use their power as the maximum leader to help the people and a maximum leader who uses his powerful strength to inflict oppression on the people. Being powerful and strong carries two different connotations.
The world has seen its fair share of maximum leaders from Stalin, Mussolini to Hitler who were responsible for great atrocities against unsuspecting populations because at one stage, they were left unchecked in the early days of their “heroic” campaigns against the so-called establishment.
Indeed, we would want to tell ourselves and believe the world is a different place and deceive our thinking such extreme ideology does not exist and would never produce such horrific results again. It this was true; then what is going on in Syria right now is a lie.
That the military intervention by Russia, Iran , Hezbollah aide the people of Syria and not the maximum leader President Assad. That the bombing of both ISIS and ‘rebel’ regions against Assad is a coincidence. That President Putin is genuinely seeking a political solution with anti-Assad loyalist and not a military one for the Assad regime.
One thing remains constant; perceived in-action by the global community in Syria at this juncture must not be translated as unconditional condoning of President Putin’s actions or those by Iran and Hezbollah.
There can be no place at the table for maximum leaders of old. Global peace and Middle-East security is paramount and will always have the attention of world leaders to avoid the ‘mistakes’ of the past.
Thus, the reverse military psychology used by President Putin to state the US military policy towards Syria is”weak” and their refusal of military talks to find a solution is counter-productive. It begs the question therefore, that if Russia is implicitly and expressly “strong” why not use its powerful influence it has, obviously, over Mr. Assad to find the political solution to end the 5 year war?
It is clear as said by President Obama that Russia cannot “bomb” its way to “peace”. Quite frankly, the use and display of power by President Putin in Syria would of been better suited diplomatically had this power been turned into solving the Syria war and ending not exacerbating the Syrian refugee crisis.
This effort of ending the Syrian crisis would go a long way in curtailing the flight of refugees into Europe. The push by Chancellor Merkel and the EU leaders to assist Turkey in reducing the number of asylum seekers is the right step.
But, the problem is that the cracks in the dam has to be fixed to halt the tide of refugees entering into Europe; the problem must be dealt with at the source; if not; unfortunately it will be ” one step forward and two steps backward”.
Israel and Palestine
The people of Israel must remain patient for the security measures to have a positive effect in assisting in reducing the number of day-to-day incidents among the population.
The culture of mis-information being promoted concerning the Al-Aqsa Mosque about changing the status -quo cannot be ignored any longer- it has to be countered by the dissemination of the truth to the relevant segments of the populace.
There are mere children-teenagers and people dying because they are being fed a plate of daily propaganda prepared by those whose interest are self-serving.
The restraint shown by the Israelis in the fire destruction of one of the cities Holy sites should be mirrored by the Palestinians in order to restore discipline and order to the society. The double standards are clearly for all to witness and that this intended ‘uprising’ is an illusion of facts, based on the wrong perception the government of Israel has changed the situation at the Mosque.
The airing of legitimate grievances and peaceful negotiations between the stakeholders must be articulated by the ‘protest’ leaders in a proper forum and not in ‘days of rage’.
The Benghazi Committee
Without prejudice to the Presidential nominees in the USA, the presumption the Republican dominated committee investigating the events which led to the death of American lives has been tainted with the accusation the Committee’s actions were politically motivated towards Mrs. Hilary Clinton has to be rebutted.
Especially, given the credibility and character of those individuals who have confessed about the the true intent and purpose of the Committee. The same principles and rules in which the Committee was established to investigate Hilary Clinton must now be the exact same reasons why the members of this particular committee should be investigated and whether there were any possible ethics violations being committed.
The accusations put forward by the persons cannot be dismissed as “sour-grapes”. Political life is fair game; but when the game is skewed by the use of Federal agencies to further narrow political interest it sets a dangerous precedent in mature democracies in such countries as the USA. In sports, this is call- match-fixing.
No Presidential nominee, whether Democrat or Republican should be the target of such overt political strategy because they have the majority. On the contrary, every attempt must be made to avoid the perception of an abuse of power.
The oral evidence that this Committee is part of such a power play cannot be arbitrarily dismissed or buried because “the party has been called out”. The Congress has a duty in the same way it has a duty to investigate Ms. Clinton for omissions and or commissions against the allegations of the Benghazi Committee-even if it leads to nothing in order to clarify any mis-conceptions.
Even more so, reasonable doubt in law has always acquitted an accused, by extension reasonable doubt on the integrity, transparency and accountability of such a high -ranking Committee makes it look dubious. Nothing short of an investigation should be carried out by an independent panel for more than one reason; but namely to preserve and ensure the integrity and independence of the US Legislature.
Perhaps, the energies of Congress can be spent also in the enactment of legislation which benefit the people of the USA such as Voting Rights, modified gun legislation and criminal Justice reform amongst others.
The use of diplomatic immunity has its limits in international law. Mr. Assange, the Wikileaks founder has tested the bounds within the walls of the Ecuador embassy in the UK. However, the moment he steps out of the embassy and walks on UK soil; he can be arrested; whether he is seeking medical treatment or otherwise.
Mr. Assange cannot claim immunity inside the Embassy and outside the Embassy when he wants to leave- since he has no diplomatic immunity from any country. If that was this case, there would of been no reason why he placed himself in self-imposed exile for 33 months.
His advisers could of use that time in trying to defend and prove his innocence rather than appearing guilty by claiming “immunity” for his free-will choices that caused him to seek refuge in the Embassy in the first place.
Mr. Assange should take a leaf from Mr. Edward Snowden’s book, who is prepared to answer for the consequences of his actions, by returning from Moscow to the USA to face his charges. In the end, as it is written”obedience is better than sacrifice”.