One World, Many Peaces

Conscientious Objector in Israeli Military Imprisoned at Age 19

Omer Shoshan, age 19, from the town of Yehud near Tel Aviv, was sentenced to 20 days of imprisonment for refusing to carry out orders against Palestinians he considers immoral, called conscientious objecting. Below is personal statement of refusal. He enlisted in the Israeli military eight months ago, but after becoming a soldier he realized he could not continue his military service under the current Israeli apartheid regime.

Shoshan is held in a secret detention centre, rather than in a military prison, so his prison address is unknown. However, letters of support and encouragement can still be sent to him via e-mail at messages2prison@newprofile.org, and they will be printed out and delivered during visits.

Omar Shoshan's Statement of Conscientious Objection

I refuse to be part of the Israel Defence Forces, an army that occupies and oppresses a Palestinian population on a daily basis, which undermines the chances to achieve peace, and thus also Israel’s security, and which corrupts the moral and democratic character of the state.

For more than 40 years the IDF has been daily oppressing the Palestinians in the occupied territories and denying them their most basic rights to live normally. This includes hampering their freedom of movement, undermining their economy, hurting their bodies, illegally arresting them and committing many other severe crimes that usually fail to make it to the mainstream media. The very fact that any simple soldier serving beyond the Green Line has power over the lives of local residents and can force them to do as he pleases is illegal and undemocratic, and obtains the exact opposite of what it is supposed to – it produces more terrorists, increases hatred towards us and undermines any realistic chances for peace. So what purpose does this oppression really serve? Only one – perpetuating the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are illegal in their own right and which are the obstacle to reaching a compromise between the two peoples.

Even before enlisting I had my doubts about whether or not to join the army, whether to support the army that represents my country or to refuse. I eventually decided to enlist, because I felt that I could refuse from within, to do things otherwise, to effect change. Today I understand that the army’s actions in the occupied territories themselves, its very presence there, are what constitutes the occupation, and no action I could make, not even if I offer a more positive treatment to Palestinian civilians, could make any difference.

I believe that in a country that claims to be a democracy, it is good and even necessary for each of us to voice criticism and indignation when the country is wrong. The IDF is an organisation that fights for interests that I don’t believe in, performs anti-democratic and immoral actions and seriously undermines the chances to achieve piece. I am no longer willing to be part of it.

Dissenting Against the Nobel Peace Prize Committee

So the Nobel Peace Prize Committee members have a thing for dissenters like laureates Liu Xiaobo (2010), Aung San Suu Kyi (1991), Lech Walesa (1983), Andrei Sakharov (1975) and Carl von Ossietzky (1935), eh? Here's some dissent against them: Your recent award choices do more harm than good as far as furthering peace is concerned, your membership should be revoked immediately, and you should be replaced by people who can carry out their legal duties adequately, at least. Here’s why.

To be clear, I am not dissenting against the Nobel Peace Prize itself, though its domination of the global popular imagination when it comes to peace is debilitating, nor am I downplaying the dissenters they have honored, who though icons limit social change as such. What I am saying is that its members and all those worldwide who look up to  their choices (to say nothing of the nominators, who in-breed bad decisions as former laureates) would do well to take an extra-large dose of their own medicine when it comes to dissent. There are two main reasons why I am calling for the impeachment of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

First, they have betrayed the legally-binding intent of Alfred Nobel (inventor of dynamite and an arms manufacturer) in his will and testatment, which created the Nobel Peace Prize, and so should be class-action sued by his heirs and estate, not to mention honest fans of the award worldwide and rejected (worthy) awardees. Second, they have and continue to ill-advisedly reinforce peace work as the amorphous enterprise it already is in the minds of most people globally, to its severe detriment. Then there's China's reaction to this year's laureate, but I will leave that for last.

“The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows... one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” That's what Mr. Nobel wanted done with his money, what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is legally bound to do because it's his will, and what they have not been doing in their recent choices.

Mr. Nobel's definition of peace is as limited as it was for most members of his class, culture and historical moment. It is equally unfortunate that this definition still dominates how peace is thought about and acted upon worldwide, in large part thanks to the Nobel Peace Prize itself. But in trying to expand this definition, Nobel Peace Prize Committee members have not only negligently not carried out their legal duties, they have confused and confounded what peace means beyond Nobel's narrow-minded definition without ever explicitly tying their choices to it. Might as well give Heinz the Chemistry Prize for inventing ketchup.

Take just two recent examples of the Nobel Peace Prize being wrongly awarded. One is to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) for their environmental work, the other to Muhammad Yunus for his microlending work. In the case of Gore, he should have received one of the science Prizes; in the case of Yunus, the Economics Prize; in the case of neither the Peace Prize. Why? Not because their transformational work isn't important and doesn't contribute to peace, but simply because neither of them meet the criteria that Alfred Nobel set for the Nobel Peace Prize, which the Committee's and commentators' attempts to rationalize the choices in itself makes clear.

The same self-evidently goes for this year's laureate, Liu Xiaobo (who should have received the Literature Prize, not that this year's choice of Mario Vargas Llosa wasn't fully worthy), which brings me to my response to China's response. Political statements poor Nobel Peace Prize laureates make, just think back to last year's disastrous choice of Barack Obama, who has since carried out the largest weapons deal in U.S. history and stationed some 100,000 troops in Afghanistan in an imperial war now entering it's tenth year. Oh, and certinaly no one in the world did more for peace according to Nobel's terms before he won the Prize, as even President Obama himself less sarcastically admitted.

And instead of giving the Nobel Peace Prize to a dissenter against these international travesties, which would at least have had some vague relation to Nobel's dying wishes and bring them into a light from which they are systematically hidden, the Committee members give it to a dissenter against a dometic travesty that is already globally acknowledged, effectively covering the tracks of (or at best creating a distraction tactic away from) their choice of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who is our early century's biggest warmonger after his predecessor.

Unfortunately for eligible laureates, Obama's America generally doesn't yet throw dissenters in jail like China does, so they don't become living martyrs easily glorified by lazy ga-ga journalists and activists abroad; rather, Obama's officials just raid such dissenters' houses, and prevent them from steering terrorists towards peace. China's response was appropriately furious, if also for reasons we like Liu Xiaobo should all dissent to in our own backyards, and not expect a Nobel Peace Prize because doing so is called thinking.

Photo Credit: Rankingranqueen

Finish Ratifying the START Treaty Already

 "October 1st marks 18 years since the U.S. Senate approved President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START. It also marks the 300th day since that treaty expired, cutting off U.S. weapons inspectors' access to Russian nuclear sites. Conservatives in the Senate are now blocking the restart of Reagan's inspections." So begins a recent article by Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, which invests in peace and security around the globe. The irony is not lost to anyone.

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee were to vote in mid-September on whether to send the new START Treaty to the Senate floor for ratification. The START Treaty passed that test, to Obama's approval, but it most likely won't be thought of until after the consequential mid-term elections in November, if then at all. The treaty would cut US and Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads by about one-third, to 1,550 each.

Since the original START Treaty expired, on-site monitoring of Russia's nuclear weapons and facilities was suspended, to say nothing of those of the U.S. Now that it's open knowledge that Russia is giving Iran nuclear materials, you would think that the U.S. Congress would show a bit more urgency and concern.  In addition to removing hundreds of warheads from US and Russian nuclear arsenals and renewing and enhancing verification protocols, "New START" would also help improve cooperation to prevent nuclear terrorism, a vital international security priority.

Will the U.S. Congress suddenly realize what is at stake in ratifying the START Treaty and permit a floor vote? Kevin Martin, the leader of Peace Action, says "the New START is a modest step forward toward the realization the President Obama's goal (and ours!) of ridding the world of nuclear weapons.  It's a step that should be taken without further delay so the administration can begin work on the steps that must follow." It is that, but it is also a dangerous election-year gamble which no politician, especially conservative ones, can afford to lose.

So doing nothing makes sense for them and them only, even if it puts domestic and global security at risk. Please continue to contact U.S. Senators and ask them to support the New Start Treaty.  Call 202-224-3121, or write your Senators at: US Senate, Washington DC 20510; or email them at Senate.gov. Your vote this November can make a world of difference.   

War Don Don: New Documentary Film Explores Sierra Leone War Crimes Trial, Offers Hope

After ten years of violent civil war, Sierra Leoneans were relieved in 2002 when the brutal war was over (exclaimed as “war don don” in the Krio language), but the painful memories of murder, systematic rape and dismemberment remained.  WAR DON DON, directed by first-time filmmaker Rebecca Richman Cohen, follows the war crimes trial of Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebel leader Issa Sesay, exploring the complex relationship between individual accountability, collective reconciliation and the limits of international justice.

The documentary debuts Wednesday, September 29 (8:00-9:30 p.m. ET/PT) and Sept. 30 (2:30 p.m.) on HBO2. Cohen will be making a special appearance at the Chicago screening at Facets for an audience Q&A on October 8-9. Here's an overview of the context, and content, of a brilliant and contstuctively troubling film.

From 1991 to 2001, the RUF fought to overthrow the ruling government of Sierra Leone.  In 2003, after the end of the war, the United Nations and the government of Sierra Leone spent more than $200 million building a Special Court to seek justice and reconciliation, setting up the world’s first international war crimes “hybrid tribunal.”

Three years in the making, WAR DON DON draws on unprecedented access to the inner workings of the defense and prosecution in Issa Sesay’s trial, including access to Sesay himself, exploring the contradictions of a man who dealt in blood diamonds, commanded child soldiers and was blamed for mass atrocities against civilians, while also being credited by some with single-handedly ending the war.

The prosecution, led by Stephen Rapp (who was recently appointed Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues by President Obama), argues that the trial is supposed to assess the guilt of those at the top, who routinely turned a blind eye to the misdeeds of men under their command.  Wayne Jordash, Sesay’s lead defense lawyer, counters that his client was an uneducated young man who was coerced into fighting.  Moreover, he says, “Any process which isn’t prepared to examine itself is fundamentally flawed.  You [the Special Court] have such an impetus towards convicting everybody before the Court, and that doesn’t lend itself to a truth-finding process.”  Saying that he believes the Special Court has an important place, Sesay offers his own version of the war.

While the trial is underway in Sierra Leone’s capital of Freetown, the Outreach Group of the Special Court visits rural communities to answer questions and show videotape of the proceedings. While some people feel the trial is positive and a step towards the country’s reconciliation, others are angry, believing some of the millions of dollars it cost to build the Special Court would have been better allocated to citizens to alleviate the immediate damage of the war.

During the trial, the prosecution has former RUF soldiers testify against Sesay, sometimes paying their expenses and relocating them for their protection.  Prosecutor David Crane admits that testimony from former RUF soldiers is problematic but necessary, likening it to “dancing with the devil.”

With conviction looming, the defense lays out what it considers Sesay’s mitigating circumstances.  When RUF leader Foday Sankoh was arrested and imprisoned at the end of the war, Sesay became the interim leader.  Pressured by principals of neighboring West African countries to disarm the RUF, he ended the civil war without further bloodshed – and without negotiating a deal for his own amnesty.  The Special Court subsequently sentences Sesay to 52 years in prison.

Following his own trial and the conclusion of WAR DON DON, Sesay has been in the news again, testifying at The Hague (along with Naomi Campbell and Mia Farrow, among others) in the trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor.  In his testimony, Sesay continues to attempt to assert his voice as the Special Court writes a history of the Sierra Leone conflict.

Today, Sierra Leone is a peaceful nation, but after two successful democratic elections, it remains the third-poorest country in the world.

Rebecca Richman Cohen, who is a Harvard Law School graduate and has a background in human rights and criminal defense, was a legal intern for the defense team on another case in the Special Court of Sierra Leone during the trial of Issa Sesay.  She says, “I hope WAR DON DON offers an insider’s view about the complex moral, political and legal questions that issue from rebuilding lawless and war-torn nations – and will inspire thoughtful debate about the future of international criminal justice.”

WAR DON DON is directed and produced by Rebecca Richman Cohen; produced and edited by Francisco Bello; executive produced by Jim Butterworth and David Menschel; co-producer, Daniel Chalfen; composer, Max Avery Lichtenstein.

Visit the official website of War Don Don.

Another Separatist Group's Peace Offering Dismissed, This Time the ETA in the Heart of Europe

Spain has rejected outright the peace offering of a longtime violent separatist group, the ETA: Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or Basque Homeland and Freedom, which has been operating in the region between France and Spain for the past forty years, causing over eight hundred deaths. This past weekend, ETA representatives offered to stop their deadly campaign and confirmed "its commitment to finding a democratic solution to the conflict" in an official group video statement. The response they got from the Spanish government was unthinkingly cold, putting peace prospects in continued jeopardy.

"I think the word [ceasefire] insufficient reflects quite well the position not (just) of the government but of all the democratic parties,"  Spanish Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba told Spain's state-run TVE television station on Monday in rejecting the offer. He stressed that the group was weaker than ever and his government would continue to pursue its members. What he didn't stress is that when people are weak and desperate, rare opportunities for lasting peace arise, but also last attempts to cause as much damage as possible in a hopeless cause not of their own doing.

In a video handed to the BBC and broadcast on Sunday, three hooded Eta fighters are shown sitting behind a desk with the ETA flag pinned up behind them. One reads out a statement defending Eta's campaign of violence, but towards the end says the group now wants to achieve its aims by peaceful means. True, this is an awkward way to make a peace offering, especially considering that the past two from the ETA did not stop its member's use of violence. But anyone who thinks this is not better than what has been happening for decades either wants more violence or is hopelessly stupid.

Mr Rubalcaba said the word ceasefire was now "a dead concept," claiming that his government doesn't deal with terrorists, exactly what the Turkish government said in recently rejecting the peace offerings of Kurdish separatist after three deadly decades. Other than surrender, an unlikely event given the histories involved, a ceasefire is the necessary first step towards complete disarmament for any separatist group. Rejecting a ceasefire outright, then, is also the first step in ensuring that peace is indefinitely postponed. 

A Turning Point in China-U.S. Relations, But Too Late?

Below the global mainstream media radar, an urgent meeting between Chinese and U.S. officials recently took place in Beijing. The topics discussed amongst the senior officials included the now obstinately standard currency and trade disputes on both sides, but also and more importantly the underlying military tensions and arms race between the two countries. This was, fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective, a get-to-know-you meeting, though inasmuch it can be considered a turning point in early 21st-century China-U.S. relations. But has it come too late?

"The key point of the talks is not to make significant agreements, but to improve understanding of each other's stance. If tensions can be reduced to some degree and confidence increased, that is an achievement," said Shi Yinhong, an expert on the U.S. at Renmin University in Beijing. He emphasized that U.S.-China relations are troubled, but the worst seems to be over and both sides are headed toward reconciliation. Many in the international relations field would consider this outlook overly optimistic and especially premature, given the preliminary nature of the discussions.

What's most troubling is that they are still preliminary. It has been obvious for decades that China is the rising global superpower along with India, yet relations between the two are strained, as are those with the declining superpower, the U.S. China becoming the world's second largest economy, beating Japan, was a wake up call, but only because almost everyone was sleeping. Chinese state media has criticized U.S.-South Korea military exercises in the Yellow Sea and U.S. claims about South China Sea territory, in addition to U.S. arms sales to Chinese rival Taiwan and an Obama meeting with Chinese nemesis the Dalai Lama. For it's part, China's increases in military spending dwarf that of others globally.

There can be no doubt that the peace and prosperity of the world in the 21st century depends on open communications channels and cooperation between China and the U.S., and as a step in that direction this meeting is indeed a turning point. Even if it is too early to determine their outcomes, it has come both too late and at last. "Continuing to develop a positive and comprehensive China-U.S. relationship contributes to our two countries' major interests in peace, security and development," China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said. We couldn't agree more.

Mutiny at the Highest Levels of U.S. Military: General Petraeus

Commander-in-Chief, the title and responsibilities accorded to the President, don't matter for the once again new military commander of the Afghanistan War, in a munity that is punishable by death according to U.S. military law. In two separate addresses recently, General Petraeus said that only he will decide when to withdraw from Afghanistan, flying in the face of the already too distant withdrawal start date set by the President upon election, and that he won't carry out his delegated duties of running the military operations there as a "graceful exit" from the country, even if the Secretary of Defense says otherwise.

Putting himself at striking odds with both his bosses, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and President Obama (not to mention their bosses too, us), General Petraeus apparently thinks he's calling the shots, even if the U.S. Constitution says differently. This is nothing short of a mutinous military takeover of wartime chains of command punishable by death according to the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 94. And it makes General Petraeus the number one obstacle to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a highly dangerous one at that considering the tens of thousands of troops and sophistacated weaponry he now has under his direct command.

To be precise, Article 94 of the UCMJ states that any person "with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny… shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct." If what Petraeus said and is doing accordingly don't fit this definition, nothing does or will. We are not advocating that he should be killed, but he should be removed from his post immediately and court-marshaled to the same military tribunals as Guantanamo inmates still are if the U.S. military is to maintain any semblance of legitimacy domestically or globally. And the story only starts there, with the the withdrawal from Afghanistan in the balance.

In an interview that aired last week on NBC's Meet the Press, Petraeus had the gall to say that: "Oil spot is a term in counterinsurgency literature that denotes a peaceful area, a secure area. What you're always trying to do is extend that, push that out." This is more than a doublespeak message at the highest levels of the U.S. military which everyone should be able to identify and decode for themselves by now, it is an outright duplicitous public relations campaign to dupe the American people into continued, complacent support of the war in Afghanistan.  This, despite the fact that Afghan, U.N., U.K. and even certain high-ranking U.S. officials have made it clear that the only viable solution is a political one, not military.

Now for the bad news. According to the same article in the UCMJ, if we don't do anything to stop this mutiny, we are as much to blame as Petraeus himself. Any person who "fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition." We need to stop this military takeover of our political processes before it's too late, and you can start by signing the petition to pressure the President to withdraw responsibly from Afghanistan, legally by Congress passing binding legislation to do just that.  

If the U.S. military doesn't follow it's own rules, we cannot expect it to follow any others either.

Photo credit: Hector Alejandro

The Power of Apology as a Step Towards Peace: Japan to Asia

"I'm sorry" may just be the most powerful words in the world,  not just in inter-personal relationships but also in inter-national ones. No exaggeration, apologizing is proving to be the first and a potent step towards reconciliation and peace, as the stunning recent case of Japan towards its former Asian colonies is making clear. And there's a lot we can from the unprecedented actions of the Japanese Premier for our personal and political lives.
 
Over the weekend, and for the first time, Japan's new Prime Minister Naoto Kan shunned a visit to a shrine that has outraged Asian neighbors for honoring war criminals, breaking from past governments' tradition and instead apologizing Sunday for the suffering World War II caused, according to the Associated Press. Previously, Japanese leaders made a point of visiting the shrine to commemorate Japanese imperialism of the early 20th century, and members of the opposition party continued this tradition even if the Prime Minister and his cabinet did not.

"We caused great damage and suffering to many nations during the war, especially to the people of Asia," Kan told a crowd of about 6,000 at an annual memorial service for the war dead at Budokan hall in Tokyo. "We feel a deep regret, and we offer our sincere feelings of condolence to those who suffered and their families," he said. "We renew our promise to never wage war, and we promise to do our utmost to achieve eternal world peace and to never repeat again the mistake of war," pointedly away from Yasukuni Shrine of Shinto in Tokyo, where the war commemorations were previously held.
 
In so saying, Kan opened a new chapter in Asian international relations, which his successors of any party will have a difficult time not continuing. Last week, he apologized to South Korea for Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule. Imperialist Japan committed atrocities in Asia killing millions, which some claim was as bad or worse as what the Nazis did in Europe, including forcing women to work in in slave-labor conditions and serve as prostitutes in military-run brothels.
 
In Seoul, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, speaking Sunday before a crowd packing a plaza near the former royal palace, said history should not be forgotten but urged Japan and his nation to work together for a new future. "I have taken note of Japan's effort, which represents one step forward," Lee said of Kan's apology. If only more leaders worldwide would do likewise, not to mention us in our everyday lives.

When Capitalist Democracy Meets Maoism in India, Peace Results

Indian Maoists, not to be confused with the original Chinese ones, are members of the Communist Party of India, whose explicit aim is to violently overthrow the government, also the largest democracy on earth with over one billion people. But in a strange and hopeful twist in Indian politics, a unique synergy between capitalist democracy and Maoism is taking place, for the first time outside of China. 

Maoists have been attacking government troops, paramilitary groups and civilians in the northern part of the country for decades in the hopes of separating along ideological lines, including their most deadly attack ever earlier this year. Just this week, however, Indian Railway Minister Mamata Banerji addressed a huge rally - supported by Maoists - at a rebel stronghold in West Bengal. Ms. Banerji and her Trinamul Congress Party, a majority Indian Congress Party ally, have always denied any links with the insurgents, according to the BBC. But maybe those ties will emerge with her peacemaking proposal.

A senior Maoist leader urged local people to attend the event in Lalgarh and thousands showed up. Her message was clear: to open negotiations between the national government and the Maoist rebels, stop the terrorism. "Terror should stop in Lalgarh and all areas around it and the counter-insurgency operations in the area should be stopped," she told flag-waving supporters. By "counter-insurgency" she meant the government and paramilitary forces who have been just as violent, if not more so, than the Maoists themselves. Nothing short of a tremendous development, to be sure.

Indian Maoists are an outgrowth of the People's War Group (PWG) which emerged in the 1980s. Extreme in their anti-globalization just as much as in their anti-caste system, they believe in the Marxist revolutionary model that Mao proposed, in which rural peasants (not just industrial workers) can lead the way. Until now, this required the use of revolutionary violence to be accomplished along Maoist ideological lines.

What this momentous event signals is a possibility that Maoists could adopt the native Gandhian practice of nonviolence and integration, rather than the foreign-derived violent separatism they have stuck to, signaling a shift in Indian politics that could have repercussions worldwide.

Faster Exit Strategy for Afghan War Wanted by U.K., Not U.S. Yet

You'd think top U.S. military and government officials were playing a demented kind of bingo reading the headlines about possible timelines for withdrawing from Afghanistan: 2012, 2014, 2017. We lose!

The British, still  America's closest ally in the war even if ties between the countries are strained, are going about it quite differently. That the new U.K. Premier who is leading the push for a faster withdrawal strategy, David Cameron, is a Conservative globalizes the startling fact that people on his side of the fence, so to speak, are becoming more anti-war than liberals.

Cameron's inspiring comments need to be contextualized in order to be properly understood, and there are two immediate frames of references. First is the largest-ever peace conference about Afghanistan that took place this week, hardly reported on by mainstream U.S. media, which is for this writer so unbelievable that it can only be true. Second is Cameron's meeting with President Obama, which received a much higher profile both within the U.S. and abroad than the 60-nation Afghan peace conference.

Speaking to the BBC, Cameron said: "No timetable can be chiselled in stone but we are absolutely determined - given how long we have been in Afghanistan, given that we are six months into an 18-month military strategy, embarking on a new political strategy - that we must be out in a combat role by 2015." Words like that coming out of Obama's mouth could be called "flip flopping," but that doesn't mean I and those like me worldwide who want peace would not welcome them and action upon them. The U.S. government is obstinately refusing to set firm (let alone faster) withdrawal dates, trying the trust of Americans.

The bad news is that still means four more years of war in Afghanistan, at least. The good news, as Daniel J. Gerstle of Change.org recently reported, what "war" means during that period is likely to continue to change dramatically, from killing to training others to kill, and hopefully soon to keeping the peace that will emerge under Afghan President Hamid Karzai's diligent and tireless efforts.

But the key part of Cameron's statement is his emphasis on a switch from military to political approaches to ending the war, or parallel at least, which Karzai and the U.N. Counter-Terrorism Chief have also been pushing for months. There's an old anti-war saying that goes "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity." With this switch to political from military action fully consummated, it could change to "war during peace talks is like adultery in chastity."