A boogeyman died this last weekend. Well, to be more accurate it was a boogeywoman. Myra Hindley, Moors Murderess and English hate figure for over 30 years, died peacefully in her sleep. Almost everyone in the UK knew her by name. She was practically unknown outside the UK; bearing in mind the US churns out serial killers whose sadism makes Hindley and Ian Brady seem like a benevolent Aunt and Uncle, this is hardly surprising. She died without having been forgiven for her crimes, or at least not by the UK public. Are some things so terrible that they cannot be forgiven, no matter how sincere the repentance? Before looking too closely at that question it's worth reminding ourselves of her particular claim to immortality.
She, at the behest of her lover Ian Brady, participated in the abduction, torture, rape, and murder of a number of youths in Manchester (There is an official count, but if I'm honest I find that I'm starting to disapprove of the practice of keeping a scorecard for different murderers; I think it was the number of people in the UK who take pride in the fact that Dr Harold Shipman was the worlds most prolific serial killer that gave me an opinion on this, but I digress...). After putting their victims through a fairly grotty version of hell (ironically, the murder of the victim that led to their capture died quickest of all; Brady took an axe to him) in the name of getting themselves horny, they would bury the remains on the Moors in the North West of England.
One of the things that set this particular case apart was the fact that Hindley and Brady had made audio tapes of the rape and torture of one of the young girls (I'm rather ashamed to say that I can't remember her name; I believe I've already made the point in the past that it is curious how we recall the murderers and not the murdered). The tape was played in court, and Hindley's complete callousness to the fate of their victim guaranteed her the enmity of anyone and everyone who ever read any details of the case. Thanks to the efforts of the media, everyone in the UK ended up reading such details on a semi regular basis. Why was this the case? Well, it was probably because Hindley had, over the course of the last 36 years, reformed and sought parole at every available opportunity.
The tabloids greeted every new parole hearing with a barrage of headlines of the "This Evil Old Hag must be Flayed Alive!" variety, coupled with numerous interviews with relatives of the victims, forced to relieve their grief anew, all of whom (unsurprisingly) wanted Hindley kept in prison for the rest of her life. (Brady is less troublesome as far as the press are concerned; he has been on hunger strike for the last 3 years as he is determined to die. The state is equally determined to keep him alive. Brady's less than idyllic childhood notwithstanding, bearing in mind the suffering he has caused others, this seems entirely appropriate.) Even the news of her death was greeted with the sort of bile normally reserved for newly captured paedophiles. But what of Hindley herself?
Here is a woman who had converted to Christianity in her time in prison, had the backing of numerous humanitarians in her quest for freedom, and who was described by pretty much everyone who came into contact with her as "no danger to the general public". She had done (she claimed) her best to assist the authorities searching the moors to find the last victims (one body has never been found and quite probably never will). Surely this goes some way to redressing the imbalance caused by her crimes?
To be blunt, no. Not in my opinion anyway. Though I dislike the media's manipulation of public opinion in order to paint her as a demonic presence on earth, I dislike even more the idea of a serial killer being released at any point before their death. Some of the arguments used in favour of her release are pretty much all laughable (and I realise that I was in favour of the release of the Bulger killers; the difference being that those boys are young enough to have been rehabilitated), ranging from "She's accepted God into her life and so the Christian thing to do is to forgive her" to "Far worse crimes are committed today, and the perpetrators of those may well be released soon". The former means approximately fuck all when one considers the tendency towards mania shown by many of those who are committed to the religion of their parents' choice. The latter is perhaps the most insulting thing one could say to those affected by the murders; is crime now to be downgraded retrospectively?
I also resent the holier than thou posturing of those good souls who could find it in their hearts to forgive her (and yes, I am being sarcastic; it's rather easy to forgive a wrong done to someone else, quite another to forgive it when done to you or those dear to you). Their implication that, because they were magnanimous enough to forgive her, then everyone else should be, smacks of the smug self-righteousness of the left-wing do-gooder (by which I mean that shower of spunkwits who do their utmost to impose their morality on everybody else. Though their motivations are different they're no better than the religious and political right, and give the left wing a bad name).
What is more, they then mewl about how unjust it is that Hindley languishes in prison (as opposed to languishing under a few feet of dank earth on a moor). Well, sorry to break this to you, but Justice was created to serve the will of the majority. Whether whipped up into a hate fuelled fervour or simply reading the facts of the case, I rather think that it would be the will of the majority that Hindley live her life in captivity. The do-gooders response is usually along the lines that "The majority are wrong", followed by a thinly veiled piece of patronising sophistry that implies that what people need is to have their minds made up for them by a privileged few who have the intellectual capacity to make the correct decision. Which is, again, horseshit. These days we hear a lot about the right trying to reserve power to a few. This rather obstructs our view of the fact that certain of the left wing are equally inclined to elitism. Beware of anyone who says that they know what you should be thinking.
To sum up, there very definitely are some things that are unforgivable to some, and not to others. It's up to the majority to decide what can be forgiven. No one can imagine Adolf Hitler being given leniency had he thrown himself on the mercy of the Jewish people, so why should a once-evil woman be treated any differently if most people do not believe that she should be free?
Wednesday, 20 November 2002
Monday, 4 November 2002
We are the dead
1984 is my favourite book, and it's influence on me is clear in pretty much everything I write. Here, I make that influence more explicit than usual.
"We are the Dead"
That line, from Orwell's 1984, is Winston and Julia's acceptance that they have no hope in life. In the context of the whole book, we later find out that although they were quite correct when they said it, they didn't really know what they meant or what the implications of that statement were. It takes continuous physical and psychological torture at the hands of O'Brien (the strangely charismatic and, by our standards, quite insane Inner Party member) for Winston Smith to truly appreciate that it is not just he and Julia who fall into this joyless category. It is everyone outside of the ruling inner party. The Proles, the outer party, the continually warring factions; everything exists solely for the benefit of those privileged few who have control over their own lives. Everyone else may just as well be a walking corpse for all the independence that they are allowed.
1984 is probably my favourite piece of literature of all time. A chilling warning about the inherent inhumanity of totalitarianism (although very much a product of post WWII UK in tone), it is a bleak view of a bleak future that, happily, has not come to pass. Or at least, certainly not in the unremittingly grim fashion that Orwell predicted. The basic fear that Orwell expressed was of a dystopian world where we no longer have control of our own lives; a return to the medieval times of total slavery to a privileged caste. The hellish Party of 1984 kept the population servile by convincing them that they were actually happy with their lot (they did so by numerous methods that, if I were to detail them here would take up more than even you have the patience to read...), and being as how my mind works the way it does (i.e. in a rather rambling and slightly neurotic fashion) I've found myself wondering if the same could be said of us.
Do we have control of our own lives, or are we little more than serfs who have been distracted from our servitude by pretty baubles and garish soap opera’s. Obviously, one cannot look at the minutiae of everybody's everyday life, so you'll forgive me if I break our lives down into these nice, easy to remember sections; work, play, and love (by which I mean both friendships and sex. In some cases both...).
I've always believed in getting the bad news out of the way first, so let's have a look at work. This is the area that many who believe that we are already living in a world of shit tend to hold up as proof of their belief. And in truth, it's probably not too difficult to see where they're coming from. Very few people are spending their working life in a job that they feel valued and which bolsters rather than knocks lumps out of their self-esteem. But whose fault is that? To a certain extent it is the fault of society (and, by implication, those at the top of the heap who shape society to suit their needs). We are encouraged to get some sort of 9-5 job, though of course we are all encouraged to get the best paid job available. Modern life compounds the pressure; we need money to pay the bills and to live a comfortable life. Our own fear of poverty is probably the final factor involved; we are told that we need to live a certain lifestyle and, good little drones that we are, we try our best to do so. To opt out of the rat-race is (unless you are fortunate, wealthy, talented, lucky, or for preference, all four) to kiss goodbye to the bland and almost identical dream life that we all aspire to (and as I write that, I am reminded of the book "Brave New World", where hypnosis is used to teach sleeping children what kind of life they will enjoy as an adult, thus vast swathes of people grow up to want the same things out of life).
Yet however unattractive we are encouraged to believe the alternatives are, there are at least alternatives. In 1984, there was no freedom to choose. There was not even the illusion of that freedom. If I were to be especially cynical I would say that we do have the oldest and most basic right of free people; the freedom to be destitute. That would, however, be misleading. We do have that freedom which was denied to Winston (historically, we probably have more freedom than at any other point in history), it's just that few of us choose to exercise it. In respect of work I believe that we do have control of our lives. It's just that most of us have chosen to abdicate responsibility for making that choice.
In the world of leisure time, we are certainly not trapped in the 1984 nightmare. Again, we have more leisure time now than at any other time in the history of mankind. There are restrictions on what we may choose to do with our time that we may not like (anti-drug laws continue to place a paternalistic straightjacket on how one chooses to spend ones own time, and those bleating idiots who bray their mindless refrain of "drugs are for losers" are probably the most totalitarian types that one can encounter; their "I don't like it ergo no-one should" attitude is typical of the unimaginative and the intolerant. If you don't like it, no problem; nobody is forcing you to. So stop forcing others not to), but by and large we are left to our own devices on the condition that we do not cause any harm to others.
If there is a problem with our leisure time, it is that we ourselves do not make enough use of it. This is our life and our responsibility. Yet when I have heard (and made) complaints about any aspect of my spare time, it is rare for the blame to land at ones own door. If one is not happy with an aspect of ones life outside of work, then surely it is up to us to try and remedy that?
Finally we have our love lives and our friends. This was and still is the most abhorrent aspect of 1984 for me; the gradual destruction of the social bonding structures that we would recognise in society and the replacement of them with loyalty only to Big Brother. Winston had no friends, only acquaintances whom he feared as possible informers. We do not have that in our lives (or at least, not in modern western society; Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and pretty much anybody's Russia all featured this entertainingly unpleasant addition to their social lives). We are free to make friends and enemies as we see fit. I've never felt forced to like somebody whom I could have cheerfully shot, nor do I feel any pressure to hate somebody to whom I am indifferent. The prejudices that do exist in society (racism and sexism being at the top of the scale, PC-manufactured bias' such as weightism at the very bottom) are all a matter of personal choice and although we may occasionally feel pressure to 'fit in' by taking on the prejudices of a peer group, there is no cage of rats attached to our face that forces us to do so.
As to our love lives...well, if I were going to make a complaint about this it would be that we have rather too much freedom of choice. Not because of things like the soaring divorce rate (which I care little about; I'm in favour of renewable marriage contracts as a valid solution to this problem), but because I'm still pissed off that my girlfriend dumped me. Grrrr....
But joking aside, no-one can realistically say that this aspect of our life is out of our control unless we choose to hand over control of it (i.e. by picking one of the various flavours of religion that seek to tell you what to do in the bedroom). Winston and Julia didn't really love each other. Their relationship was an act of rebellion against the state and so had little to do with their feelings for each other. I'm not going to be so smug as to say that if they were truly in love then they would not have betrayed each other, because I am in general agreement with the cliché that you always hurt the one you love. But their sexual encounters were as close as one could get to romance in a world where the only love that existed was the love of power. Whilst that love plays a large part in the real world, it is certainly not to the exclusion of everything else. Speaking personally, although I think that love is hard work I also think that it gives us the most joy out of life. It makes life a lot more worthwhile and rewarding than it would otherwise be. If today's world really were like the one inhabited by Winston and Julia, no-one would even understand what that joy meant. So maybe we are not making the most of our life, but we are most emphatically not the dead.
"We are the Dead"
That line, from Orwell's 1984, is Winston and Julia's acceptance that they have no hope in life. In the context of the whole book, we later find out that although they were quite correct when they said it, they didn't really know what they meant or what the implications of that statement were. It takes continuous physical and psychological torture at the hands of O'Brien (the strangely charismatic and, by our standards, quite insane Inner Party member) for Winston Smith to truly appreciate that it is not just he and Julia who fall into this joyless category. It is everyone outside of the ruling inner party. The Proles, the outer party, the continually warring factions; everything exists solely for the benefit of those privileged few who have control over their own lives. Everyone else may just as well be a walking corpse for all the independence that they are allowed.
1984 is probably my favourite piece of literature of all time. A chilling warning about the inherent inhumanity of totalitarianism (although very much a product of post WWII UK in tone), it is a bleak view of a bleak future that, happily, has not come to pass. Or at least, certainly not in the unremittingly grim fashion that Orwell predicted. The basic fear that Orwell expressed was of a dystopian world where we no longer have control of our own lives; a return to the medieval times of total slavery to a privileged caste. The hellish Party of 1984 kept the population servile by convincing them that they were actually happy with their lot (they did so by numerous methods that, if I were to detail them here would take up more than even you have the patience to read...), and being as how my mind works the way it does (i.e. in a rather rambling and slightly neurotic fashion) I've found myself wondering if the same could be said of us.
Do we have control of our own lives, or are we little more than serfs who have been distracted from our servitude by pretty baubles and garish soap opera’s. Obviously, one cannot look at the minutiae of everybody's everyday life, so you'll forgive me if I break our lives down into these nice, easy to remember sections; work, play, and love (by which I mean both friendships and sex. In some cases both...).
I've always believed in getting the bad news out of the way first, so let's have a look at work. This is the area that many who believe that we are already living in a world of shit tend to hold up as proof of their belief. And in truth, it's probably not too difficult to see where they're coming from. Very few people are spending their working life in a job that they feel valued and which bolsters rather than knocks lumps out of their self-esteem. But whose fault is that? To a certain extent it is the fault of society (and, by implication, those at the top of the heap who shape society to suit their needs). We are encouraged to get some sort of 9-5 job, though of course we are all encouraged to get the best paid job available. Modern life compounds the pressure; we need money to pay the bills and to live a comfortable life. Our own fear of poverty is probably the final factor involved; we are told that we need to live a certain lifestyle and, good little drones that we are, we try our best to do so. To opt out of the rat-race is (unless you are fortunate, wealthy, talented, lucky, or for preference, all four) to kiss goodbye to the bland and almost identical dream life that we all aspire to (and as I write that, I am reminded of the book "Brave New World", where hypnosis is used to teach sleeping children what kind of life they will enjoy as an adult, thus vast swathes of people grow up to want the same things out of life).
Yet however unattractive we are encouraged to believe the alternatives are, there are at least alternatives. In 1984, there was no freedom to choose. There was not even the illusion of that freedom. If I were to be especially cynical I would say that we do have the oldest and most basic right of free people; the freedom to be destitute. That would, however, be misleading. We do have that freedom which was denied to Winston (historically, we probably have more freedom than at any other point in history), it's just that few of us choose to exercise it. In respect of work I believe that we do have control of our lives. It's just that most of us have chosen to abdicate responsibility for making that choice.
In the world of leisure time, we are certainly not trapped in the 1984 nightmare. Again, we have more leisure time now than at any other time in the history of mankind. There are restrictions on what we may choose to do with our time that we may not like (anti-drug laws continue to place a paternalistic straightjacket on how one chooses to spend ones own time, and those bleating idiots who bray their mindless refrain of "drugs are for losers" are probably the most totalitarian types that one can encounter; their "I don't like it ergo no-one should" attitude is typical of the unimaginative and the intolerant. If you don't like it, no problem; nobody is forcing you to. So stop forcing others not to), but by and large we are left to our own devices on the condition that we do not cause any harm to others.
If there is a problem with our leisure time, it is that we ourselves do not make enough use of it. This is our life and our responsibility. Yet when I have heard (and made) complaints about any aspect of my spare time, it is rare for the blame to land at ones own door. If one is not happy with an aspect of ones life outside of work, then surely it is up to us to try and remedy that?
Finally we have our love lives and our friends. This was and still is the most abhorrent aspect of 1984 for me; the gradual destruction of the social bonding structures that we would recognise in society and the replacement of them with loyalty only to Big Brother. Winston had no friends, only acquaintances whom he feared as possible informers. We do not have that in our lives (or at least, not in modern western society; Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and pretty much anybody's Russia all featured this entertainingly unpleasant addition to their social lives). We are free to make friends and enemies as we see fit. I've never felt forced to like somebody whom I could have cheerfully shot, nor do I feel any pressure to hate somebody to whom I am indifferent. The prejudices that do exist in society (racism and sexism being at the top of the scale, PC-manufactured bias' such as weightism at the very bottom) are all a matter of personal choice and although we may occasionally feel pressure to 'fit in' by taking on the prejudices of a peer group, there is no cage of rats attached to our face that forces us to do so.
As to our love lives...well, if I were going to make a complaint about this it would be that we have rather too much freedom of choice. Not because of things like the soaring divorce rate (which I care little about; I'm in favour of renewable marriage contracts as a valid solution to this problem), but because I'm still pissed off that my girlfriend dumped me. Grrrr....
But joking aside, no-one can realistically say that this aspect of our life is out of our control unless we choose to hand over control of it (i.e. by picking one of the various flavours of religion that seek to tell you what to do in the bedroom). Winston and Julia didn't really love each other. Their relationship was an act of rebellion against the state and so had little to do with their feelings for each other. I'm not going to be so smug as to say that if they were truly in love then they would not have betrayed each other, because I am in general agreement with the cliché that you always hurt the one you love. But their sexual encounters were as close as one could get to romance in a world where the only love that existed was the love of power. Whilst that love plays a large part in the real world, it is certainly not to the exclusion of everything else. Speaking personally, although I think that love is hard work I also think that it gives us the most joy out of life. It makes life a lot more worthwhile and rewarding than it would otherwise be. If today's world really were like the one inhabited by Winston and Julia, no-one would even understand what that joy meant. So maybe we are not making the most of our life, but we are most emphatically not the dead.
Monday, 21 October 2002
The Bali Bomb
Unlike 9/11 and 7/7, the Bali bomb has been pretty much forgotten here. Clearly it needed a snappy, date-based acronym.
Well, once again we find terrorism is taking up a large amount of space in the news. And for once, America is pretty much uninvolved (apart from one or two spectacularly paranoid conspiracy theories which I'll return to later). A terrorist bomb exploded in Bali last week and, in doing so, reopened the War on Terror debate in earnest. This time Australia claimed the lion’s share of the grief arising from this tragedy. However, as on September 11th, Al-Quaida and their numerous affiliates are being (probably rightly) blamed although no statements have been made by the terrorists to confirm this. So where do we now stand in this stop-start war? Is this a case of "Another day, another atrocity" or is it likely to galvanise those opposed to terrorism into some sort of action other than invading a secular nation that has bugger all to do with sponsoring religious, ideologically led terrorists?
It would seem logical to firstly examine the reaction in Australia. Naturally, a mixture of grief and anger was the immediate reaction. Bali was a popular holiday destination for young Australians and so there have been numerous headlines of the "losing the flower of our youth" type. However, one of the main reactions seems to have been "This bomb is proof that we should have no part of the War on Terror". Now I'm not exactly Pro-Dubya. And I think his little war is nothing more than a cack-handed grab for oil. But leaving aside my distaste for Dubya's warmongering, I'm not sure I agree with the aforementioned Australian reaction at all.
Perhaps it's because I grew up in the UK during the 80's, when bombings by the IRA and INLA were a weekly occurrence. And maybe it's because I grew up in Thatcher's Britain, where the idea of surrender to terror was simply unthinkable. But whatever the reason, it makes those Australians who believe the Balinese bomb was their cue to back off the terrorists sound cowed and beaten to my mind. I'm not arguing the point that the American led War on Terror is a bullshit exercise. What I am arguing is that the people that they are ostensibly fighting the war against, Al-Quaida, are just as big a bunch of bastards as the American government are. Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely amending my position here; I still believe that sorting out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the only way to get peace in the Middle East. But just as the US government is being hijacked by stupid old men who want a war to bolster their self esteem, the leadership of the terrorist network is full of equally stupid old men who want a war for exactly the same reasons. Peace in the Middle East won't stop these few hardline terrorists, but it will rob them of their recruiting grounds. Backing down at the first sign of trouble is giving in to the latter group of idiots. Supporting a war on terror on ones own terms and not those dictated by the US is not necessarily giving in to the former.
And then we have Bali itself. Currently, the Indonesian authorities (who, for the record, are as large a bunch of totalitarian, militaristic, corrupt scum as one could possibly hope to avoid) are placing the blame on a gentleman named Abu Bakr Bashir. He is a Moslem cleric and is noted for being something of a radical. So radical in fact that he and his followers have been linked to numerous bombs in Indonesia over the last few years. However, as none of these bombs killed Westerners and as the only fatalities were Indonesian civilians whom even their own government don't care about, you could be forgiven for never having heard of him or his alleged terrorist activities.
As a side note, I do have to express a certain amount of admiration for Bashir for his intelligent use of the media in the aftermath of the bombing. He gave an interview where he stated that people in the employ of the American government planted the bomb. His logic for this was that America had recently issued warnings to its citizens not to travel to Indonesia. Never mind the fact that America has all but warned it's citizens that anyone outside of it's borders is an evil foreigner and not to be trusted. Never mind the fact that most Western nations remain uneasy about Indonesia due to its history of breathtakingly violent civil uprisings. Never mind the fact that a supposedly Moslem terror group will almost certainly have had few qualms about planting a bomb on a predominantly Hindu island. What Bashir has done here is tap into that vein of American thought that states that all of the bad things in the world are the fault of the US government.
I believe I've commented before on that brand of small mindedness that is incapable of accepting that there is a world outside of America, and that there are people there who are just as blinkered, selfish, and destructive as any US President. Now that Bashir has opened Pandora's Box, you can bet that there will be any number of emotionally stunted Americans who will leap to the defense of Bashir (who may well have nothing to do with the bombing for all anyone knows) and once more bray their idiot refrain that all bad things in the world are the fault of America. Again I should stress; I'm not trying to say that the hands of angels touch everything America does. I'm saying that there are terrorists who are warlike and bent on destruction as well.
America itself has barely figured in the reportage of the bomb in Bali. Aside from committing FBI resources to the investigation it has done little apart from making an effort to say that the bomb "proved that we're right in wanting to invade Iraq". Erm....how, exactly? Not long after Dubya made his speech saying that their was clear evidence linking Iraq to Al-Quaida, the CIA released a statement saying that they were not aware of any such evidence. The fact that the people of the American capital are currently living in an ecstasy of fear due to a sniper dealing with his/her personal issues in a very public way (there has even been credible speculation that the sniper is a terrorist. Personally I think it's the blokes from the Grassy Knoll; they haven't taken kindly to being pensioned off and so they're taking their revenge!) whilst their President tries to whip up support for his land grab hasn't helped Dubya's approval rating, so the sloppy attempt to link Bali with Iraq hasn't gone down at all well thus far.
All in all, the bomb in Bali has given the Indonesian authorities a mandate to be even more oppressive. It has given John Howard, the right wing (in the British Conservative style of right wing, i.e. an unpleasant bigot) PM of Australia, a chance to prove his hard line credentials. And it has given me another reason to point at Dubya and laugh at him until there are tears in my eyes. But it has given the terrorists a victory in that a wave of fear has once more swept over the western world. As far as I can see, it was one more step toward polarising the world into 2 opposing camps. Somewhere, there are some rich, stupid old men cackling at the way things are shaping up.
Well, once again we find terrorism is taking up a large amount of space in the news. And for once, America is pretty much uninvolved (apart from one or two spectacularly paranoid conspiracy theories which I'll return to later). A terrorist bomb exploded in Bali last week and, in doing so, reopened the War on Terror debate in earnest. This time Australia claimed the lion’s share of the grief arising from this tragedy. However, as on September 11th, Al-Quaida and their numerous affiliates are being (probably rightly) blamed although no statements have been made by the terrorists to confirm this. So where do we now stand in this stop-start war? Is this a case of "Another day, another atrocity" or is it likely to galvanise those opposed to terrorism into some sort of action other than invading a secular nation that has bugger all to do with sponsoring religious, ideologically led terrorists?
It would seem logical to firstly examine the reaction in Australia. Naturally, a mixture of grief and anger was the immediate reaction. Bali was a popular holiday destination for young Australians and so there have been numerous headlines of the "losing the flower of our youth" type. However, one of the main reactions seems to have been "This bomb is proof that we should have no part of the War on Terror". Now I'm not exactly Pro-Dubya. And I think his little war is nothing more than a cack-handed grab for oil. But leaving aside my distaste for Dubya's warmongering, I'm not sure I agree with the aforementioned Australian reaction at all.
Perhaps it's because I grew up in the UK during the 80's, when bombings by the IRA and INLA were a weekly occurrence. And maybe it's because I grew up in Thatcher's Britain, where the idea of surrender to terror was simply unthinkable. But whatever the reason, it makes those Australians who believe the Balinese bomb was their cue to back off the terrorists sound cowed and beaten to my mind. I'm not arguing the point that the American led War on Terror is a bullshit exercise. What I am arguing is that the people that they are ostensibly fighting the war against, Al-Quaida, are just as big a bunch of bastards as the American government are. Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely amending my position here; I still believe that sorting out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the only way to get peace in the Middle East. But just as the US government is being hijacked by stupid old men who want a war to bolster their self esteem, the leadership of the terrorist network is full of equally stupid old men who want a war for exactly the same reasons. Peace in the Middle East won't stop these few hardline terrorists, but it will rob them of their recruiting grounds. Backing down at the first sign of trouble is giving in to the latter group of idiots. Supporting a war on terror on ones own terms and not those dictated by the US is not necessarily giving in to the former.
And then we have Bali itself. Currently, the Indonesian authorities (who, for the record, are as large a bunch of totalitarian, militaristic, corrupt scum as one could possibly hope to avoid) are placing the blame on a gentleman named Abu Bakr Bashir. He is a Moslem cleric and is noted for being something of a radical. So radical in fact that he and his followers have been linked to numerous bombs in Indonesia over the last few years. However, as none of these bombs killed Westerners and as the only fatalities were Indonesian civilians whom even their own government don't care about, you could be forgiven for never having heard of him or his alleged terrorist activities.
As a side note, I do have to express a certain amount of admiration for Bashir for his intelligent use of the media in the aftermath of the bombing. He gave an interview where he stated that people in the employ of the American government planted the bomb. His logic for this was that America had recently issued warnings to its citizens not to travel to Indonesia. Never mind the fact that America has all but warned it's citizens that anyone outside of it's borders is an evil foreigner and not to be trusted. Never mind the fact that most Western nations remain uneasy about Indonesia due to its history of breathtakingly violent civil uprisings. Never mind the fact that a supposedly Moslem terror group will almost certainly have had few qualms about planting a bomb on a predominantly Hindu island. What Bashir has done here is tap into that vein of American thought that states that all of the bad things in the world are the fault of the US government.
I believe I've commented before on that brand of small mindedness that is incapable of accepting that there is a world outside of America, and that there are people there who are just as blinkered, selfish, and destructive as any US President. Now that Bashir has opened Pandora's Box, you can bet that there will be any number of emotionally stunted Americans who will leap to the defense of Bashir (who may well have nothing to do with the bombing for all anyone knows) and once more bray their idiot refrain that all bad things in the world are the fault of America. Again I should stress; I'm not trying to say that the hands of angels touch everything America does. I'm saying that there are terrorists who are warlike and bent on destruction as well.
America itself has barely figured in the reportage of the bomb in Bali. Aside from committing FBI resources to the investigation it has done little apart from making an effort to say that the bomb "proved that we're right in wanting to invade Iraq". Erm....how, exactly? Not long after Dubya made his speech saying that their was clear evidence linking Iraq to Al-Quaida, the CIA released a statement saying that they were not aware of any such evidence. The fact that the people of the American capital are currently living in an ecstasy of fear due to a sniper dealing with his/her personal issues in a very public way (there has even been credible speculation that the sniper is a terrorist. Personally I think it's the blokes from the Grassy Knoll; they haven't taken kindly to being pensioned off and so they're taking their revenge!) whilst their President tries to whip up support for his land grab hasn't helped Dubya's approval rating, so the sloppy attempt to link Bali with Iraq hasn't gone down at all well thus far.
All in all, the bomb in Bali has given the Indonesian authorities a mandate to be even more oppressive. It has given John Howard, the right wing (in the British Conservative style of right wing, i.e. an unpleasant bigot) PM of Australia, a chance to prove his hard line credentials. And it has given me another reason to point at Dubya and laugh at him until there are tears in my eyes. But it has given the terrorists a victory in that a wave of fear has once more swept over the western world. As far as I can see, it was one more step toward polarising the world into 2 opposing camps. Somewhere, there are some rich, stupid old men cackling at the way things are shaping up.
Thursday, 26 September 2002
Revenge
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.
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.
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)