Basically, this isn't much more than an attempted justification of my desire to revenge myself on those who wrong me. Which sounds very grand, but that revenge usually consists of little more than epic and intricate levels of personal abuse.
Have you ever heard the phrase "To err is human, to forgive divine"? I always liked that saying; it carried the implication that the many and varied cock-ups I was going to make in my life were expected and would simply be par for the course. As to the idea of forgiveness being some sort of superhuman feat; that merely helped reinforce my overwhelming sense of self-satisfaction when I didn't react to a real or imagined slight against me. Not that I needed any excuse to be unbearably smug about myself, but it's always nice to have an excuse!
Anyway, I spent an awful lot of time in blissful arrogance, happy that anyone who couldn't bring themselves to drop whatever petty little grievances that they had accumulated over time was simply not as good a person as I was. Happily, (or unhappily depending on ones viewpoint) I've had to revise this point of view rather substantially over the last couple of years. You see, despite all of my best efforts, it turns out that I'm really a quite frighteningly vindictive sort of person. Not to the extent of overkill (for example, a group of ratboys set their Staffordshire Bull Terrier onto one of my cats a few weeks ago. Had I reacted the way I wanted to, I would almost certainly be on remand for charges of false imprisonment, ABH, and GBH etc), but rather I find that I simply MUST have my pound of flesh so that I can accept that the matter is settled and so that I can move on. An eye for an eye is still too harsh an ideal for me, but I don't have any problems with a tooth for a tooth.
Now I don't pretend that my attitude in this respect is the correct one. But I don't think it makes me particularly unique, or even a hugely bad person. I think it just makes me a typical example of how humanity deals with being dumped on. On a small (i.e. personal) scale, this isn't particularly harmful or destructive. Okay, so maybe it can be for the person on the receiving end of somebody's ire, but that is part of the process of living your life. It's when others get pulled into the vortex of anger and revenge that things start to get ugly. Again, as a personal example, I once found myself dragging two complete innocents into a dispute I was having with somebody. It had nothing to do with them whatsoever, and the net result was that everybody ended up being pissed off at everybody else. I suppose that, if nothing else, this taught me the valuable lesson of not allowing ones anger to overwhelm ones reason (or, if I were to admit to being as big a Star Wars fan as I actually am, I learned not to give in to the Dark Side...). Sackcloth and ashes were duly donned, and I think that I and the people whom I still care about have come out of the sorry little mess wiser and, for the most part, unscathed.
Okay, so I think that pretty much establishes that to err is indeed human. I know that all of my friends have made mistakes in their lives, and when I look at the news I can see mistakes being made on a daily basis and with global implications; Palestinian suicide bombers, Israeli occupation, American belligerence, European self-righteousness, African chaos...all of these things can be seen and read about on a daily basis (though it can get pretty bloody depressing should you choose to do so). But to stick with the idea of mistakes on a much larger scale, are we right to just expect all the involved parties to behave in a way that is entirely human (i.e. involves the total and unconditional hatred of a group of people whom one has never met and whom one may get along famously with if they met at a party, purely on the basis of something arbitrary like their religion or the colour of their skin)?
For example, the situation in Israel at the moment is the result of a numerous mistakes being made by both Palestinians and Israeli's since the late 1940's. The Palestinians were mistaken in their (and their Arab neighbours) efforts to wipe Israel from the map. Israel was mistaken in their attempt to colonise occupied Palestinian territory. The Palestinians are just plain wrong in their continued guerilla war against Israel that sees more and more innocent Israeli's being blown apart for the crime of going about their daily business. The Israeli's are equally as wrong in their seeming determination to level every Palestinian occupied building in range of their tank shells. We're told that both sides quite simply hate each other with venom not seen since Trotsky called Stalin a big, fat, moustachioed poofter. But was it really as simple as that? Did two whole nations wake up one day and decide that they HAD to commit some barbarous act or other to get revenge for some sort of wrong committed against them?
No, I don't really think that they did. I think a very small group of people is responsible for this particular conflagration. Unfortunately, those people form the leadership of both sides. Yasser Arafat has grievances against the Israeli people that he seemingly cannot forgive. Likewise for Ariel Sharon and his feelings toward the Palestinians. However, because of the vindictiveness of these two people and their attendant cronies, millions of people get the unrivalled opportunity to live in fear, hate, and discord. If the two of them were locked into a room and only one of them were allowed to walk out, I'm inclined to think that it would be a much better way of helping them settle their differences. Instead, a whole nation is used to get revenge by proxy.
I'll restate my point again; two individuals feeling the need to gain petty revenge on each other is A-okay as far as I'm concerned. Two individuals dragging others into their dispute is a bad thing. And if they drag whole nations and cost them their lives...well, it becomes divine in that a truly biblical level of carnage ensues, but that's about it. I think what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing monstrous, or evil, or inhuman about many of the world leaders who sentence a random number of their populace to death for the international equivalent of what their Kev said about our Sharon. They're behaving in just the kind of blinkered, selfish, and petty way that is exactly what we should expect from a human being.
Not that I'm saying that we should simply say "Well that's okay then. We may as well let them carry on until no one has any eyes or teeth left". Going back to revenge on a personal level, I believe that it can be a positive thing (allowing one to let go of whatever dislike has been consuming us, and so allowing one to get on with ones life). But it can very easily become negative and destructive, to the point where revenge is all that matters above and beyond everything else. We usually have the benefit of a friend telling us to calm the hell down, and perhaps to rethink, for example, sending ones enemy a forged letter from a hospital informing them that one of their recent sexual partners has been diagnosed as HIV +. No one close to him is going to tell Dubya that declaring war on Iraq because Saddam pissed daddy off is a bad idea. Maybe I am being unreasonable to expect a little more of the divine in our leaders, but when they are making decisions that will affect my life based predominantly on their personal grudges, I doubt I'll be alone in making that wish.
Thursday 26 September 2002
Tuesday 17 September 2002
Nice idea, shame about reality
This was written more in hope than expectation, though my annoyance with leftist Anti-Americanism remains as strong as it was then.
If I were a true, died in the wool, moaning leftie (as the Sun is calling anybody who raises a single question about the wisdom of war against Iraq), I would doubtless be a very disappointed man this week. After all, I've spent a few weeks now getting myself riled and annoyed (not to mention deeply, breathtakingly paranoid) at Dubya and his All Star Clown Show (otherwise known as the US Government). I've scribbled down dire warnings of the dangers of American unilateralism and perceived anti-Islamic policies, to much the same effect as the bloke at Newcastle Monument who keeps telling strangers that Jesus loves them. And then, just as all was starting to seem as hopeless as Ronald Reagan at a pub quiz, something rather nice happened.
Dubya made a speech to the UN on Friday. For once, the most interesting thing about it wasn't his tortured syntax and mangled vocabulary (from what I could gather, he seems to think that "Elsewhere" is actually a country...). Having read the speech, it would appear that the US Government have finally realised that perhaps pissing off every other nation on the face of the planet is a bad idea. In essence, Dubya said that the US would consult the UN over Iraq, but the UN had to stop shirking it's responsibilities or else face being marginalised in the same way as the League of Nations was just before WWII. In an admittedly token gesture, he also signed the US back up to UNESCO (a UN project by which signatory nations share educational, cultural, and scientific information). Thus, the US addressed the accusation that it would act unilaterally and ride roughshod over the objections of others. The first main objection to war with Iraq had an answer.
Then he went a stage further. He stated that America was committed to a self governed, independent state for the Palestinians. Suddenly, the second main objection to war, that the US are being discriminatory against Moslems in this, thus far, farcical and inconclusive war against terror, was addressed too. Of course, saying that one is in agreement with an idea is entirely different to actually taking steps to put that idea into practice. Nevertheless, this showed that Dubya (or at least, his speechwriters and his government. Let's be honest here; Dubya is a man who takes stupidity to epic levels. For ease of reference, when I mention the monkey, I'm in fact talking about the organ grinders) has at least paid attention to why there is such opposition to his war. Moreover, it showed that there was the political savvy to try and do something about it rather than fixing objectors with a blank stare and accuse them of being on a par with Saddam himself in terms of evil.
This unexpected but welcome outburst of common sense got me to thinking; why, if one takes the leap of faith that Dubya actually means what he says, should there be any more objections to war with Iraq? After all, the UN does indeed have obligations to the international community to enforce the resolutions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War (of course, it also has obligations to enforce the 2 resolutions ordering Israel to leave the Palestinians alone, but lets push that gently to one side for now). Why on earth shouldn't America demand that UN do what it was set up to do and bring a rogue state in line? If nothing else, it clears the way for any nation who is genuinely interested in justice to make the same demands concerning Israel.
And that of course is the key phrase; "genuinely interested in justice". I don't think that a single member state of the UN meets this criterion. All they are interested in is naked self-interest. For all that Dubya assuaged my two big fears about a war with Iraq on Friday, I'm not so naive as to think that he wants the war for any other reason than greater access to oil reserves. And yet we seem to insist that America acts according to a higher moral standard than we are willing to impose on other nations. In fairness, America brings a lot of that on itself with its absurd "Land of the Free" rhetoric, yet we are far more willing to point out America's self interest when they actually act on the world stage.
For example, when the UK sent troops to Sierra Leone, we were generally praised in the international community for helping to defend a legitimate government from wild and savage rebel soldiers. Do you suppose that the diamond mines that we were fighting to defend were an insignificant detail? Of course not; they were the entire reason that we were there. However, the Sierra Leone government did not fall. The rebels were beaten back. The reasons for our intervention were less than pure (unless you count pure greed) but the results were definitely desirable. And as we observed the niceties of international law (or at least, made reference to them), there were no objections in the UN.
Could the same not be said here of America? Again, I must stress that if the UN speech was a blip and the US does indeed plough on with it's unilateral action then all bets are off. But just look at the difference that those words have made; America is trying to keep up the appearance of consulting with the international community. Dubya has backed the UN into a corner by pointing out that the US would be enforcing existing UN resolutions, and that all nations have a duty to support UN approved actions. Though the war would be about oil, the result would be the end of one of the most despotic regimes on earth.
It seems that the US is doomed in its efforts to assuage the left wing in this matter. No matter what they do, there will always be the calls and reminders that the US, like every other nation on the planet, has and continues to behave in it's own interests first. Naturally, I wish that this were different, but does anyone really think that never-ending vilification is going to do the trick? The right wing was belligerent until Friday, happy to stick two fingers up to the rest of the world due to their conviction that they were pursuing the correct course of action by divine right. Though their bluster and bullshit will no doubt continue, and though they will almost certainly deride the UN as no more than a talking shop, it will rankle them no end that the path to war has been smoothed by diplomacy and not by threats of force.
With time, and with all nations being forced into the position of having to consult with the UN should they wish to preserve their pretence of legitimacy and selflessness, we may hopefully find that the world will actually consist of countries with legitimate and genuinely selfless governments. It is, after all, a round world and we're all the same race of people when all is said and done. Until then, the demand of the left for all nations (especially America) to act like paragons of virtue without any coercion or anything in it for them is unrealistic. We demanded the US consult the UN. They have done so. The left cannot simply go on criticising because it doesn't like what the UN does in response. That is no better than the whining of the right who get upset at the UN for not letting them use their nice new bombs. The way is now clear for genuine debate about what should be done with Iraq, and I'd hate to see it derailed by the left because they don't want Dubya to get what he wants. The US may have questionable motives, but after the Friday's speech, there are many who say that the benefits of a war now outweigh the problems it would cause. It's time for the left to address that point and stop miring itself in a list of complaints that can be easily twisted to be made to look like nothing more than rabid anti Americanism. Here's hoping that they rise to the challenge.
If I were a true, died in the wool, moaning leftie (as the Sun is calling anybody who raises a single question about the wisdom of war against Iraq), I would doubtless be a very disappointed man this week. After all, I've spent a few weeks now getting myself riled and annoyed (not to mention deeply, breathtakingly paranoid) at Dubya and his All Star Clown Show (otherwise known as the US Government). I've scribbled down dire warnings of the dangers of American unilateralism and perceived anti-Islamic policies, to much the same effect as the bloke at Newcastle Monument who keeps telling strangers that Jesus loves them. And then, just as all was starting to seem as hopeless as Ronald Reagan at a pub quiz, something rather nice happened.
Dubya made a speech to the UN on Friday. For once, the most interesting thing about it wasn't his tortured syntax and mangled vocabulary (from what I could gather, he seems to think that "Elsewhere" is actually a country...). Having read the speech, it would appear that the US Government have finally realised that perhaps pissing off every other nation on the face of the planet is a bad idea. In essence, Dubya said that the US would consult the UN over Iraq, but the UN had to stop shirking it's responsibilities or else face being marginalised in the same way as the League of Nations was just before WWII. In an admittedly token gesture, he also signed the US back up to UNESCO (a UN project by which signatory nations share educational, cultural, and scientific information). Thus, the US addressed the accusation that it would act unilaterally and ride roughshod over the objections of others. The first main objection to war with Iraq had an answer.
Then he went a stage further. He stated that America was committed to a self governed, independent state for the Palestinians. Suddenly, the second main objection to war, that the US are being discriminatory against Moslems in this, thus far, farcical and inconclusive war against terror, was addressed too. Of course, saying that one is in agreement with an idea is entirely different to actually taking steps to put that idea into practice. Nevertheless, this showed that Dubya (or at least, his speechwriters and his government. Let's be honest here; Dubya is a man who takes stupidity to epic levels. For ease of reference, when I mention the monkey, I'm in fact talking about the organ grinders) has at least paid attention to why there is such opposition to his war. Moreover, it showed that there was the political savvy to try and do something about it rather than fixing objectors with a blank stare and accuse them of being on a par with Saddam himself in terms of evil.
This unexpected but welcome outburst of common sense got me to thinking; why, if one takes the leap of faith that Dubya actually means what he says, should there be any more objections to war with Iraq? After all, the UN does indeed have obligations to the international community to enforce the resolutions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War (of course, it also has obligations to enforce the 2 resolutions ordering Israel to leave the Palestinians alone, but lets push that gently to one side for now). Why on earth shouldn't America demand that UN do what it was set up to do and bring a rogue state in line? If nothing else, it clears the way for any nation who is genuinely interested in justice to make the same demands concerning Israel.
And that of course is the key phrase; "genuinely interested in justice". I don't think that a single member state of the UN meets this criterion. All they are interested in is naked self-interest. For all that Dubya assuaged my two big fears about a war with Iraq on Friday, I'm not so naive as to think that he wants the war for any other reason than greater access to oil reserves. And yet we seem to insist that America acts according to a higher moral standard than we are willing to impose on other nations. In fairness, America brings a lot of that on itself with its absurd "Land of the Free" rhetoric, yet we are far more willing to point out America's self interest when they actually act on the world stage.
For example, when the UK sent troops to Sierra Leone, we were generally praised in the international community for helping to defend a legitimate government from wild and savage rebel soldiers. Do you suppose that the diamond mines that we were fighting to defend were an insignificant detail? Of course not; they were the entire reason that we were there. However, the Sierra Leone government did not fall. The rebels were beaten back. The reasons for our intervention were less than pure (unless you count pure greed) but the results were definitely desirable. And as we observed the niceties of international law (or at least, made reference to them), there were no objections in the UN.
Could the same not be said here of America? Again, I must stress that if the UN speech was a blip and the US does indeed plough on with it's unilateral action then all bets are off. But just look at the difference that those words have made; America is trying to keep up the appearance of consulting with the international community. Dubya has backed the UN into a corner by pointing out that the US would be enforcing existing UN resolutions, and that all nations have a duty to support UN approved actions. Though the war would be about oil, the result would be the end of one of the most despotic regimes on earth.
It seems that the US is doomed in its efforts to assuage the left wing in this matter. No matter what they do, there will always be the calls and reminders that the US, like every other nation on the planet, has and continues to behave in it's own interests first. Naturally, I wish that this were different, but does anyone really think that never-ending vilification is going to do the trick? The right wing was belligerent until Friday, happy to stick two fingers up to the rest of the world due to their conviction that they were pursuing the correct course of action by divine right. Though their bluster and bullshit will no doubt continue, and though they will almost certainly deride the UN as no more than a talking shop, it will rankle them no end that the path to war has been smoothed by diplomacy and not by threats of force.
With time, and with all nations being forced into the position of having to consult with the UN should they wish to preserve their pretence of legitimacy and selflessness, we may hopefully find that the world will actually consist of countries with legitimate and genuinely selfless governments. It is, after all, a round world and we're all the same race of people when all is said and done. Until then, the demand of the left for all nations (especially America) to act like paragons of virtue without any coercion or anything in it for them is unrealistic. We demanded the US consult the UN. They have done so. The left cannot simply go on criticising because it doesn't like what the UN does in response. That is no better than the whining of the right who get upset at the UN for not letting them use their nice new bombs. The way is now clear for genuine debate about what should be done with Iraq, and I'd hate to see it derailed by the left because they don't want Dubya to get what he wants. The US may have questionable motives, but after the Friday's speech, there are many who say that the benefits of a war now outweigh the problems it would cause. It's time for the left to address that point and stop miring itself in a list of complaints that can be easily twisted to be made to look like nothing more than rabid anti Americanism. Here's hoping that they rise to the challenge.
Nice idea, shame about reality
This was written more in hope than expectation, though my annoyance with leftist Anti-Americanism remains as strong as it was then.
If I were a true, died in the wool, moaning leftie (as the Sun is calling anybody who raises a single question about the wisdom of war against Iraq), I would doubtless be a very disappointed man this week. After all, I've spent a few weeks now getting myself riled and annoyed (not to mention deeply, breathtakingly paranoid) at Dubya and his All Star Clown Show (otherwise known as the US Government). I've scribbled down dire warnings of the dangers of American unilateralism and perceived anti-Islamic policies, to much the same effect as the bloke at Newcastle Monument who keeps telling strangers that Jesus loves them. And then, just as all was starting to seem as hopeless as Ronald Reagan at a pub quiz, something rather nice happened.
Dubya made a speech to the UN on Friday. For once, the most interesting thing about it wasn't his tortured syntax and mangled vocabulary (from what I could gather, he seems to think that "Elsewhere" is actually a country...). Having read the speech, it would appear that the US Government have finally realised that perhaps pissing off every other nation on the face of the planet is a bad idea. In essence, Dubya said that the US would consult the UN over Iraq, but the UN had to stop shirking it's responsibilities or else face being marginalised in the same way as the League of Nations was just before WWII. In an admittedly token gesture, he also signed the US back up to UNESCO (a UN project by which signatory nations share educational, cultural, and scientific information). Thus, the US addressed the accusation that it would act unilaterally and ride roughshod over the objections of others. The first main objection to war with Iraq had an answer.
Then he went a stage further. He stated that America was committed to a self governed, independent state for the Palestinians. Suddenly, the second main objection to war, that the US are being discriminatory against Moslems in this, thus far, farcical and inconclusive war against terror, was addressed too. Of course, saying that one is in agreement with an idea is entirely different to actually taking steps to put that idea into practice. Nevertheless, this showed that Dubya (or at least, his speechwriters and his government. Let's be honest here; Dubya is a man who takes stupidity to epic levels. For ease of reference, when I mention the monkey, I'm in fact talking about the organ grinders) has at least paid attention to why there is such opposition to his war. Moreover, it showed that there was the political savvy to try and do something about it rather than fixing objectors with a blank stare and accuse them of being on a par with Saddam himself in terms of evil.
This unexpected but welcome outburst of common sense got me to thinking; why, if one takes the leap of faith that Dubya actually means what he says, should there be any more objections to war with Iraq? After all, the UN does indeed have obligations to the international community to enforce the resolutions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War (of course, it also has obligations to enforce the 2 resolutions ordering Israel to leave the Palestinians alone, but lets push that gently to one side for now). Why on earth shouldn't America demand that UN do what it was set up to do and bring a rogue state in line? If nothing else, it clears the way for any nation who is genuinely interested in justice to make the same demands concerning Israel.
And that of course is the key phrase; "genuinely interested in justice". I don't think that a single member state of the UN meets this criterion. All they are interested in is naked self-interest. For all that Dubya assuaged my two big fears about a war with Iraq on Friday, I'm not so naive as to think that he wants the war for any other reason than greater access to oil reserves. And yet we seem to insist that America acts according to a higher moral standard than we are willing to impose on other nations. In fairness, America brings a lot of that on itself with its absurd "Land of the Free" rhetoric, yet we are far more willing to point out America's self interest when they actually act on the world stage.
For example, when the UK sent troops to Sierra Leone, we were generally praised in the international community for helping to defend a legitimate government from wild and savage rebel soldiers. Do you suppose that the diamond mines that we were fighting to defend were an insignificant detail? Of course not; they were the entire reason that we were there. However, the Sierra Leone government did not fall. The rebels were beaten back. The reasons for our intervention were less than pure (unless you count pure greed) but the results were definitely desirable. And as we observed the niceties of international law (or at least, made reference to them), there were no objections in the UN.
Could the same not be said here of America? Again, I must stress that if the UN speech was a blip and the US does indeed plough on with it's unilateral action then all bets are off. But just look at the difference that those words have made; America is trying to keep up the appearance of consulting with the international community. Dubya has backed the UN into a corner by pointing out that the US would be enforcing existing UN resolutions, and that all nations have a duty to support UN approved actions. Though the war would be about oil, the result would be the end of one of the most despotic regimes on earth.
It seems that the US is doomed in its efforts to assuage the left wing in this matter. No matter what they do, there will always be the calls and reminders that the US, like every other nation on the planet, has and continues to behave in it's own interests first. Naturally, I wish that this were different, but does anyone really think that never-ending vilification is going to do the trick? The right wing was belligerent until Friday, happy to stick two fingers up to the rest of the world due to their conviction that they were pursuing the correct course of action by divine right. Though their bluster and bullshit will no doubt continue, and though they will almost certainly deride the UN as no more than a talking shop, it will rankle them no end that the path to war has been smoothed by diplomacy and not by threats of force.
With time, and with all nations being forced into the position of having to consult with the UN should they wish to preserve their pretence of legitimacy and selflessness, we may hopefully find that the world will actually consist of countries with legitimate and genuinely selfless governments. It is, after all, a round world and we're all the same race of people when all is said and done. Until then, the demand of the left for all nations (especially America) to act like paragons of virtue without any coercion or anything in it for them is unrealistic. We demanded the US consult the UN. They have done so. The left cannot simply go on criticising because it doesn't like what the UN does in response. That is no better than the whining of the right who get upset at the UN for not letting them use their nice new bombs. The way is now clear for genuine debate about what should be done with Iraq, and I'd hate to see it derailed by the left because they don't want Dubya to get what he wants. The US may have questionable motives, but after the Friday's speech, there are many who say that the benefits of a war now outweigh the problems it would cause. It's time for the left to address that point and stop miring itself in a list of complaints that can be easily twisted to be made to look like nothing more than rabid anti Americanism. Here's hoping that they rise to the challenge.
If I were a true, died in the wool, moaning leftie (as the Sun is calling anybody who raises a single question about the wisdom of war against Iraq), I would doubtless be a very disappointed man this week. After all, I've spent a few weeks now getting myself riled and annoyed (not to mention deeply, breathtakingly paranoid) at Dubya and his All Star Clown Show (otherwise known as the US Government). I've scribbled down dire warnings of the dangers of American unilateralism and perceived anti-Islamic policies, to much the same effect as the bloke at Newcastle Monument who keeps telling strangers that Jesus loves them. And then, just as all was starting to seem as hopeless as Ronald Reagan at a pub quiz, something rather nice happened.
Dubya made a speech to the UN on Friday. For once, the most interesting thing about it wasn't his tortured syntax and mangled vocabulary (from what I could gather, he seems to think that "Elsewhere" is actually a country...). Having read the speech, it would appear that the US Government have finally realised that perhaps pissing off every other nation on the face of the planet is a bad idea. In essence, Dubya said that the US would consult the UN over Iraq, but the UN had to stop shirking it's responsibilities or else face being marginalised in the same way as the League of Nations was just before WWII. In an admittedly token gesture, he also signed the US back up to UNESCO (a UN project by which signatory nations share educational, cultural, and scientific information). Thus, the US addressed the accusation that it would act unilaterally and ride roughshod over the objections of others. The first main objection to war with Iraq had an answer.
Then he went a stage further. He stated that America was committed to a self governed, independent state for the Palestinians. Suddenly, the second main objection to war, that the US are being discriminatory against Moslems in this, thus far, farcical and inconclusive war against terror, was addressed too. Of course, saying that one is in agreement with an idea is entirely different to actually taking steps to put that idea into practice. Nevertheless, this showed that Dubya (or at least, his speechwriters and his government. Let's be honest here; Dubya is a man who takes stupidity to epic levels. For ease of reference, when I mention the monkey, I'm in fact talking about the organ grinders) has at least paid attention to why there is such opposition to his war. Moreover, it showed that there was the political savvy to try and do something about it rather than fixing objectors with a blank stare and accuse them of being on a par with Saddam himself in terms of evil.
This unexpected but welcome outburst of common sense got me to thinking; why, if one takes the leap of faith that Dubya actually means what he says, should there be any more objections to war with Iraq? After all, the UN does indeed have obligations to the international community to enforce the resolutions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War (of course, it also has obligations to enforce the 2 resolutions ordering Israel to leave the Palestinians alone, but lets push that gently to one side for now). Why on earth shouldn't America demand that UN do what it was set up to do and bring a rogue state in line? If nothing else, it clears the way for any nation who is genuinely interested in justice to make the same demands concerning Israel.
And that of course is the key phrase; "genuinely interested in justice". I don't think that a single member state of the UN meets this criterion. All they are interested in is naked self-interest. For all that Dubya assuaged my two big fears about a war with Iraq on Friday, I'm not so naive as to think that he wants the war for any other reason than greater access to oil reserves. And yet we seem to insist that America acts according to a higher moral standard than we are willing to impose on other nations. In fairness, America brings a lot of that on itself with its absurd "Land of the Free" rhetoric, yet we are far more willing to point out America's self interest when they actually act on the world stage.
For example, when the UK sent troops to Sierra Leone, we were generally praised in the international community for helping to defend a legitimate government from wild and savage rebel soldiers. Do you suppose that the diamond mines that we were fighting to defend were an insignificant detail? Of course not; they were the entire reason that we were there. However, the Sierra Leone government did not fall. The rebels were beaten back. The reasons for our intervention were less than pure (unless you count pure greed) but the results were definitely desirable. And as we observed the niceties of international law (or at least, made reference to them), there were no objections in the UN.
Could the same not be said here of America? Again, I must stress that if the UN speech was a blip and the US does indeed plough on with it's unilateral action then all bets are off. But just look at the difference that those words have made; America is trying to keep up the appearance of consulting with the international community. Dubya has backed the UN into a corner by pointing out that the US would be enforcing existing UN resolutions, and that all nations have a duty to support UN approved actions. Though the war would be about oil, the result would be the end of one of the most despotic regimes on earth.
It seems that the US is doomed in its efforts to assuage the left wing in this matter. No matter what they do, there will always be the calls and reminders that the US, like every other nation on the planet, has and continues to behave in it's own interests first. Naturally, I wish that this were different, but does anyone really think that never-ending vilification is going to do the trick? The right wing was belligerent until Friday, happy to stick two fingers up to the rest of the world due to their conviction that they were pursuing the correct course of action by divine right. Though their bluster and bullshit will no doubt continue, and though they will almost certainly deride the UN as no more than a talking shop, it will rankle them no end that the path to war has been smoothed by diplomacy and not by threats of force.
With time, and with all nations being forced into the position of having to consult with the UN should they wish to preserve their pretence of legitimacy and selflessness, we may hopefully find that the world will actually consist of countries with legitimate and genuinely selfless governments. It is, after all, a round world and we're all the same race of people when all is said and done. Until then, the demand of the left for all nations (especially America) to act like paragons of virtue without any coercion or anything in it for them is unrealistic. We demanded the US consult the UN. They have done so. The left cannot simply go on criticising because it doesn't like what the UN does in response. That is no better than the whining of the right who get upset at the UN for not letting them use their nice new bombs. The way is now clear for genuine debate about what should be done with Iraq, and I'd hate to see it derailed by the left because they don't want Dubya to get what he wants. The US may have questionable motives, but after the Friday's speech, there are many who say that the benefits of a war now outweigh the problems it would cause. It's time for the left to address that point and stop miring itself in a list of complaints that can be easily twisted to be made to look like nothing more than rabid anti Americanism. Here's hoping that they rise to the challenge.
Tuesday 10 September 2002
9/11: One Year On
I find it interesting to re-read this and note just how quickly Dubya squandered the goodwill and sympathy generated by 9/11.
As milestones go, forgetting about tomorrow would probably rank about equal to forgetting about one's partners birthday the day after neglecting to buy them a present for the wedding anniversary in the eyes of many Americans. And in truth, it would be churlish to expect America to feel anything other than a sense of grief and loss 1 year on from the worst atrocity that they have ever suffered in peacetime. So before I even get started, I have to make it clear that I have nothing but sympathy for the families who were affected by September 11th. Nor do I wish to cheapen the impact of that dreadful day on the rest of the nation. What I do want to do, however, is address the mindset that now seems to be emerging in America; that is, that because they have suffered because of a terrorist atrocity, they have divine right to do whatever they please in order to get their pound of flesh. I'd also like to briefly examine the cynical manipulation by the American government of the grief and anger justly felt by many Americans in order to make confused and blundering motions of aggression toward whomever they choose, whilst attempting to silence any criticism or doubts over their (quite remarkably ill-thought out) policy by claiming that dissent is equal to treachery.
It is of course difficult to make any sort of substantial comment about America and American policy as a result of 9/11. After all, their government doesn't seem to be entirely sure what they are doing these days (do we invade Iraq? Do we go through the UN? Have we finished in Afghanistan? Answers on a post card to the White House, because frankly, I don't think Dubya has the first clue...), so trying to decipher the intent behind their clumsy words and murky thoughts is a labour that would rival anything Hercules did. However, certain things can be gleaned from the avalanche of misinformation, contradiction, and blind stupidity that has become the hallmark of the US government of late. Obviously, they want war against Iraq. The removal of an evil dictator who had some part in 9/11, plus freeing of an oppressed people is the reason that is being played to the gallery. Naturally, nobody but the blindest patriot believes this. The real reasons are a matter of speculation; oil, distraction from the economic corruption that has mired the government down, revenge on behalf of Daddy...any, all, or none of these could be true. The government has been doing it's best to convince the public of this by blandly repeating the mantra that Saddam is a real and immediate threat, whilst at the same time providing no evidence for this.
I find it extremely annoying that the US government has made such a botched job of this whole affair; nobody would grieve Saddam's passing as dictator of Iraq. Yet by refusing to provide evidence for the danger he poses (and surely there must be some; we're talking about a man who used to routinely order the mass murder of Kurds and Marsh Arabs living in Iraq), and by suppressing any political opposition to an invasion by painting support for an invasion as the only way to be patriotic, Dubya's government are showing themselves to be as politically astute and as media savvy as Prince Phillip on a visit to China. I think it's rather telling that on the same day that the CIA have announced that there is little evidence linking Saddam to international terrorism, a news item has surfaced purporting to be an interview with a former lover of the Iraqi dictator. Apparently he likes watching torture videos and dancing to Sinatra in his spare time. Shit, why don't they go the whole hog and announce that scientific evidence has been found that gives a clear indication that Saddam Hussein is the closest living relative of the Boogeyman. It would appear that America is trying to win the war of hearts and minds via the National Enquirer...
So, now that I've qualified what I want to say to the point of rendering it almost irrelevant, I may as well proceed. What has been happening in America in the last year? Has the US public good reason to be proud of the actions of their government over the last year? Well, we should have been forewarned by the fact that no-one seemed to give much of a damn about the fact that the result of the election was...well, it was bollocks. Indeed, I'm sure that in years to come, historians on the education board will set aside a lesson specifically to allow future generations of schoolchildren to have a bloody good laugh at the gullibility of the American public and the sheer audacity of the Republican party (they may be corrupt and ignorant, but if nothing else they must have balls the size of watermelons to say that there was nothing remotely questionable about the result). And, true to form, America really doesn't seem to care that it's government has managed to alienate the entire world (no mean feat when one considers the outpouring of sympathy a year ago). Why doesn't it care?
The cynic in me suspects that the reason they don't care about the opinion of the rest of the world because America is a nation in the grip of self obsession. Prior to 9/11, nobody in America particularly cared about the fact that their government was a huge sponsor of terrorism. At best, they were indifferent to the suffering and misery in South America, Afghanistan, and Africa as a direct result of American funding of terror. At worst, they contributed toward it themselves (as any IRA quartermaster would no doubt confirm, the good old US public made huge contributions to their cause). Only now that America has begun to reap what it has sown has the American public in general made the belated discovery that terrorism is bad.
Now that terrorism has become a domestic problem for America, Americans have to think about it. This was something that they never had to trouble themselves with when it was happening overseas (incidentally, I'm not suggesting that the American public is unique in this rather selfish approach to the world; as an Englishman I'd be hypocritical to do so...). However, the prevailing attitude regarding how to prevent another 9/11 shows an imperiousness that has not been seen since Victorian times. Their seems to be an assumption that America can do what it damn well pleases, just so long as whatever is done stops the terrorists from attacking America again. The fact that America is militarily stronger than any other nation reinforces the belief that they can do what they like without fear of retribution. Their government have obliged by telling the rest of the world what they want, then stamping their feet and wailing "If you're not with us, you're against us" if they meet with anything less than total compliance (and if we bear in mind that the UK is the only country to have offered unconditional support, that adds up to a lot of rattles being thrown out of Dubya's pram).
There is a name for this; it's called "Gunboat Diplomacy", and it's something that the American public seems to approve of greatly. Well, not wishing to piss on their chips, but the last empire to try gunboat diplomacy was the same one that invented it; the British Empire. As I recall from the history of our little empire, we too had something of a belief in our divine right to tell the rest of the world what to do. We too took advantage of having a better military than anybody else. And yet here we are, dancing to whatever tune that Dubya spits out. We're no longer the biggest kid on the block. And do you know why? Because, after all the resentment that built up towards the imperious attitude of the English, the rest of the world made damned sure that it brought Britain down a peg or two at the first available opportunity. In our case, that opportunity was the Second World War. After the defeat of the axis powers, the UN was formed with the idea that no one nation should be able to bully the rest of the world into complying with whatever fun packed scheme they had come up with during that particular week. Britain had to hand its empire back to the people who actually lived there.
The American public seems to believe, rather sweetly, that this could never ever happen to them. I've tried asking a couple of them to justify this belief and have been met with answers ranging from "We could conquer the world so no one will ever mess with us" (evidently this gentleman belongs to the school of thought that believes Vietnam and Somalia aren't worth conquering...), to "It won't happen" (I tried pressing the giver of that last answer for a reason why it will never happen; unless you count repeating "It won't happen" over and over in the hope that I'd go away as a reason, none was forthcoming). Of course, the last time it took a world war to make something like this happen. Will it take the same thing happening again?
Let's put it this way; during the cold war, the leadership of America had an upsettingly high proportion of fundamentalist Christians in its numbers. These are the people who believe that the Revelations portion of the bible was not in fact the work of a gibbering fool who had spent too long in the desert eating mushrooms, but was in fact the exact representation of God's will. Happily, the Russian leadership were altogether more pragmatic, eschewing a dogmatic belief in the end of the world in favour of a belief in the need for keeping their own people on a tight leash. So all we had was 45 years of arse clenching fear, and no war. This time round, the Russians have been replaced with Moslem fundamentalists; people who are to the Islamic ideals of love and justice what Dubya is to the ideals of intellect and statesmanship. They too have a hankering for an apocalyptic "end of the world" scenario. So it seems that both teams want one big, messy conflict between good and evil. And each has found in the other someone perfectly willing to oblige that desire. Frankly, my only hope is that Dubya can be stalled until the next election, because surely the US public wouldn't be stupid enough to allow him to steal a second election, would they?
Would they?
As milestones go, forgetting about tomorrow would probably rank about equal to forgetting about one's partners birthday the day after neglecting to buy them a present for the wedding anniversary in the eyes of many Americans. And in truth, it would be churlish to expect America to feel anything other than a sense of grief and loss 1 year on from the worst atrocity that they have ever suffered in peacetime. So before I even get started, I have to make it clear that I have nothing but sympathy for the families who were affected by September 11th. Nor do I wish to cheapen the impact of that dreadful day on the rest of the nation. What I do want to do, however, is address the mindset that now seems to be emerging in America; that is, that because they have suffered because of a terrorist atrocity, they have divine right to do whatever they please in order to get their pound of flesh. I'd also like to briefly examine the cynical manipulation by the American government of the grief and anger justly felt by many Americans in order to make confused and blundering motions of aggression toward whomever they choose, whilst attempting to silence any criticism or doubts over their (quite remarkably ill-thought out) policy by claiming that dissent is equal to treachery.
It is of course difficult to make any sort of substantial comment about America and American policy as a result of 9/11. After all, their government doesn't seem to be entirely sure what they are doing these days (do we invade Iraq? Do we go through the UN? Have we finished in Afghanistan? Answers on a post card to the White House, because frankly, I don't think Dubya has the first clue...), so trying to decipher the intent behind their clumsy words and murky thoughts is a labour that would rival anything Hercules did. However, certain things can be gleaned from the avalanche of misinformation, contradiction, and blind stupidity that has become the hallmark of the US government of late. Obviously, they want war against Iraq. The removal of an evil dictator who had some part in 9/11, plus freeing of an oppressed people is the reason that is being played to the gallery. Naturally, nobody but the blindest patriot believes this. The real reasons are a matter of speculation; oil, distraction from the economic corruption that has mired the government down, revenge on behalf of Daddy...any, all, or none of these could be true. The government has been doing it's best to convince the public of this by blandly repeating the mantra that Saddam is a real and immediate threat, whilst at the same time providing no evidence for this.
I find it extremely annoying that the US government has made such a botched job of this whole affair; nobody would grieve Saddam's passing as dictator of Iraq. Yet by refusing to provide evidence for the danger he poses (and surely there must be some; we're talking about a man who used to routinely order the mass murder of Kurds and Marsh Arabs living in Iraq), and by suppressing any political opposition to an invasion by painting support for an invasion as the only way to be patriotic, Dubya's government are showing themselves to be as politically astute and as media savvy as Prince Phillip on a visit to China. I think it's rather telling that on the same day that the CIA have announced that there is little evidence linking Saddam to international terrorism, a news item has surfaced purporting to be an interview with a former lover of the Iraqi dictator. Apparently he likes watching torture videos and dancing to Sinatra in his spare time. Shit, why don't they go the whole hog and announce that scientific evidence has been found that gives a clear indication that Saddam Hussein is the closest living relative of the Boogeyman. It would appear that America is trying to win the war of hearts and minds via the National Enquirer...
So, now that I've qualified what I want to say to the point of rendering it almost irrelevant, I may as well proceed. What has been happening in America in the last year? Has the US public good reason to be proud of the actions of their government over the last year? Well, we should have been forewarned by the fact that no-one seemed to give much of a damn about the fact that the result of the election was...well, it was bollocks. Indeed, I'm sure that in years to come, historians on the education board will set aside a lesson specifically to allow future generations of schoolchildren to have a bloody good laugh at the gullibility of the American public and the sheer audacity of the Republican party (they may be corrupt and ignorant, but if nothing else they must have balls the size of watermelons to say that there was nothing remotely questionable about the result). And, true to form, America really doesn't seem to care that it's government has managed to alienate the entire world (no mean feat when one considers the outpouring of sympathy a year ago). Why doesn't it care?
The cynic in me suspects that the reason they don't care about the opinion of the rest of the world because America is a nation in the grip of self obsession. Prior to 9/11, nobody in America particularly cared about the fact that their government was a huge sponsor of terrorism. At best, they were indifferent to the suffering and misery in South America, Afghanistan, and Africa as a direct result of American funding of terror. At worst, they contributed toward it themselves (as any IRA quartermaster would no doubt confirm, the good old US public made huge contributions to their cause). Only now that America has begun to reap what it has sown has the American public in general made the belated discovery that terrorism is bad.
Now that terrorism has become a domestic problem for America, Americans have to think about it. This was something that they never had to trouble themselves with when it was happening overseas (incidentally, I'm not suggesting that the American public is unique in this rather selfish approach to the world; as an Englishman I'd be hypocritical to do so...). However, the prevailing attitude regarding how to prevent another 9/11 shows an imperiousness that has not been seen since Victorian times. Their seems to be an assumption that America can do what it damn well pleases, just so long as whatever is done stops the terrorists from attacking America again. The fact that America is militarily stronger than any other nation reinforces the belief that they can do what they like without fear of retribution. Their government have obliged by telling the rest of the world what they want, then stamping their feet and wailing "If you're not with us, you're against us" if they meet with anything less than total compliance (and if we bear in mind that the UK is the only country to have offered unconditional support, that adds up to a lot of rattles being thrown out of Dubya's pram).
There is a name for this; it's called "Gunboat Diplomacy", and it's something that the American public seems to approve of greatly. Well, not wishing to piss on their chips, but the last empire to try gunboat diplomacy was the same one that invented it; the British Empire. As I recall from the history of our little empire, we too had something of a belief in our divine right to tell the rest of the world what to do. We too took advantage of having a better military than anybody else. And yet here we are, dancing to whatever tune that Dubya spits out. We're no longer the biggest kid on the block. And do you know why? Because, after all the resentment that built up towards the imperious attitude of the English, the rest of the world made damned sure that it brought Britain down a peg or two at the first available opportunity. In our case, that opportunity was the Second World War. After the defeat of the axis powers, the UN was formed with the idea that no one nation should be able to bully the rest of the world into complying with whatever fun packed scheme they had come up with during that particular week. Britain had to hand its empire back to the people who actually lived there.
The American public seems to believe, rather sweetly, that this could never ever happen to them. I've tried asking a couple of them to justify this belief and have been met with answers ranging from "We could conquer the world so no one will ever mess with us" (evidently this gentleman belongs to the school of thought that believes Vietnam and Somalia aren't worth conquering...), to "It won't happen" (I tried pressing the giver of that last answer for a reason why it will never happen; unless you count repeating "It won't happen" over and over in the hope that I'd go away as a reason, none was forthcoming). Of course, the last time it took a world war to make something like this happen. Will it take the same thing happening again?
Let's put it this way; during the cold war, the leadership of America had an upsettingly high proportion of fundamentalist Christians in its numbers. These are the people who believe that the Revelations portion of the bible was not in fact the work of a gibbering fool who had spent too long in the desert eating mushrooms, but was in fact the exact representation of God's will. Happily, the Russian leadership were altogether more pragmatic, eschewing a dogmatic belief in the end of the world in favour of a belief in the need for keeping their own people on a tight leash. So all we had was 45 years of arse clenching fear, and no war. This time round, the Russians have been replaced with Moslem fundamentalists; people who are to the Islamic ideals of love and justice what Dubya is to the ideals of intellect and statesmanship. They too have a hankering for an apocalyptic "end of the world" scenario. So it seems that both teams want one big, messy conflict between good and evil. And each has found in the other someone perfectly willing to oblige that desire. Frankly, my only hope is that Dubya can be stalled until the next election, because surely the US public wouldn't be stupid enough to allow him to steal a second election, would they?
Would they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)