Sitting with friends and family on New Years Eve 1999 having a good time & toasting the good times to come in the 21st Century, if someone had told me what changes would ring during the first two decades of this bold new venture I would not have believed them. In fact I probably would have laughed! Back then I was (mistakenly?) full of hope and optimism. I had just turned 40, so I couldn't exactly call it the folly of youth, but from where I sit today that's certainly what it feels like right now.
First we had 9/11, then George 'Dubya' and the War on Terror, the Iraqi insurgency and subsequent rise of ISIS, all this and we were barely halfway through the first decade! Then 8 short years ago hope was rekindled in the form of Barack Obama and I think many of us thought that we (the human race, that is) had perhaps turned a corner. If America can vote in a black President - a black President - then maybe all wasn't lost despite the horrors we were witnessing on our TV screens and increasingly on our mobiles. I remember how I cried watching Obama give his acceptance speech, and then shortly afterwards his inaugural address! It would all be okay! The human race has finally come to it's senses - the most powerful man in the world was someone to whom we could relate to, someone who (after reading his books) understood the realities of everyday life, someone who genuinely seemed like a good guy!
But it was a false dawn! We'd all been hoodwinked, not by Obama, but by the American political system. Any good Obama tried to do was stymied by a jealous and resentful Republican Congress and we, (the people) as time passed, began to see how the President himself wielded very little direct power in order to fulfil his pledges. Without the backing of the representatives in the Congress nothing it seemed was possible. Across the States we now see the direct result of that Republican policy of nullification; disenchantment, disenfranchisement and a population that has turned it's head away from the Political mid-line to face, more or less directly, to the right.
The most shocking and nasty election campaign that I can remember has now left us with the wholly divisive President Trump, a damning indictment on the legacy of Barack Obama (I am very sad to say). In the end for Obama, being a nice, good guy just didn't get the job done it seems, and so America turned away from warmth of Obama's fire to let in the cold chill and frosty ideas of Donald Trump and I, for one, am scared. Scared, not just for America and what it now will mean to be an American in the wider context of the rest of the world (who I can bet are largely shaking their heads in disbelief), but scared for the planet as a whole. If Trump, for example, manages to rip up the Paris accord as he has pledged to do, climate change will undoubtedly speed up. If the world's biggest polluter turns it's back on the overwhelming scientific evidence and opts out then we really are a doomed race, with perhaps the saddest part being that we will doom many innocent species to the dustbin of extinction in our wake. Other nations will follow where America goes and before we know it there won't be any coral reefs to dive on; hurricanes and typhoons will be get stronger and stronger until the annual destruction and despair they bring overwhelms us; localised patterns of drought and flooding will be expounded and multiplied until large parts of our planet become uninhabitable. And so on....! Of course, we won't see these effects during Trump's Presidency or possibly even during his lifetime, but his children will; our children will, because we are right now on a razors edge climatically and all it will take is one little push in the wrong direction to set us all down the path of no return. This isn't just scary, it's downright criminal, but it's what America has likely done for us all yesterday. Bye bye world as we know it!
And that's just one aspect of the potential disasters that may well unfold over the next 4 years. Don't even start me on the Russian expansion programme that (I've no doubt) Putin will have in mind as Trump crumbles the NATO alliance and opens us all up the possibilities of a second Cold War (and possibly even more) that promises to be a whole lot warmer than the first! Or how his 'straight talking' foreign policies will alienate every Muslim nation and lead to a putative rise in global terrorism. Or how his ideas on immigration will isolate America, as well as making Americans persona non grata outside of the States.
Really, I could go on all day, but you know all the arguments. The upshot is that the world changed today and, in my opinion, not for the better! Now we all just have to stand back, spectate and hope against hope that the worst doesn't happen.
Fingers crossed for us all!
Wednesday 9 November 2016
Sunday 26 June 2016
I had a Brexit dream...!
I went to bed Friday evening, post-Brexit, feeling deflated, as if I’d lost part of myself somewhere in that divisive referendum. It was a hot night and as I tossed and turned trying to cede to sleep and failing dismally the same thoughts of doom and gloom kept going round and round in my head, riding a carousel of disaster called the Sinking British Ship, and with each tired revolution my eyes ached more and my heart sank lower. “The young, the young! What about the young?” was the mournful cry lurching out of the sweaty darkness in a voice that grew weaker with every cry, as if the wailing vocal chords were being sliced through one at a time until they could be heard no more.
Three o’clock, then four, and still my heart sank until I felt the breeze on my face cooling me down. I was moving, not fast at first, but it was me that was moving through the air I realised, not the air moving over me. Perhaps I was on my bike. It seemed plausible. The rush of air over my face now was strong enough that I couldn’t hear anything else but the roar of wind resistance as I moved through the air at gathering speed. I reached up and felt for my helmet but it wasn’t there! Just to be sure I looked down at my feet expecting to see my cycling cleats locked into my machine but instead I saw nothing.
My feet were there; my legs too, as was the constant deafening rush of air filling my ears. I was moving but I wasn’t on my bike. I was flying and my feet were brushing clouds of nothingness as I looked around to see where I was to try and gain some perspective. I seemed to be flying through sheer force of will. I wanted to, so I was. If I wanted more speed I just thought it and there it was; a sort of cerebraccelerator. I wasn’t sure where I was but there was no sense of fear or panic. There were trees below me now and rolling landscape over which I soared with no effort at all.
I became aware that I was asleep, finally lost in my dreams, the overbearing tiredness of earlier and the feelings of despair were no more; they had been blown away. I had outstripped them through sheer speed. I was flying, not like Superman by using my strength against the irresistible force of gravity, but by simply knowing that I could. I was dreaming and I knew it and anything was possible.
I banked slightly to the right and as I slowed down I could discern what appeared to be towers with a shimmering globe rising above swirling mists. Enjoying the free-flowing control my subconscious had given me over my movements I decided to investigate and as I came closer the mists lifted and flying buttresses abutting an imposing edifice reared up. This was a place I knew by sight though I had never visited it in my waking hours.
The Hagia Sofia is magnificent. I had pawed over images of it a thousand times and knew it’s shape and contours well; now it seemed I was to know how it felt to stand under the great dome. There was the glittering Bosphorus and to my left lay the Sea of Marmara, while directly below me sat Acropolis point, the very tip of the Golden Horn, and I spied the impressive barricade of the Theodosian wall lining the Horn like a huge, heavy necklace. A gap in the wall indicated the Eugenius gate from where the Byzantines had strung the great chain intended to keep out the ships of the marauding Ottomans of Mehmet’s army during the great siege. Now I knew not only where I was, but also when. Straining my eyes I looked now to my right for the ends of Europe and the Genoese enclave of Galata but it seemed even my subconscious had limits and it was nowhere to be seen.
 |
| The Hagia Sofia, Istanbul |
Without thinking about it I knew it was 1453, the year the crumbling Byzantine empire was put to the sword though as I fluttered down, flying just above the florid rooftops of indiscernible houses, I could see no signs of violence. The sound of a muezzin calling the faithful to prayer hung in the air like a mystical magnet pulling me down to earth.
I landed softly unaware whether I was invisible or just another man among the many. I was somehow beneath the great dome now, the huge, graceful columns and porticoed galleries soared above me, giant discs of azur blue wrought with gold calligraphy detailing Koranic verses hung conspicuously from the first gallery like incongruous badges on a Janissary’s chest. All around me men in traditional Arab garb were talking in small groups in guttural tones that were incoherent to me. I remember wondering at the time if they were truly speaking Arabic or just some hotch-potch of my imagination.
I walked around, apparently unnoticed, peering into the dark corners of my subconscious, as if I were testing the depths of my fantasy. I wasn’t sure what, or who I was looking for, but I looked nonetheless and then sitting cross-legged in a dank recess sat a young man whose eye caught mine. His face was partially hidden beneath a cowl and it was dark but there remained something familiar, yet oddly distant in his look. I think I did a double take, aware for the first time that someone was looking back at me and as our eyes met again his features suddenly became clear. I smiled. I think I’d been looking for Mehmet, but maybe I had no clear image in my head of what he may look like, so instead I found Percy Jackson!
He gave me a conspiratorial grin then from beneath his cloak he pulled out a magic wand and holding it aloft he began chanting what I presumed to be a spell of some sort!
 |
| Percy Jackson! How did he get in my head? |
But hang on a minute! Even in my dream state I knew something wasn’t right. Harry Potter has a wand, not Percy Jackson, but try as I might I couldn’t remember what he had in it’s stead. Then a bolt of light shot from the wand and I followed it up high above my head. The domes and porticos had disappeared; so it seemed had the Hagia Sofia, because the beam of light was swallowed up by a woody canopy of giant trees that threw great fingers of timber across a night sky hundreds of feet above my head.
I looked about me wondering where all the Turks had gone and how I had missed sundown. Percy stood up and as he did men in black uniforms flew down out of the darkness on magic carpets, bren guns slung over their shoulders. I was having a great time and I think I began to laugh just as Percy bundled me over and the metallic ricochet of bullets sprayed all around me. Percy raised his wand again and another bolt of light shot out as one of the men on carpets vapourised, his machine gun falling at my feet.
I picked it up fully aware that I’d never held a gun of any description before, but it all seemed quite natural and far from being scared I think I was exhilarated. I fired, standing shoulder to shoulder with Percy Jackson as the black uniformed men, who I had assumed by now were bent with an evil intent, dropped like flies all about us.
All of a sudden I was aloft again, but this time riding high on some sort of flying banana boat. Percy was sitting in front of me, looking back over his shoulder and beaming like a Cheshire cat. I wanted to ask who those men were but before I had a chance he told me, “Right wingers!” he said, “Bloody Nazi’s!”
“Shit!” I said. “And who’s that?” I asked as I pointed to some more flighty figures zooming out of the sunlight above us. It was apparently daytime again and my dream was moving apace.
“I’m not sure!” said Percy, “Perhaps they’re Eurosceptics?”
“Brexiteers?” I asked.
“Think so! Have they got weapons?”
“No, no! I think they’re waving ballot papers!”
“Shit! I’m out!” And with that he faded away into the backwaters of my mind, leaving me alone on my flying sausage wondering where the hell I was headed. Paper planes made out of referendum ballot papers whizzed past my ears and around my head, sucking me down into a vortex of despair as I fell from the skies in a tempest of ‘remain’ votes that no longer flew.
 |
| Sunny boy! |
A gentle humming awoke me! My face was wet and my chest heavy. Sunny, my lovely pusscat was sitting across my neck, a living, breathing stole, and he was purring, hungry and licking my face!
“Sunny! You want brekky boy?”
He purred his agreement. I got up, yawning, still tired and knowing full well I hardly slept. The sun was just coming up, poking its’ orange brow above the horizon and as I set the kettle to boil I pondered the meaning or significance of my dream as Sunny gulped his fishy breakfast greedily at my feet.
Saturday 11 June 2016
Why Donald Trump is so Dangerous for America and Americans.
I've got a big problem with Donald Trump & anyone who has followed any of my twitter posts to or about him will know this. On a personal level there is no particular animosity; my problem is that Trump has transcended the personal to become a public figure and therein lies my problem. Were he not running for the most powerful seat in World politics I wouldn't care what he said, but he is and so I do!
Now, as much as it might irk many Britons to admit it, the United States is the most powerful, influential nation on earth right now and, barring planetary catastrophes, will probably remain so for the rest of my, and probably your lifetime, so who is in the Oval Office has a bearing on most everyone's life in some way or other, no matter how strong or oblique that influence may be.
People, groups, institutions, even whole nations look to the US to lead the way; how America does things, any things, can be hugely influential, though I do believe that level of influence has fallen somewhat since the turn of the century, particularly since 9/11. Nevertheless, America remains, for good or bad, the most powerful and influential nation on earth.
It's not just that the US has the largest economy, though that obviously helps (the US extend their reach), America's media (in all it's forms) has an enormous, almost overriding influence on current and (near) future trends, be they political, financial or something more aesthetic and obscure like fashion, music, movies, even down to what we eat, even what we say. Most of the biggest corporations in the world are American (e.g. Google, Facebook, McDonalds) and their say in what and how we live our lives is huge, albeit often unseen and unrecognised. American's are by far the best at marketing, be that an idea, a concept, a product, a TV programme, a movie, a clothes chain, a coffee house, or even an individual. Witness the outpourings of grief around the world following the sad passing of Muhammad Ali, who was undoubtedly a great boxer and a great man, but did we see similar grief and recognition when Mother Teresa died? No, nothing like. So is Muhammad Ali more, or less great than Mother Teresa? That's not for me to say, but perhaps Ali's passing has brought forth such outpourings because he was American and because of that, one way or another, his heavily marketed life touched many people indirectly in so many ways, mine included, whereas that of Mother Teresa touched only the lives of the relatively few that she directly interacted with.
Now, I'm not saying anything against Ali - heaven forbid - he was one of my great heroes (see my tribute here), but do you think he would have gained all the accolades he did during his remarkable life had he been born in...say, Ivory Coast? Or Kenya? I don't think so! Ali became great by virtue of the influence he had over so many people, an influence that was relayed to us via American TV, American news, American documentaries and American books, all of which filtered down into our own news, documentaries and books so that in the end Ali became part of our culture, be that British, French, African, whatever. He became great because he was (wittingly or not) marketed by the American media system and so his story reached the whole planet in a way that if he'd been from Kenya, it would not have done.
So, given that America has such a strong say in our lives, the man (or woman) in charge of America should be of interest to all of us, since he/she has a say either directly or indirectly in the lives of the vast majority of the people on the planet. Thus when a man like Trump, running for the Presidency of this most influential of nations says the things he does and behaves the way that he does, it should be of import to us all. The things he says, the way he does things, the way he treats people, races or religious groups becomes something that each and every one of us should be taking notice of, simply because of the influence that America holds over us. So when Trump disparages individuals because of their racial heritage, or their religious beliefs or their (lack of?) economic standing people take notice and follow his lead, particularly in America, but this filters down to all of us eventually, wherever we are via social media, TV or through simple conversation. His thoughtless, heartless bullying of anyone who rankles him, and the language he uses in doing so becomes hugely influential and for many it normalises such treatment, making it everyday and acceptable - after all, if a budding President can call women 'pigs' then it must be okay to treat women like that, right? If a budding President can call all Mexicans murderers and drug dealers then surely they are and should be treated as such, right? If a budding President can suggest that all Muslims are terrorists and should be banned from his country, then they must be and they should be regarded in that light, right?
But none of these things are okay, regardless of how true or untrue they may be. Nor is it okay to suggest that he would order US armed forces to kill every member of ISIS, including their families, despite the illegality of such. He gives no thought to the political consequences of such an action; the trampling of national sovereignties that would be needed in order to achieve such; the social consequences (in America and elsewhere) of ordering the murder of the citizens of other nations (who make up ISIS); the resultant psychological and social effects of such an order on the individuals within the US armed forces! But because a budding President says it's okay, then it must be okay, right? I can almost hear the clamour for such action amongst the gung-ho, NRA wielding sections of US society because Trump has deemed it acceptable and has made their wildest, flag waving, gun-toting fantasies a near reality.
And do know what, for the rest of us, it's bloody scary! The man himself is far from scary; he's more a parody of everything that America shouldn't stand for! He's racist, he's prejudiced, he's lewd, he's sexist and he's a bully. No, the man himself is a bit of a joke. It's what he says that's scary! And it's the possible consequences of what he says, should he win out, that are more scary still.
This is a man who speaks without thought for the consequences, who opens his mouth, throws out his wayward, often contradictory opinions before he's engaged his brain, then tries to get out of it afterwards by saying 'my comments were misconstrued!' Is this really the man we want with his finger on the button, who could just as easily start a nuclear war and then apologise after the fact saying that it wasn't what he meant, and he has no problem with Muslims, or Hispanics or whoever it is he had accidentally blown up!
This is a man who could antagonise half of the planet with his tawdry, poorly thought out opinions and make life unbearably hard for American's living or trying to do business outside of the US because, like it or not, human nature dictates that if the leader of nation holds such low-level views of non-white, non-Christian Americans, then every American, good or bad, holds the same antagonistic opinions. Far from making America great again, this is a man that could utterly destroy America's reputation and isolate the United States completely.
This is a man who doesn't believe in climate change and says that it's all scam by scientists designed to garner government funding for their little research and pet animal projects and as such would he blow the Paris accord out of the water, invest heavily in the toxic industries of oil and gas and coal, stop all funding to environmental agencies and disband all environmental research projects and yet, conversely, is building a wall to stop the ever encroaching sea as it erodes away his multi-million dollar golf course in Ireland.
This is a man within whom hypocrisy runs riot, contradictory opinions and values run hot and cold depending on where and to whom he's speaking. As Stephen Hawking says, this is a man who "appeals to the lower common denominator" and changes his tack and views as often as he changes his ties. This is a man who will say whatever he thinks the particular crowd wants to hear in order to win their vote, heedless of the facts, the truth or what he may have said before. The fact that so many of his fellow Republicans can throw their support behind this despicable man shows just how desperate the GOP is to win the November election. That Paul Ryan can be so aware of how racist and inflammatory Trump is and yet still say he backs him highlights just how desperate the GOP are for power after 8 years in the doldrums.
It stinks and the smell is pervading the whole of American politics, demonstrating just how fake, partisan and yes, political it has all become. Doing or saying the right thing no longer seems to matter. The good old American adage of 'win at all costs' is rearing its' head and it's uglier than ever. Agree with them or not, there was nothing inherently 'wrong' with traditionally held Republican values, but just as some Muslims twist and contort the meaning of the Koran in order to inspire other (weak-minded) Muslims to commit terrible atrocities so Trump is twisting Republican values until they become all but unrecognisable.
This upcoming election campaign, when it begins in earnest, I fully believe will prove to be the most vitriolic, the most personal and the ugliest in living memory. In much the same way as the EU referendum in the UK is ripping the British political scene asunder until one wonders how any of the major parties will be able to move forward, post-referendum, whatever the result, I believe that this US election could well signal the end of American politics as we know it. Whether it will all lead in the end to a reduction in America's sphere of global influence is open to debate and will perhaps only be seen fully given sufficient time, but I do predict that America's image will be tarnished beyond repair by Trump unless some way can be found to muzzle and stop this man before he can do too much damage to the reputation of the nation he professes to love.
Have a good weekend, whatever your politics!
Now, as much as it might irk many Britons to admit it, the United States is the most powerful, influential nation on earth right now and, barring planetary catastrophes, will probably remain so for the rest of my, and probably your lifetime, so who is in the Oval Office has a bearing on most everyone's life in some way or other, no matter how strong or oblique that influence may be.
People, groups, institutions, even whole nations look to the US to lead the way; how America does things, any things, can be hugely influential, though I do believe that level of influence has fallen somewhat since the turn of the century, particularly since 9/11. Nevertheless, America remains, for good or bad, the most powerful and influential nation on earth.
It's not just that the US has the largest economy, though that obviously helps (the US extend their reach), America's media (in all it's forms) has an enormous, almost overriding influence on current and (near) future trends, be they political, financial or something more aesthetic and obscure like fashion, music, movies, even down to what we eat, even what we say. Most of the biggest corporations in the world are American (e.g. Google, Facebook, McDonalds) and their say in what and how we live our lives is huge, albeit often unseen and unrecognised. American's are by far the best at marketing, be that an idea, a concept, a product, a TV programme, a movie, a clothes chain, a coffee house, or even an individual. Witness the outpourings of grief around the world following the sad passing of Muhammad Ali, who was undoubtedly a great boxer and a great man, but did we see similar grief and recognition when Mother Teresa died? No, nothing like. So is Muhammad Ali more, or less great than Mother Teresa? That's not for me to say, but perhaps Ali's passing has brought forth such outpourings because he was American and because of that, one way or another, his heavily marketed life touched many people indirectly in so many ways, mine included, whereas that of Mother Teresa touched only the lives of the relatively few that she directly interacted with.
Now, I'm not saying anything against Ali - heaven forbid - he was one of my great heroes (see my tribute here), but do you think he would have gained all the accolades he did during his remarkable life had he been born in...say, Ivory Coast? Or Kenya? I don't think so! Ali became great by virtue of the influence he had over so many people, an influence that was relayed to us via American TV, American news, American documentaries and American books, all of which filtered down into our own news, documentaries and books so that in the end Ali became part of our culture, be that British, French, African, whatever. He became great because he was (wittingly or not) marketed by the American media system and so his story reached the whole planet in a way that if he'd been from Kenya, it would not have done.
 |
| My mate, the highly attractive Donald trump! |
So, given that America has such a strong say in our lives, the man (or woman) in charge of America should be of interest to all of us, since he/she has a say either directly or indirectly in the lives of the vast majority of the people on the planet. Thus when a man like Trump, running for the Presidency of this most influential of nations says the things he does and behaves the way that he does, it should be of import to us all. The things he says, the way he does things, the way he treats people, races or religious groups becomes something that each and every one of us should be taking notice of, simply because of the influence that America holds over us. So when Trump disparages individuals because of their racial heritage, or their religious beliefs or their (lack of?) economic standing people take notice and follow his lead, particularly in America, but this filters down to all of us eventually, wherever we are via social media, TV or through simple conversation. His thoughtless, heartless bullying of anyone who rankles him, and the language he uses in doing so becomes hugely influential and for many it normalises such treatment, making it everyday and acceptable - after all, if a budding President can call women 'pigs' then it must be okay to treat women like that, right? If a budding President can call all Mexicans murderers and drug dealers then surely they are and should be treated as such, right? If a budding President can suggest that all Muslims are terrorists and should be banned from his country, then they must be and they should be regarded in that light, right?
But none of these things are okay, regardless of how true or untrue they may be. Nor is it okay to suggest that he would order US armed forces to kill every member of ISIS, including their families, despite the illegality of such. He gives no thought to the political consequences of such an action; the trampling of national sovereignties that would be needed in order to achieve such; the social consequences (in America and elsewhere) of ordering the murder of the citizens of other nations (who make up ISIS); the resultant psychological and social effects of such an order on the individuals within the US armed forces! But because a budding President says it's okay, then it must be okay, right? I can almost hear the clamour for such action amongst the gung-ho, NRA wielding sections of US society because Trump has deemed it acceptable and has made their wildest, flag waving, gun-toting fantasies a near reality.
And do know what, for the rest of us, it's bloody scary! The man himself is far from scary; he's more a parody of everything that America shouldn't stand for! He's racist, he's prejudiced, he's lewd, he's sexist and he's a bully. No, the man himself is a bit of a joke. It's what he says that's scary! And it's the possible consequences of what he says, should he win out, that are more scary still.
This is a man who speaks without thought for the consequences, who opens his mouth, throws out his wayward, often contradictory opinions before he's engaged his brain, then tries to get out of it afterwards by saying 'my comments were misconstrued!' Is this really the man we want with his finger on the button, who could just as easily start a nuclear war and then apologise after the fact saying that it wasn't what he meant, and he has no problem with Muslims, or Hispanics or whoever it is he had accidentally blown up!
This is a man who could antagonise half of the planet with his tawdry, poorly thought out opinions and make life unbearably hard for American's living or trying to do business outside of the US because, like it or not, human nature dictates that if the leader of nation holds such low-level views of non-white, non-Christian Americans, then every American, good or bad, holds the same antagonistic opinions. Far from making America great again, this is a man that could utterly destroy America's reputation and isolate the United States completely.
This is a man who doesn't believe in climate change and says that it's all scam by scientists designed to garner government funding for their little research and pet animal projects and as such would he blow the Paris accord out of the water, invest heavily in the toxic industries of oil and gas and coal, stop all funding to environmental agencies and disband all environmental research projects and yet, conversely, is building a wall to stop the ever encroaching sea as it erodes away his multi-million dollar golf course in Ireland.
This is a man within whom hypocrisy runs riot, contradictory opinions and values run hot and cold depending on where and to whom he's speaking. As Stephen Hawking says, this is a man who "appeals to the lower common denominator" and changes his tack and views as often as he changes his ties. This is a man who will say whatever he thinks the particular crowd wants to hear in order to win their vote, heedless of the facts, the truth or what he may have said before. The fact that so many of his fellow Republicans can throw their support behind this despicable man shows just how desperate the GOP is to win the November election. That Paul Ryan can be so aware of how racist and inflammatory Trump is and yet still say he backs him highlights just how desperate the GOP are for power after 8 years in the doldrums.
It stinks and the smell is pervading the whole of American politics, demonstrating just how fake, partisan and yes, political it has all become. Doing or saying the right thing no longer seems to matter. The good old American adage of 'win at all costs' is rearing its' head and it's uglier than ever. Agree with them or not, there was nothing inherently 'wrong' with traditionally held Republican values, but just as some Muslims twist and contort the meaning of the Koran in order to inspire other (weak-minded) Muslims to commit terrible atrocities so Trump is twisting Republican values until they become all but unrecognisable.
This upcoming election campaign, when it begins in earnest, I fully believe will prove to be the most vitriolic, the most personal and the ugliest in living memory. In much the same way as the EU referendum in the UK is ripping the British political scene asunder until one wonders how any of the major parties will be able to move forward, post-referendum, whatever the result, I believe that this US election could well signal the end of American politics as we know it. Whether it will all lead in the end to a reduction in America's sphere of global influence is open to debate and will perhaps only be seen fully given sufficient time, but I do predict that America's image will be tarnished beyond repair by Trump unless some way can be found to muzzle and stop this man before he can do too much damage to the reputation of the nation he professes to love.
Have a good weekend, whatever your politics!
Thursday 19 May 2016
Stop Breathing that Air! It's over MY land!
Stop Breathing that Air! It's over MY Land!
A few days ago a meeting convened at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the world received it's 2015-16 report card, and guess what? We got a 'B,' which is actually better than the 'C' grade for last year.
So what's this all about? Well, it's a grade given to the world based on 'international cooperation' and is awarded by the Council of Councils (CoC), a global think tank of experts from leading institutions from 25 different countries. In their own words, the
"The Council of Councils is an international initiative to connect leading foreign policy institutes from around the world in a dialogue on issues of global governance and multilateral cooperation."
The meeting itself was very interesting and informative, but I hear you saying, so what? Why does the world need a report card? And I'd answer, that's a damn good question, and I'll do my best to give you a damn good answer!
Very quickly, these experts and their teams, 'evaluate multi-lateral efforts to address 10 of the world's most pressing challenges,' such as 'advancing global health, countering transnational terrorism' and 'mitigating and adapting to climate change,' and once evaluated each institution gives a grade (ranging A+, A, A- though to F giving a through range of 5 basic grades in total) for each challenge based on what they have witnessed, discovered or assessed to be the situation over the past year. Each challenge is then ranked (i.e. 1-10, with 10 of least importance) based on their take on the priority of importance to the world relative to the other challenges. The idea being that the governments of the world can then make policy decisions/adjustments based on the findings and we (the world) should then reap the benefits from their collective wisdom and policy changes!
For the full report and details of each challenge, how they are graded, etc, etc, etc, visit http://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/reportcard/#!/ I recommend it. It's a good read and well worth the time and effort to do so, even if it is a bit droll at times.
 |
| Much of the Middle East may become unlivable by 2050. |
Not surprisingly, given all the shit going on right now, the top 3 challenges are all to do with combating terrorism and dealing with conflict between states (e.g. Ukrainian conflict) and intra-state (e.g. Syrian civil war). No surprise there! A quick glance at the TV news each evening would probably be enough for us to nod our heads in agreement at those particular assessments. Number 4 on the list of worldwide priorities is the global economy and number 5 is 'mitigating and adapting to climate change,' and it's this challenge I'm going to look at in this blog today.
In last years report the 'climate' was given a 'C' grade so has in effect jumped two grades this year with 'A' mainly because of the 'COP21' Paris Agreement earlier this year and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the end of last year, both of which are deemed (by the Council) to be feather's in the cap of the fight against climate change! Furthermore, this 'challenge' also took the number 1 ranking in the 'hope for (further) progress' in the next year!
Now, I'm not an expert in climate change (despite a degree in Zoology and post-grad studies in ecology - see photo of macaques below), so far be it for me to disagree with the Council, but it would seem to me that they have vastly underestimated the relative importance of climate change to the world. Whilst I can fully understand the need to put the fights against terrorism and combating conflicts, even the world economy, ahead of climate change - after all they fill our newspapers and TV screens on a daily basis, maybe even keep us awake at night worrying about ever increasing bills, bomb threats, the safety of our kith and kin, the rate of inflation or how the mortgage will be paid - I still think the Council has got it wrong.
I would argue that terrorism and global conflicts were placed ahead of climate change based purely on political reasons and peer pressure and not on cold, clear logic, and here's why. For me it's quite simple, if we don't sort out the huge problems we face associated with climate change then everything else will eventually become irrelevant and redundant. For example, in the Middle East they're fighting over the right to occupy portions of land, or the placement of arbitrary lines on maps, or the right of one religious sect over another to tracts of land that, if climate change continues as it is, will become all but unlivable by 2050 due to rising temperatures that could make daytime temperatures of 40C an everyday occurrence and 50C a summertime norm! If we think the displacement of peoples from the Middle East is bad now, just wait....!
Just a cursory search taking no more than 5 minutes total yielded a whole bunch of potential environmental horrors - the World Bank says that 1.3bn people are at risk (due to climate change) at a cost to the global economy of ~$158tn; or in the last year alone the US has lost 50% of it's bees at a cost to the US economy of $10-15bn per annum; or the extinction of lake Urmia in Iran due to excessive dam building, broken political promises & poor attempts at modernisation; or the degradation of the Taj Mahal in India due to the proliferation of a mosquito-like insect that breeds excessively in the polluted waters of the Yamuna river and then deposits a green slime on the white walls which is exacerbated further by the darkening stains left by the thick air pollution of New Delhi; or the 200 families buried on Wednesday in Sri Lanka after an inundation caused huge landslides as a result of deforestation; or the fact that for 7 months in a row the global temperature has hit record highs, and what's more it's the 3rd month in a row that the record has been broken by the largest margin ever!!! It seems climate change is speeding up and that is really scary. Need I go on? I've got more, but to be frank it's all a bit depressing and more than a little bit worrying. All but 2 of those links are happening now. They are not predictions; they are facts!
 |
| These monkeys are from an indigenous sub-species of Japanese macaque that live only on the island of Yakushima, Japan, where renewable energy provides almost all electricity! |
And then I read an essay that said that people are sick of doomsday scenarios regarding climate change and that a different tack is needed to get people to take notice again. Well, okay then - so let's look at few positive examples to balance the equations a bit!
 |
| Wind turbines are commonplace all over Spain & provide 20% of national power needs. These ones sit atop mountains not far from where I live such that I cycle past them quite regularly. |
And there are many very encouraging and positive efforts being made around the globe. Many cities are confronting climate change head on by reducing their carbon footprint, divesting money away from fossil fuels and into greener investments, working towards energy sustainability through renewable energy sources, increasing their energy efficiency, encouraging the construction of greener houses/buildings and taking measures to actively reduce ambient pollution (e.g. San Francisco, Bogata, Copenhagen, Melbourne & many more).
Indeed Portugal is working towards 100% renewable energy consumption and ran last week for 3 days on electricity produced from solar and wind energy, and they are not alone. Denmark too is also close to zero emissions energy output (42% comes from wind power alone) and across Europe renewable energy sources are contributing more and more each year.
Wind power, however, is known to be a relatively inefficient producer of electricity, but there may now be answer for that too! In Tunisia Microsoft and a couple of investors from Pakistan are financing the 'Saphonian' machine; a new type of wind turbine that is 70% more efficient than traditional turbines and also far less costly to produce. The inventor, Anis Aouini, an ex-banker, says the Saphonian is still in the early development stages but if things go as planned then this technological advance could be 'as revolutionary as the invention of the wheel.'
So the world is fighting back but we all need to do our bit if we are going to save this wonderful place we all call home!
Have a tolerant, peaceful and an environmentally friendly day!
Friday 6 May 2016
Is Muqtada al-Sadr the answer to al-Abadi's prayers?
The political waters in Iraq remain muddied with Prime Minister Haidir al-Abadi still unable to form a government that is acceptable to all parties. After repeated attempts in April to establish a technocratic government, each of which has spectacularly failed, al-Abadi has called for a brief governmental recess, though quite what this will achieve is unclear. Meanwhile, frustrations among the people of Iraq with all political factions and religious sects are growing. In April a sit-in of MP's, largely from the Ahrar bloc and under the guidance of controversial Shi'ia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, voted to oust the speaker of the house, al-Jabouri and disband the government, but didn't in the end have enough votes for a quorum and al-Jabouri retained his seat. A subsequent protest in the Green-Zone outside the parliament buildings, again under the guidance of al-Sadr, led to the parliament building being stormed over the past weekend with further calls for al-Abadi to name yet another cabinet re-shuffle.
Muqtada al-Sadr is a name synonymous with all that was bad in Iraq shortly after the 2003 US led invasion. His violent, but failed attempts to impose an Islamic theocracy on Iraq through his Mehdi army led him to become one of the coalitions deadliest enemies during the insurgency.
Sadr comes from one of Iraq's most prominent religious families that can trace it's ancestry all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad. His father, Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, was one of the leaders of the Hawza, the Shia centre for religious seminaries and scholarship and was eventually gunned down (probably on the orders of Saddam Hussein) along with two of Muqtada's brothers in 1999, after which Muqtada took up the family mantle and began preaching against the US and Israel in his sermons, but nevertheless remained under close scrutiny by Hussein's security forces.
During the civil war (2006-2008) his militiamen were involved in some of the worst sectarian violence, but after a split in the Sadrist movement between the armed militia and the social strand of the party and a subsequent political defeat to Maliki's Sunni-led coalition, al-Sadr left for self-imposed exile in Iran.
However, since his return to Iraq in 2011 al-Sadr seems to have altered, if not softened his approach. The anti-US rhetoric has largely disappeared and he has adopted a less sectarian stance with his Shi'ia militiamen even fighting alongside Sunni tribesman against ISIS. Whilst many in Iraq still doubt his motives and cannot believe the change of heart he appears to have undergone, the aggressive tones of before seem to have largely evaporated and, as if to highlight the change, he responded to accusations of corruption within his party by removing the offending individuals, including getting rid of own Deputy Prime Minister Baha Araji in order to fully cleanse the Sadrist party of any lingering corruption allegations.
Perhaps an indication that al-Sadr may have undergone a change of heart and tactic is that upon entering the parliament building (this weekend) his Sadrist followers, were joined by Sunni's and Kurd's who waved Iraqi flags, not guns, with al-Sadr urging them not to harm anyone or cause damage of any description. The same was true outside in the Green Zone where the protests were gun free and largely peaceful, with none of the violence and Sectarian disruption that have been a trademark of Iraqi demonstrations until now.
As to whether al-Sadr can be a unifying force for good in Iraq is yet to be seen. Many, like al-Maliki, plainly believe 'leopards don't change their spots' and do not trust al-Sadr or his new found sense of Iraqi pride and nationalism. But al-Sadr himself, seems to want to work with al-Abadi, and unlike Maliki does not want the dissolution of the government, but is pushing the Prime Minister to complete his cabinet re-shuffle and get on with the business of governing.
However, in Erbil, in Kurdish controlled Iraq, they appear to have run out patience with the chaotic turns in Baghdad. Yesterday Mala Bakhtiar, a leading PUK politician, called for the Iraqi government to 'recognise the Kurdistan people's undisputed right' to a referendum that would allow the Kurds the right to self-determination, a right guaranteed under the Iraqi constitution.
Bakhtiar continued saying, 'the fragmented and indecent governance (in Baghdad) over the past 13 years has hardly been the answer to the plight of the people of Iraq,' with Kurdish President, Masoud Barzani, confirming that he would hold the referendum before the end of 2016.
Similarly Iraq's Sunni minority also doubt the direction of the government with many still suffering anti-Baathist abuse and persecution that is a long-lasting hangover form the days of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party when the Sunni minority ruled the country. More than a decade later, with many of their religious and political leaders dead, the Sunni's still endure grave human rights abuses (ref: Amnesty Int'l Report; The State of the World's Human Rights 2014/15) often known to be committed by government backed Shi'ia militias, such as the PMF (Popular Mobilisation Forces). Perhaps as a consequence in some cities, such as Mosul, which prior to the ISIS takeover was a Sunni stronghold, many are now in sympathy with the ISIS cause, something which complicates the situation yet further.
Whilst al-Abadi has paid lip service to the Sunni cause by offering government positions to some high-ranking Sunni's, their roles were in fact paper houses designed to appease rather than shelter the Sunni minority.
This fractious and fraught situation is made more complex still by the demands of the US-led coalition fighting against ISIS, whose priority is the destruction of the terrorist group with Iraqi political security and stability coming a poor second to what they see as the primary cause to hand. This, combined with falling global oil prices, high unemployment, endemic corruption and a youth bulge, which has left ~40% of the population under the age of 15, all point to the immediate and pressing problems facing al-Abadi.
However, the weak position that al-Abadi finds himself in has been unexpectedly strengthened by al-Sadr's apparent support which may yet prove to be an effective 'counter-balance' against such undemocratic and corrupt forces as Maliki, and could well prove to be a unifying for good in Iraq. As to whether the coalition forces would accept, and indeed be able to work with someone like al-Sadr in a position of influence is another question, but for the moment he seems to be moving in a positive and peaceful direction, even if it doesn't concur completely with what Western ideas of what a future Iraq should look like.
.
 |
| Protesters outside in the Green Zone. |
Muqtada al-Sadr is a name synonymous with all that was bad in Iraq shortly after the 2003 US led invasion. His violent, but failed attempts to impose an Islamic theocracy on Iraq through his Mehdi army led him to become one of the coalitions deadliest enemies during the insurgency.
 |
| Muqtada al-Sadr |
Sadr comes from one of Iraq's most prominent religious families that can trace it's ancestry all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad. His father, Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, was one of the leaders of the Hawza, the Shia centre for religious seminaries and scholarship and was eventually gunned down (probably on the orders of Saddam Hussein) along with two of Muqtada's brothers in 1999, after which Muqtada took up the family mantle and began preaching against the US and Israel in his sermons, but nevertheless remained under close scrutiny by Hussein's security forces.
 |
| Inside the Parliament building protesters wave Iraqi flags. |
During the civil war (2006-2008) his militiamen were involved in some of the worst sectarian violence, but after a split in the Sadrist movement between the armed militia and the social strand of the party and a subsequent political defeat to Maliki's Sunni-led coalition, al-Sadr left for self-imposed exile in Iran.
However, since his return to Iraq in 2011 al-Sadr seems to have altered, if not softened his approach. The anti-US rhetoric has largely disappeared and he has adopted a less sectarian stance with his Shi'ia militiamen even fighting alongside Sunni tribesman against ISIS. Whilst many in Iraq still doubt his motives and cannot believe the change of heart he appears to have undergone, the aggressive tones of before seem to have largely evaporated and, as if to highlight the change, he responded to accusations of corruption within his party by removing the offending individuals, including getting rid of own Deputy Prime Minister Baha Araji in order to fully cleanse the Sadrist party of any lingering corruption allegations.
Perhaps an indication that al-Sadr may have undergone a change of heart and tactic is that upon entering the parliament building (this weekend) his Sadrist followers, were joined by Sunni's and Kurd's who waved Iraqi flags, not guns, with al-Sadr urging them not to harm anyone or cause damage of any description. The same was true outside in the Green Zone where the protests were gun free and largely peaceful, with none of the violence and Sectarian disruption that have been a trademark of Iraqi demonstrations until now.
As to whether al-Sadr can be a unifying force for good in Iraq is yet to be seen. Many, like al-Maliki, plainly believe 'leopards don't change their spots' and do not trust al-Sadr or his new found sense of Iraqi pride and nationalism. But al-Sadr himself, seems to want to work with al-Abadi, and unlike Maliki does not want the dissolution of the government, but is pushing the Prime Minister to complete his cabinet re-shuffle and get on with the business of governing.
However, in Erbil, in Kurdish controlled Iraq, they appear to have run out patience with the chaotic turns in Baghdad. Yesterday Mala Bakhtiar, a leading PUK politician, called for the Iraqi government to 'recognise the Kurdistan people's undisputed right' to a referendum that would allow the Kurds the right to self-determination, a right guaranteed under the Iraqi constitution.
Bakhtiar continued saying, 'the fragmented and indecent governance (in Baghdad) over the past 13 years has hardly been the answer to the plight of the people of Iraq,' with Kurdish President, Masoud Barzani, confirming that he would hold the referendum before the end of 2016.
Similarly Iraq's Sunni minority also doubt the direction of the government with many still suffering anti-Baathist abuse and persecution that is a long-lasting hangover form the days of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party when the Sunni minority ruled the country. More than a decade later, with many of their religious and political leaders dead, the Sunni's still endure grave human rights abuses (ref: Amnesty Int'l Report; The State of the World's Human Rights 2014/15) often known to be committed by government backed Shi'ia militias, such as the PMF (Popular Mobilisation Forces). Perhaps as a consequence in some cities, such as Mosul, which prior to the ISIS takeover was a Sunni stronghold, many are now in sympathy with the ISIS cause, something which complicates the situation yet further.
Whilst al-Abadi has paid lip service to the Sunni cause by offering government positions to some high-ranking Sunni's, their roles were in fact paper houses designed to appease rather than shelter the Sunni minority.
This fractious and fraught situation is made more complex still by the demands of the US-led coalition fighting against ISIS, whose priority is the destruction of the terrorist group with Iraqi political security and stability coming a poor second to what they see as the primary cause to hand. This, combined with falling global oil prices, high unemployment, endemic corruption and a youth bulge, which has left ~40% of the population under the age of 15, all point to the immediate and pressing problems facing al-Abadi.
However, the weak position that al-Abadi finds himself in has been unexpectedly strengthened by al-Sadr's apparent support which may yet prove to be an effective 'counter-balance' against such undemocratic and corrupt forces as Maliki, and could well prove to be a unifying for good in Iraq. As to whether the coalition forces would accept, and indeed be able to work with someone like al-Sadr in a position of influence is another question, but for the moment he seems to be moving in a positive and peaceful direction, even if it doesn't concur completely with what Western ideas of what a future Iraq should look like.
.
Friday 29 April 2016
Why Our Treatment of Refugees is every bit as Abhorrent as that they Received from ISIS & Assad
What the fuck is wrong with everyone today? When did everyone suddenly become so self-interested, introverted, paranoid and scared. The way Europe is treating the influx of refugees at our borders is just as extreme as the treatment they were getting in their homelands from Assad or ISIS(or whoever) and from which they fled. It makes me ashamed and if you've got any sense of what it means to be a human being then you too should be ashamed as well. Ashamed of ourselves; ashamed of our squabbling, petty Politicians who put votes before lives; ashamed our police, our border guards and our security services who trample these poor people beneath their boots. We, of the civilised West, of rich, privileged Europe are monsters every bit as bad as Assad and ISIS and Al-Queda and in some ways we are much worse.
ISIS and the like at least make no bones about their tactics. We know what they're about and we know what to expect from them, as did the refugees and that was why they left, running for their lives. Yes, think about it...running for their lives.
Have you ever run for life from a fate that was so harsh, so terrible that if you stayed you would fear, not only for your life, but for those of your children, your elderly parents, your friends? I know I haven't and I bet most of you haven't either! But when you tuck your kids into bed tonight spare a thought for those refugee children who don't have a bed, or even blanket, or maybe even a parent to kiss them on the forehead and tell them it'll be alright!
And to where did they run in their hour of need? To that bastion of hope! To Europe where their Human Rights would surely be respected. To that idea of freedom and charity that we always trumpet we're so big about. We hold ourselves up in such high esteem and think ourselves so much better than those barbarians in the Middle East. And let's be fair, we talk a good argument, so good in fact that we managed to fool several million people into thinking they'd be better off with us than they were under a sky full of bombs.
Talk about out of the frying pan.......!
And whilst they ran for their lives we sat in our virtuous, gilded cages, hypocritically passing judgement on our mobile devices, tablets and PC's about the horrors wrought on civilians by the people of ISIS that we rightly call monsters, and then turn round and do exactly the same thing to the same homeless, impoverished disenfranchised individuals who turned to us for help when they had nowhere else to go. How fucking hypocritical is that?
I don't need to provide references or links here.....we've all seen them, the homeless, hungry waifs and strays who held their hands out to us only for us to bite that hand off and tell them they're not welcome. So we stick them behind fences, feed them a bowl of rice once a day if they're lucky, give them a a bottle of water and a couple of square metres of canvass to sleep under and tell ourselves we've done all we can do, and then with a clear conscience we go back to our lives. And if they dare protest that this is not the humanity they were led to believe they'd receive from the rich West then we'll tear gas them, shoot them, send them back to where we don't have to see their dirty, hungry faces any more; where they become someone else's problem because we paid them to take them. The only problem for those hapless refugees being that where we sent them back to they even less respect for Human Rights than we do, but hey, so what, right? At least we don't have to look at them now!
What the fuck is wrong with everyone?
I know we're scared. And we're right to be scared but we can't let it get in the way of doing what's right. Because I'll tell you what, the treatment we're metering out to these refugee children will not be forgotten. Oh we might forget! A ceasefire signed somewhere at some point by yet more self-interested politicians who in reality care more about what the polls say than actually doing something constructive, something truly dramatic which might actually make a difference, might allow us to push all this to recesses of our minds. And then 10 years down the line this will all be just a sound-bite on our 3-D smart TVs and we'll pat ourselves on the back and say 'look at all the good we did back then,' ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those displaced individuals remain displaced individuals, but hey, that's not our problem! We did what we could, right?
And you'd be right, it won't be our problem.
Do you know whose problem it'll be? it'll be our kids and our grand kids. And if we think we're scared now, it's going to be nothing compared to the fear that will be revisited on the coming generations. Because do you know who won't have forgotten about the treatment they received when they were in need; when their parents had been blown up in front of them, or their siblings had drowned trying to escape, and just because they held out their hands and said 'we're hungry and homeless and in danger! Can you help us?' and all we could say in return was, 'fuck you! You might be a terrorist and want to blow me up!' so we ignore their pleas and their plaintive cries and their basic humanity and right to live a peaceful life, and why? Because we're fucking scared and they might take our job.
Ask any Jewish survivor of the holocaust if they've forgotten the treatment they got at the hands of the Nazi's? I think you know the answer!
And who do you think those displaced kids in 10/15 years time, as adults, with guns in their hands and bitter resentment in their hearts are going to blame for their own strife and misery? It won't be us, because we'll be gone or going, it'll be our kids, and our kids kids! They'll be dealing with the repercussions of our intolerance and indifference and lack of humanity long after we've shuttled off our mortal coil.
So what do we do?
Here's a radical solution. Let's all offer to pay 1p extra income tax for 1 year so that we can keep the refugees, not in camps (it's just too similar to concentration camps for me) but in temporary villages, paid for by all the extra tax, where they can get regular meals, fresh water and a safe place to sleep. Where the displaced bakers, carpenters, engineers,, doctors and nurses can use their skills and talents to help rebuild the lives of all those who have suffered. Give them the resources to help themselves. Don't make them reliant on charity. Charity shouldn't be needed in the 21st Century. How would you feel if you had to rely on someone else to give you a loaf of stale bread every other day with which to feed your family? Far better to set up a small bakery, supply the grain and let them make the bread for themselves. Let the builders build, the carpenters shape the wood, the nurses nurse and give them back some of the pride they must have lost. Give them a stake in their own future!
And then one day when that ceasefire has been signed they can maybe return home with some dignity and some money in their pocket and gratitude in their hearts and minds for the wonderful people of Europe who helped them live again.
And what would it cost us? One or two drinks less in the bar a week? Baked beans on toast one night a week for a year instead of steak? Or maybe just one less pair of designer trainers that we never wear? It wouldn't take a whole lot if we all did it. And let's shame those Austrians and Bulgarians and Macedonians into doing what's right. Let's lead the way without fear and with love, holding our humanity high.
So, I'm asking you to tweet @DavidCameron and @JeremyCorbyn or whoever your MP is and say you want to pay 1p more on tax for 1 year to help the refugees live again.
And just think how good it'll feel to know you've truly made a difference as you sit down to your baked beans on toast supper. Come on people. Rediscover your humanity. Take down the walls, start building bridges, open your hearts and let's stop all this awful suffering.
Whoever your God is, pray to him for help and understanding and the strength to do what is right. Have a good day.
ISIS and the like at least make no bones about their tactics. We know what they're about and we know what to expect from them, as did the refugees and that was why they left, running for their lives. Yes, think about it...running for their lives.
Have you ever run for life from a fate that was so harsh, so terrible that if you stayed you would fear, not only for your life, but for those of your children, your elderly parents, your friends? I know I haven't and I bet most of you haven't either! But when you tuck your kids into bed tonight spare a thought for those refugee children who don't have a bed, or even blanket, or maybe even a parent to kiss them on the forehead and tell them it'll be alright!
And to where did they run in their hour of need? To that bastion of hope! To Europe where their Human Rights would surely be respected. To that idea of freedom and charity that we always trumpet we're so big about. We hold ourselves up in such high esteem and think ourselves so much better than those barbarians in the Middle East. And let's be fair, we talk a good argument, so good in fact that we managed to fool several million people into thinking they'd be better off with us than they were under a sky full of bombs.
Talk about out of the frying pan.......!
 |
| 12-13 year old Afghani boys in the camp at Calais. Picture from today's Guardian |
And whilst they ran for their lives we sat in our virtuous, gilded cages, hypocritically passing judgement on our mobile devices, tablets and PC's about the horrors wrought on civilians by the people of ISIS that we rightly call monsters, and then turn round and do exactly the same thing to the same homeless, impoverished disenfranchised individuals who turned to us for help when they had nowhere else to go. How fucking hypocritical is that?
I don't need to provide references or links here.....we've all seen them, the homeless, hungry waifs and strays who held their hands out to us only for us to bite that hand off and tell them they're not welcome. So we stick them behind fences, feed them a bowl of rice once a day if they're lucky, give them a a bottle of water and a couple of square metres of canvass to sleep under and tell ourselves we've done all we can do, and then with a clear conscience we go back to our lives. And if they dare protest that this is not the humanity they were led to believe they'd receive from the rich West then we'll tear gas them, shoot them, send them back to where we don't have to see their dirty, hungry faces any more; where they become someone else's problem because we paid them to take them. The only problem for those hapless refugees being that where we sent them back to they even less respect for Human Rights than we do, but hey, so what, right? At least we don't have to look at them now!
What the fuck is wrong with everyone?
I know we're scared. And we're right to be scared but we can't let it get in the way of doing what's right. Because I'll tell you what, the treatment we're metering out to these refugee children will not be forgotten. Oh we might forget! A ceasefire signed somewhere at some point by yet more self-interested politicians who in reality care more about what the polls say than actually doing something constructive, something truly dramatic which might actually make a difference, might allow us to push all this to recesses of our minds. And then 10 years down the line this will all be just a sound-bite on our 3-D smart TVs and we'll pat ourselves on the back and say 'look at all the good we did back then,' ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those displaced individuals remain displaced individuals, but hey, that's not our problem! We did what we could, right?
And you'd be right, it won't be our problem.
Do you know whose problem it'll be? it'll be our kids and our grand kids. And if we think we're scared now, it's going to be nothing compared to the fear that will be revisited on the coming generations. Because do you know who won't have forgotten about the treatment they received when they were in need; when their parents had been blown up in front of them, or their siblings had drowned trying to escape, and just because they held out their hands and said 'we're hungry and homeless and in danger! Can you help us?' and all we could say in return was, 'fuck you! You might be a terrorist and want to blow me up!' so we ignore their pleas and their plaintive cries and their basic humanity and right to live a peaceful life, and why? Because we're fucking scared and they might take our job.
Ask any Jewish survivor of the holocaust if they've forgotten the treatment they got at the hands of the Nazi's? I think you know the answer!
And who do you think those displaced kids in 10/15 years time, as adults, with guns in their hands and bitter resentment in their hearts are going to blame for their own strife and misery? It won't be us, because we'll be gone or going, it'll be our kids, and our kids kids! They'll be dealing with the repercussions of our intolerance and indifference and lack of humanity long after we've shuttled off our mortal coil.
So what do we do?
Here's a radical solution. Let's all offer to pay 1p extra income tax for 1 year so that we can keep the refugees, not in camps (it's just too similar to concentration camps for me) but in temporary villages, paid for by all the extra tax, where they can get regular meals, fresh water and a safe place to sleep. Where the displaced bakers, carpenters, engineers,, doctors and nurses can use their skills and talents to help rebuild the lives of all those who have suffered. Give them the resources to help themselves. Don't make them reliant on charity. Charity shouldn't be needed in the 21st Century. How would you feel if you had to rely on someone else to give you a loaf of stale bread every other day with which to feed your family? Far better to set up a small bakery, supply the grain and let them make the bread for themselves. Let the builders build, the carpenters shape the wood, the nurses nurse and give them back some of the pride they must have lost. Give them a stake in their own future!
And then one day when that ceasefire has been signed they can maybe return home with some dignity and some money in their pocket and gratitude in their hearts and minds for the wonderful people of Europe who helped them live again.
And what would it cost us? One or two drinks less in the bar a week? Baked beans on toast one night a week for a year instead of steak? Or maybe just one less pair of designer trainers that we never wear? It wouldn't take a whole lot if we all did it. And let's shame those Austrians and Bulgarians and Macedonians into doing what's right. Let's lead the way without fear and with love, holding our humanity high.
So, I'm asking you to tweet @DavidCameron and @JeremyCorbyn or whoever your MP is and say you want to pay 1p more on tax for 1 year to help the refugees live again.
And just think how good it'll feel to know you've truly made a difference as you sit down to your baked beans on toast supper. Come on people. Rediscover your humanity. Take down the walls, start building bridges, open your hearts and let's stop all this awful suffering.
Whoever your God is, pray to him for help and understanding and the strength to do what is right. Have a good day.
Monday 25 April 2016
Opinion: Unification, not Divisiveness is the Way Forward for Humankind.
Religious crusades are nothing new. They are as old as the history of mankind itself and despite, or even in spite of our histories, religious conflicts are now arguably more visible, more destructive and more far-reaching than at any time in human history.
I'm an atheist so, rightly or wrongly, count myself as neutral in religious arguments of any persuasion or colour. However, I'm not immune to effects or the debates that surround the religious arenas. I was brought up in a Christian nation (or at least it was when I was growing up) and have married into a (tolerant) Muslim family, and what I notice is that to a larger extent Christianity seems to have purged it's respective differential demons. By this I mean that the various forms, or sects, of Christianity seem to have buried the hatchet, literally, and have come to accept the existence of each other without resorting to the violence and divisiveness of the past to resolve their respective differences, such that they are now able to co-exist in a respectful, reasonable and peaceable manner. To a greater extent, I would suggest that Christianity, as one of the two most followed religions on our planet, has learned from the lessons of it's past and has put its' good foot forward, so to speak. It is at relative peace with itself and with its' place in the world today.
Of course, people will point out that most Christian nations have secular, liberal education systems, falling church attendances and a lack of true devotees as reasons for this 'amicable' situation, with the Church's putative lowered status in the world being a direct consequence of its' lack of religious voracity and virility in the 21st Century. Maybe so, but these points are for another time and do not form part of my argument today.
One can only ever talk in generalities when discussing a particular religion as a whole I think; there are always exceptions, always the individuals (or groups of individuals) who don't fit the picture and I can't do anything about that and do not intend to get into those sort of arguments here either. So by applying the same generalist looking glass, I would suggest that Islam has not reached the same degree of inner peace (for want of a better description) with itself as Christianity has.
The array of Islamic sects today is truly bewildering. When I look at modern Islam I see a religion that is divided, but not just divided, it is broken and ceasing to function as a religious entity tied together by the single unifying message of the Koran. It always makes me think that the various divisions we see today in Islam are something akin to (but not an exact match for) the laws of Gavelkind in Ireland.
Gavelkind was the colloquial name given to the law governing the inheritance of landholdings (offically called the Penal Law, 1704). It stated that landholdings were to be subdivided among all surviving sons when the land holder died so that, over time, plots became ever more divided through each passing generation. In the end plots became so small that the only crop that could be grown in sufficient quantities to feed an ever growing population was the potato. So that when in 1847-50 the blight struck, Ireland went through the horrors of the potato famine which led to the eventual deaths of more than 1m people.
Just as the subdivision of the landholdings divided the families of Ireland and so weakened them in the process, Islam has also become split and divided, each sect peddling their own version of Islam, but always (and this is the point) to the detriment of every other form of Islam. It's a type of religious oneupmanship and in so doing it is weakening itself and diluting the true message of the Koran which has gotten lost in a sea of sectarian violence. Islam has become a monoculture of divisiveness that shows every sign of subdividing further unless the current waves of sectarian violence and segregation are quelled and a single path can be found that is wide enough to encompass all the many schools of thought.
The light needs to be shone from on high by Islamic scholars holding a torch of unification and peace, bringing a message of togetherness and not divisiveness to the people so that the path can be found and illuminated for all the followers of Islam.
Like him or not, T.E.Lawrence saw the worth and the value of a untied Arab (Islamic) nation. Whilst his vision was of a political union, the principal remains the same. But even as he endeavoured to unite the various factions, tribal subdivisions (and British treachery) were already pulling the rug from under his feet. In the end, through the various political wrangling's of the British and French, combined with the lack of a united Arab response, the sub-continent was divided up as the colonial powers saw fit and it was left to the Arab (Islamic) nations to bear the brunt of the consequences that still loom large today.
We are all one. We are all the same. I wish you peace, whoever your God maybe.
I'm an atheist so, rightly or wrongly, count myself as neutral in religious arguments of any persuasion or colour. However, I'm not immune to effects or the debates that surround the religious arenas. I was brought up in a Christian nation (or at least it was when I was growing up) and have married into a (tolerant) Muslim family, and what I notice is that to a larger extent Christianity seems to have purged it's respective differential demons. By this I mean that the various forms, or sects, of Christianity seem to have buried the hatchet, literally, and have come to accept the existence of each other without resorting to the violence and divisiveness of the past to resolve their respective differences, such that they are now able to co-exist in a respectful, reasonable and peaceable manner. To a greater extent, I would suggest that Christianity, as one of the two most followed religions on our planet, has learned from the lessons of it's past and has put its' good foot forward, so to speak. It is at relative peace with itself and with its' place in the world today.
 |
| Pope Francis with Archbishop Ieronymos of the Greek Orhodox Church on Lesbos recently. (Pic from the Guardian) |
Of course, people will point out that most Christian nations have secular, liberal education systems, falling church attendances and a lack of true devotees as reasons for this 'amicable' situation, with the Church's putative lowered status in the world being a direct consequence of its' lack of religious voracity and virility in the 21st Century. Maybe so, but these points are for another time and do not form part of my argument today.
One can only ever talk in generalities when discussing a particular religion as a whole I think; there are always exceptions, always the individuals (or groups of individuals) who don't fit the picture and I can't do anything about that and do not intend to get into those sort of arguments here either. So by applying the same generalist looking glass, I would suggest that Islam has not reached the same degree of inner peace (for want of a better description) with itself as Christianity has.
The array of Islamic sects today is truly bewildering. When I look at modern Islam I see a religion that is divided, but not just divided, it is broken and ceasing to function as a religious entity tied together by the single unifying message of the Koran. It always makes me think that the various divisions we see today in Islam are something akin to (but not an exact match for) the laws of Gavelkind in Ireland.
Gavelkind was the colloquial name given to the law governing the inheritance of landholdings (offically called the Penal Law, 1704). It stated that landholdings were to be subdivided among all surviving sons when the land holder died so that, over time, plots became ever more divided through each passing generation. In the end plots became so small that the only crop that could be grown in sufficient quantities to feed an ever growing population was the potato. So that when in 1847-50 the blight struck, Ireland went through the horrors of the potato famine which led to the eventual deaths of more than 1m people.
Just as the subdivision of the landholdings divided the families of Ireland and so weakened them in the process, Islam has also become split and divided, each sect peddling their own version of Islam, but always (and this is the point) to the detriment of every other form of Islam. It's a type of religious oneupmanship and in so doing it is weakening itself and diluting the true message of the Koran which has gotten lost in a sea of sectarian violence. Islam has become a monoculture of divisiveness that shows every sign of subdividing further unless the current waves of sectarian violence and segregation are quelled and a single path can be found that is wide enough to encompass all the many schools of thought.
The light needs to be shone from on high by Islamic scholars holding a torch of unification and peace, bringing a message of togetherness and not divisiveness to the people so that the path can be found and illuminated for all the followers of Islam.
Like him or not, T.E.Lawrence saw the worth and the value of a untied Arab (Islamic) nation. Whilst his vision was of a political union, the principal remains the same. But even as he endeavoured to unite the various factions, tribal subdivisions (and British treachery) were already pulling the rug from under his feet. In the end, through the various political wrangling's of the British and French, combined with the lack of a united Arab response, the sub-continent was divided up as the colonial powers saw fit and it was left to the Arab (Islamic) nations to bear the brunt of the consequences that still loom large today.
We are all one. We are all the same. I wish you peace, whoever your God maybe.
Friday 22 April 2016
US-Saudi Relations: Is There Light at the End of the tunnel?
Barack Obama's (final?) visit to the Middle East ended yesterday when he flew out of Riyadh leaving behind more public uncertainty as to where US-Saudi relations lie than there has been for many years. That the US is not entirely happy with how the relationship has developed over the past few years is no great secret, but where it goes from here is yet to be determined.
Saudi Arabia has a Sunni majority that largely follow the Wahhabi traditions, including various aspects of Sharia Law, that are seen in the West as being extreme and oppressive. Public executions, female suffrage and oppression, the political suppression of rivals and a lack of freedom of expression are just some of the violations levelled at the Saudi's and that many believe should form a pre-requisite part of any future negotiations between Saudi Arabia and the US.
Similarly, the Saudi governments very public support of Sisi's coup and the ensuing violent crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, culminating in the massacre of Brotherhood supporters in August 2013, as well as their apparent indifference to the initial rise of ISIS, also caused much unease and disquiet in the West at the time.
For their part, the Arab Spring and Muslim Brotherhood led 'uprisings' across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region led to considerable wariness among the ruling Saudi families. The apparent abandonment of Mubarak by the US in Egypt in the wake of Morsi's revolution, increased that unease yet further. Fearing a similar popular uprising in Saudi, and worries that the US might also turn their back on their long-term 'friend,' either through a lack of (US led) political will or an inability to act, placed further strain on the already shaky US-Saudi relationship.
After years of tacit support and political indifference to the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi, the organisation was designated a terrorist organisation in March 2014; banning of the 'four finger' salute (in support of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood) and a crackdown on the use social media, as well as the closing down of publishing houses who had shown support for Morsi and other groups who had been critical of Saudi government policies and the Wahhabi traditions, did not sit well with Human Rights groups and the West in general.
However, Saudi support for the Syrian revolution and their initial indifference towards ISIS changed when they no longer saw these as 'Sunni' uprisings (to be encouraged) against the geopolitical expansionist aims of Iranian backed 'Shia' extremism and realised that they (ISIS) had territorial ambitions of their own. ISIS proclamation of their Caliphate 2014 and their subsequent denouncement of the Saudi regime caused a rapid realignment of Saudi policy, especially following a spate of attacks inside the kingdom that had targeted Saudi security forces and the Shiite minority in the East of the country. However, since it was believed that the attacks had been perpetrated by Saudi Sunni's aligned with ISIS, some still questioned the degree of support there was within the government (for ISIS) as well as their ability (or willingness) to protect their own Shia minority (see Further reading below).
Some sympathy for ISIS within Saudi may still be present since it is believed that several thousand (if not more) Saudi's had joined the organisation and it is this that may cause some to doubt in the US as to the voracity of the Saudi regime's desire to combat ISIS.
In Yemen, the rapid advances made by the Iranian backed Shia Houthi's also increased the disquiet of the Saudi government. The subsequent collapse of the Yemeni government, accompanied by the growth of Al-Quaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) led to the formation of the US-GB-Saudi coalition which began bombing targets inside Yemen in March 2015. However, in this the respective motives of the coalition partners differed greatly, with the Saudi's concentrating their bombing campaign on largely Houthi targets, who they perceived as the major threat against Saudi authority, whilst the US preferred a more balanced attack against both the Houthi's and AQAP.
Speaking yesterday at Brookings Institute in Washington, Senator Chris Murphy detailed how this difference in political will between the Saudi's and the US with regard to their respective threats in Yemen, threatened to undermine the effectiveness of the campaign. This fundamental difference in their respective military priorities has led many to question the nature of the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia with analysts and commentators on both sides calling for a reassessment of where the land currently lies.
Some have also questioned whether US influence in the region is waning, though as Senator Murphy pointed out, there is a certain degree of hubris among many Americans who have perhaps overstated the level of influence that the US may, or may not, have maintained in the past. That the relationship needs over-hauling is not, I think, in question and to that end I found Senator Murphy's views more balanced and realistic than many I've heard. In fact he has introduced a Bill to Congress (H.J. Res. 90) that proposes some very specific changes to the existing relationship between the two nations with particular emphasis on the future supply of armaments. Furthermore, Senator Murphy is pushing for a 'more progressive foreign policy' for the US that (I think) is much more likely to bear fruit than the existing policies that are plainly failing in MENA.
Whether the peace talks in Kuwait next week on the future of Yemen result in any concrete proposals and peaceful solutions is yet to be determined, but the signs do look hopeful. But Yemen aside, the MENA region is awash with conflicts, be they the result of political, sectarian, or other differences. The situation in Syria particularly is complicated further by Russia's backing of Assad who, Putin insists, must be a part of the (eventual?) political solution for the nation. Putin's and, by proxy, Russia's motivation for supporting Assad is clouded and undefined, though is thought to be a desire to limit the rise of Sunni extremism in the region (see Foreign Affairs publication, The Arab Spring at 5) which he fears may spill over into the Caucasus and beyond into Russia's many Sunni Muslim communities (witness Putin's ruthless and bloody put down of the largely Sunni uprising in Chechnya which he does not wish repeated elsewhere). However, this runs contrary to the interests of the US led coalition in Syria and of course, the Sunni majority of Saudi Arabia, but parallel to the possible expansionist plans of Shiite Iran.
That ISIS remains a threat to all in the region is largely agreed, but the degree of motivation to rid the world of ISIS varies hugely amongst the various military and/or sectarian factions who are fighting them. Which, in a roundabout way, brings us back to US-Saudi relations and the inherent problem therein. The US wish to see the back of what they view as the major security threats to America; namely AQAP (who the Senator yesterday detailed may be able to muster some sort of nuclear threat sooner rather than later against the US) and ISIS, who are viewed as a secondary threat to US homeland (by comparison), but nevertheless represent a significant threat to the stability of MENA and, in a wider context, to the stability of Europe. The Saudi's however, are primarily motivated to counter Shiite extremism and Iranian backed terrorism across the region, with the joint threats of ISIS and AQAP not perhaps being seen as such immediate threats to their own sovereignty and future stability.
With these inherent differences in the policy aims of the US and Saudi Arabia it is perhaps, not surprising that any attempts at trying to unify them will inevitably run into difficulties at times. But that's not to say that the differences are insurmountable, because they are not. On both sides there will (I suggest) always be some degree of mistrust simply because the two approaches come from such vastly different beginnings. But I do believe that there is enough goodwill and pragmatism on both sides to see the current difficulties through provided each takes the time to try and understand each other's respective views and to temper their expectations accordingly.
Have a good day!
Further reading:
http://www.brookings.edu/ Rethinking Political Islam series
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ The Arab Spring at Five
Saudi Arabia has a Sunni majority that largely follow the Wahhabi traditions, including various aspects of Sharia Law, that are seen in the West as being extreme and oppressive. Public executions, female suffrage and oppression, the political suppression of rivals and a lack of freedom of expression are just some of the violations levelled at the Saudi's and that many believe should form a pre-requisite part of any future negotiations between Saudi Arabia and the US.
Similarly, the Saudi governments very public support of Sisi's coup and the ensuing violent crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, culminating in the massacre of Brotherhood supporters in August 2013, as well as their apparent indifference to the initial rise of ISIS, also caused much unease and disquiet in the West at the time.
For their part, the Arab Spring and Muslim Brotherhood led 'uprisings' across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region led to considerable wariness among the ruling Saudi families. The apparent abandonment of Mubarak by the US in Egypt in the wake of Morsi's revolution, increased that unease yet further. Fearing a similar popular uprising in Saudi, and worries that the US might also turn their back on their long-term 'friend,' either through a lack of (US led) political will or an inability to act, placed further strain on the already shaky US-Saudi relationship.
After years of tacit support and political indifference to the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi, the organisation was designated a terrorist organisation in March 2014; banning of the 'four finger' salute (in support of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood) and a crackdown on the use social media, as well as the closing down of publishing houses who had shown support for Morsi and other groups who had been critical of Saudi government policies and the Wahhabi traditions, did not sit well with Human Rights groups and the West in general.
However, Saudi support for the Syrian revolution and their initial indifference towards ISIS changed when they no longer saw these as 'Sunni' uprisings (to be encouraged) against the geopolitical expansionist aims of Iranian backed 'Shia' extremism and realised that they (ISIS) had territorial ambitions of their own. ISIS proclamation of their Caliphate 2014 and their subsequent denouncement of the Saudi regime caused a rapid realignment of Saudi policy, especially following a spate of attacks inside the kingdom that had targeted Saudi security forces and the Shiite minority in the East of the country. However, since it was believed that the attacks had been perpetrated by Saudi Sunni's aligned with ISIS, some still questioned the degree of support there was within the government (for ISIS) as well as their ability (or willingness) to protect their own Shia minority (see Further reading below).
Some sympathy for ISIS within Saudi may still be present since it is believed that several thousand (if not more) Saudi's had joined the organisation and it is this that may cause some to doubt in the US as to the voracity of the Saudi regime's desire to combat ISIS.
In Yemen, the rapid advances made by the Iranian backed Shia Houthi's also increased the disquiet of the Saudi government. The subsequent collapse of the Yemeni government, accompanied by the growth of Al-Quaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) led to the formation of the US-GB-Saudi coalition which began bombing targets inside Yemen in March 2015. However, in this the respective motives of the coalition partners differed greatly, with the Saudi's concentrating their bombing campaign on largely Houthi targets, who they perceived as the major threat against Saudi authority, whilst the US preferred a more balanced attack against both the Houthi's and AQAP.
Speaking yesterday at Brookings Institute in Washington, Senator Chris Murphy detailed how this difference in political will between the Saudi's and the US with regard to their respective threats in Yemen, threatened to undermine the effectiveness of the campaign. This fundamental difference in their respective military priorities has led many to question the nature of the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia with analysts and commentators on both sides calling for a reassessment of where the land currently lies.
Some have also questioned whether US influence in the region is waning, though as Senator Murphy pointed out, there is a certain degree of hubris among many Americans who have perhaps overstated the level of influence that the US may, or may not, have maintained in the past. That the relationship needs over-hauling is not, I think, in question and to that end I found Senator Murphy's views more balanced and realistic than many I've heard. In fact he has introduced a Bill to Congress (H.J. Res. 90) that proposes some very specific changes to the existing relationship between the two nations with particular emphasis on the future supply of armaments. Furthermore, Senator Murphy is pushing for a 'more progressive foreign policy' for the US that (I think) is much more likely to bear fruit than the existing policies that are plainly failing in MENA.
Whether the peace talks in Kuwait next week on the future of Yemen result in any concrete proposals and peaceful solutions is yet to be determined, but the signs do look hopeful. But Yemen aside, the MENA region is awash with conflicts, be they the result of political, sectarian, or other differences. The situation in Syria particularly is complicated further by Russia's backing of Assad who, Putin insists, must be a part of the (eventual?) political solution for the nation. Putin's and, by proxy, Russia's motivation for supporting Assad is clouded and undefined, though is thought to be a desire to limit the rise of Sunni extremism in the region (see Foreign Affairs publication, The Arab Spring at 5) which he fears may spill over into the Caucasus and beyond into Russia's many Sunni Muslim communities (witness Putin's ruthless and bloody put down of the largely Sunni uprising in Chechnya which he does not wish repeated elsewhere). However, this runs contrary to the interests of the US led coalition in Syria and of course, the Sunni majority of Saudi Arabia, but parallel to the possible expansionist plans of Shiite Iran.
That ISIS remains a threat to all in the region is largely agreed, but the degree of motivation to rid the world of ISIS varies hugely amongst the various military and/or sectarian factions who are fighting them. Which, in a roundabout way, brings us back to US-Saudi relations and the inherent problem therein. The US wish to see the back of what they view as the major security threats to America; namely AQAP (who the Senator yesterday detailed may be able to muster some sort of nuclear threat sooner rather than later against the US) and ISIS, who are viewed as a secondary threat to US homeland (by comparison), but nevertheless represent a significant threat to the stability of MENA and, in a wider context, to the stability of Europe. The Saudi's however, are primarily motivated to counter Shiite extremism and Iranian backed terrorism across the region, with the joint threats of ISIS and AQAP not perhaps being seen as such immediate threats to their own sovereignty and future stability.
With these inherent differences in the policy aims of the US and Saudi Arabia it is perhaps, not surprising that any attempts at trying to unify them will inevitably run into difficulties at times. But that's not to say that the differences are insurmountable, because they are not. On both sides there will (I suggest) always be some degree of mistrust simply because the two approaches come from such vastly different beginnings. But I do believe that there is enough goodwill and pragmatism on both sides to see the current difficulties through provided each takes the time to try and understand each other's respective views and to temper their expectations accordingly.
Have a good day!
Further reading:
http://www.brookings.edu/ Rethinking Political Islam series
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ The Arab Spring at Five
Monday 18 April 2016
Are Western & US Foreign Policies Limiting the Chance of Reaching & Maintaining a Viable Peace in MENA?
This morning came news that Francois Hollande, the French Premier, had arrived in Egypt with a view to finalising negotiations on a new $1.1bn defence deal that will see French companies delivering new fighter aircraft, satellite technology and naval vessels to Egypt. Hollande's well known declining popularity at home is likely to be hit further following the news that France is prepared to do business with Egyptian President, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi's, corrupt, oppressive regime. Since Sisi's brutal, military intervention and put down of Mohamed Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood's democratically elected government in 2013, the Egyptian regime's human rights record makes appalling reading. Peaceful protesters killed, mass arrests of political opposition supporters, mass slaughters, imprisonment without trial or due process, torture, rape, indiscriminate beatings and repression of free speech and expression are just some of the charges levelled against Sisi's regime in the 2015 Human Rights Watch report. And yet Hollande was to be seen this morning shaking hands with Sisi, a disgusting act, that for me that is akin to French validation of the tactics he has employed to maintain his violent, oppressive regime. Yet another example of Western nations putting business and profit above basic human rights and, quite frankly, he should be ashamed of himself.
But it's not the first time; nor will it be the last. It's just the latest in a long line of inhuman and diabolical decisions made by colonial and western powers that stretches back hundreds of years.
This morning Al Jazeera aired a very interesting documentary called 'Valentino's Ghost: Framing the Arab Image,' that highlighted the changing image of the Arab peoples as seen in the eyes of the West, and in particular the US, that is well worth a look. It shows how the romantic vision of the Arab, as first portrayed by Rudolph Valentino in the 1920's, has morphed into today's widely accepted image of the barbarian Arab bent on destruction of all things Christian and Western, and more specifically, all things American, even down to the words of the songs in Disney's Aladdin which surprised me no end. That the American's are the master's of propaganda, I think, is not in dispute. Hollywood films are seen around the globe and the popular image of America is well known and largely accepted. After all, if it's in a film it's gotta be true, right? All American's are good-looking with bulging muscles, white, perfect teeth, beautiful wives/partners, fast cars, loadsa money and are morally, always on the side of the good! Whilst the baddies are invariably played by non-American actors (often British, which I find interesting) with, often as not, slightly darker skin than your average Tom Cruise or Cameron Diaz,
possessing facial scars and with an innate tendency to scowl, frown and shout incoherently because they are tormented by the evil deeds they are about to, or have already committed.
Don't get me wrong...I love American films (and I have no axe to grind personally against Americans, though I'm sure any reading this will find that hard to believe), but you have to take it all with much more than a pinch of salt not to be taken in by the flashy, glamour of it all. Well that, or go to the US yourself and see that in fact they are definitely not all good looking with bulging muscles and they are surely not all on the morally correct side of the fence - Ku Klux Clan and an institutionally racist Police force are firm indicators of the truth of that. But the US is not alone in this. As in most countries, the truth, as seen in the movies, rarely matches up to the facts on the ground.
However, it is much of this movie-based imagery which I think has had a negative effect on the view of your average American (and by association your average Westerner) in the Arab world. All over the Middle-Eastern, North African (MENA) region decades of conflict have radically changed the demographics of the populations on the ground. A 'youth bulge' (the %age of a Native population under 25y.o.), high unemployment and low prospects (for the future) has left many disillusioned and unhappy with what they see as the consequences of Western intervention in their (respective) homelands. A recent study of 18-24 year old's across 16 Arab nations highlighted the problems facing today's Western diplomats and military strategists. In countries where the US had had little intervention America and Americans were still perceived reasonably well (such as in many Gulf nations), but where Americans have been actively involved in a conflict (for whatever reason) the perception was markedly different. In Iraq, not surprisingly perhaps, 93% saw the US as an enemy state, a figure only marginally higher than that in the Palestinian Authority (81%).
Why is this one might ask, when the Western coalition, led by the Americans of course, 'liberated' Iraq from the oppressive shackles of Saddam's wickedness? A country into which the US continues to pour vast sums of money and aid? And yet the kids on the ground see your average American in much the same light as your average American sees your average Arab/Muslim. What went wrong?
I've no doubt that there are a million different and very personal reasons why this might be so. These kids have grown up in the shadow of continuous conflict; something that most of us, safe in our houses across Europe and the US cannot begin to comprehend. But maybe we need to try, because these are the Arab kids that our kids and grand kids are going to be dealing with long after we are gone, and even if we don't want to do it for the Iraqi kids, we should at least be motivated to try and understand for our own kids sake, should we not?
I would guess that even in America now it is largely accepted that the reasons for invading Iraq (in 2003) given by 'Dubya' and his puppet, Blair, of WMD's by the ton, hidden in secret bunkers all over Iraq, that needed to be neutralised before Saddam could (heaven forbid) gain enough traction to threaten the security of the good and almighty West, was all a great big crock of shit. It was, perhaps, one of the biggest propaganda coups of recent times, but one that after 9/11 many of us were more than happy to buy into because the hype and rhetoric at the time was almost deafening in it's clamour. Someone needed to pay!
At the time it all seemed reasonable, logical even. That 9/11 was, and remains still, the worst act of unprovoked terror in modern history. No-one, least of all me, is denying that and I'm sure as hell not, in a ny way, trying to justify what happened. But bear with me here.....
To make a sojourn back to the movies for a second....in Charlie Wilson's War (alright, I know it's not fact, but at least in part, it is based on fact) the late and much missed Philip Seymour Hoffman's character constantly espouses a Chinese proverb. Do you recall it? 'We'll see', he keeps saying after every major event has occurred, be they good or bad. Hoffman's CIA agent character constantly pushes for there to be a reasonable exit strategy once the Ruskies have had their butt's kicked, but it doesn't materialise and, as we all now know, the arms and military training covertly given to the (then) Mujaheddin warriors eventually led to the rise, and continued rise of the Taliban. Winning the war sometimes just isn't enough! But, 'we'll see!'
As the Russians leave Afghanistan at the end of the film and everyone's rejoicing and slapping each other on the back at their wonderful victory, Hoffman's 'we'll see' remains oh so prophetic, especially in light of the exact same mistakes that were to be made in Iraq in the years that came after.
In Iraq, the WMD's never materialised, and even though Saddam was ousted, tried and executed, the horrors were just beginning. I think we all know now, that the reason for the invasion was to secure the oilfields and ultimately to make money from them by getting the American, British and French oil companies back in charge of oil production. To say otherwise, I think, is to be naive in the extreme. Of course, no-one will ever admit this, because to do so would be criminally negligent, but 'we'll see!' In Britain the long-awaited Chilcott Report into Britain's involvement in the invasion will eventually see the light of day and then some opinions might change!
In the end, the numbers of Iraqi's killed in the conflict (civilians and military personal alike) are quite staggering, though not something I wish to go into here. But the chaos that ensued afterwards has been many times more devastating than perhaps even the most pessimistic of us might have imagined. The rise of ISIS/Daesh and the sectarian violence that threatens to engulf the whole region was and is quite horrific and could have been, I suggest, largely avoided if any lessons had been learned from the war in Afghanistan.
So was all the chaos, the rise of ISIS and the like, caused by the coalition's invasion of Iraq? No, of course not. But did we contribute to it by not having any sort of grand strategy for what happened after the so-called 'war' was won? Yes, for sure. The Iraqi kids (above) were mostly born into a life of continually evolving violence, hunger and strife. They have seen only that Americans (and British, because the US is not alone in this) blew up their homes, their hospitals, their schools, their families, all in the name of 'liberating' them from a horrid and brutish regime. Had we then spent but a fraction of the money in rebuilding those schools, hospitals, etc, that we had spent on blowing them up in the first place, perhaps those kids would see things differently.
I know, I know....yes, we did try to rebuild, I hear you say. What about all the aid, all the foreign investment..blah de blah de blah? And I agree, that did happen, but whatever was spent and done, it wasn't enough and it was all geared towards making a profit for the various companies that got involved. There wasn't ever a complete, or even a partial plan to put Iraq back together once it had been blown apart. There was no true humanitarian plan to help the people rebuild their lives as they wanted them to be rebuilt, not how we told them they should be rebuilt. Not everyone in the world wants to live in an Americanised (or Westernised, if that sits easier) democracy. Democracy just doesn't work in some places and no matter how many bullets we fire or bombs we drop will make it work. As in Afghanistan, sometimes winning the war just isn't enough. But, 'we'll see.'
Greater strides need to be made in trying to understand the Muslim community at large and we need to allow them to set their own agenda and not try to force a Westernised idea of what we would like Islam to be upon them. Much has been said about the radicalisation of young Muslim's, and in some cases of Western youths, by unprincipled and hateful Muslims; how Islam and the Koran preach hate and anti-American philosophies. But this is simply not true. I am not a Muslim, so have no axe to grind to here, but as an interested party I have taken the time to read the Koran and to read around the subject and to try to learn about Islam because I want to understand the message therein and to try and comprehend all the hate that there is in the world today. Many Western diplomats and journalists advocate a secular, Western style educational system as the way to go; let's turn them all into peace-loving, Baywatch watching Islamists that will present no threat to us now, or in the future. But again, history should teach us that imposing a secular liberal education on Muslim nations just doesn't work. Some Muslim scholars blame the lack of a non-secular education in the Middle-East as part of the problem in the rise of extremist groups such as ISIS, because religious teaching on the 'true' message of the Koran have been lost amid the bloodshed and mire. Indeed it has been suggested that Western democracies often support (openly or not) radical regime's, such as that of Sisi's Egypt (see above), because they cannot (or will not) understand the true message of the Islamic alternative, such as that put forward by Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and see it as something to be feared, rather than something to be understood, or even admired. But allow me to quote the words of Amr Darrag, a former minister in Mohamed Morsi's government who can explain it much more eloquently than me.
There is, of course, much hand-wringing over the idea of the caliphate from some Western politicians and writers who cast it as a byword for everything that is to be feared about Islam and Muslims. Some concerns are credible and require further examination, for example religious freedoms and equality, while some other concerns are merely an extension of viewing Muslims as an exotic “other.” We should ask why “states” desiring a “more perfect union” or European countries working towards “an ever greater union” are seen as both natural and laudable, but Muslim nations working towards the same is viewed with suspicion, requiring much justification.
Well, I can't answer that. Can you, without resorting to the normal, Western-style rhetoric? Send your answers on a postcard to: Anyone left who's willing to listen in the Middle East, c/o the first destroyed house that you encounter!
I don't pretend to have all the answers. I don't pretend that everyone in the world has the potential to be good or that evil doesn't exist, because it does. I'm merely expressing an opinion; my opinion, which may well change over time as I learn more and understand more, and which you are more than welcome to disagree with. But as a new friend from Galilee said to me recently when he quoted Voltaire back to me after we had disagreed on a point of ethical politics, 'I may disagree with what you have say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it'. I believe in freedom and I believe in peace and I believe in everyone's right to the same. I'm a Westerner, a true Brit and proud of it (though some may doubt it now), but as proud of I am of my nationality and heritage I'm also realistic enough to know that the British have a lot to answer for, particularly with regard to our colonial past. We are now in the 21st Century, with all technological and cultural advantages that that should bring. Yet I look around and I see massive inequality and huge indifference in most people to the plight and suffering of our fellow human beings. Even with the planet's rapidly growing population there is more than enough space and resources for us all to live a full and happy life, and yet through basic miscomprehension of the motives and ideals of those who may be a bit different from us, and a lack of understanding and empathy we close our doors, batten up the hatches and sit quaking with fear at the thought that the terrors that we see on our TV's will be visited upon us or our families, and we forget, or just plain ignore the fact that for many those terrors are already a daily fact of life. And it must stop. We should come together as one to make it happen, to make this world a better place for us all.
Have a good day, my friends, whatever your God, wherever you are.
But it's not the first time; nor will it be the last. It's just the latest in a long line of inhuman and diabolical decisions made by colonial and western powers that stretches back hundreds of years.
 |
| Nice, pale skinned Aladdin! No less an Arab than Jafar methinks |
 |
| Slightly scary looking and darker skinned Jafar, because darker equates to more evil in the movies. |
Don't get me wrong...I love American films (and I have no axe to grind personally against Americans, though I'm sure any reading this will find that hard to believe), but you have to take it all with much more than a pinch of salt not to be taken in by the flashy, glamour of it all. Well that, or go to the US yourself and see that in fact they are definitely not all good looking with bulging muscles and they are surely not all on the morally correct side of the fence - Ku Klux Clan and an institutionally racist Police force are firm indicators of the truth of that. But the US is not alone in this. As in most countries, the truth, as seen in the movies, rarely matches up to the facts on the ground.
However, it is much of this movie-based imagery which I think has had a negative effect on the view of your average American (and by association your average Westerner) in the Arab world. All over the Middle-Eastern, North African (MENA) region decades of conflict have radically changed the demographics of the populations on the ground. A 'youth bulge' (the %age of a Native population under 25y.o.), high unemployment and low prospects (for the future) has left many disillusioned and unhappy with what they see as the consequences of Western intervention in their (respective) homelands. A recent study of 18-24 year old's across 16 Arab nations highlighted the problems facing today's Western diplomats and military strategists. In countries where the US had had little intervention America and Americans were still perceived reasonably well (such as in many Gulf nations), but where Americans have been actively involved in a conflict (for whatever reason) the perception was markedly different. In Iraq, not surprisingly perhaps, 93% saw the US as an enemy state, a figure only marginally higher than that in the Palestinian Authority (81%).
Why is this one might ask, when the Western coalition, led by the Americans of course, 'liberated' Iraq from the oppressive shackles of Saddam's wickedness? A country into which the US continues to pour vast sums of money and aid? And yet the kids on the ground see your average American in much the same light as your average American sees your average Arab/Muslim. What went wrong?
I've no doubt that there are a million different and very personal reasons why this might be so. These kids have grown up in the shadow of continuous conflict; something that most of us, safe in our houses across Europe and the US cannot begin to comprehend. But maybe we need to try, because these are the Arab kids that our kids and grand kids are going to be dealing with long after we are gone, and even if we don't want to do it for the Iraqi kids, we should at least be motivated to try and understand for our own kids sake, should we not?
I would guess that even in America now it is largely accepted that the reasons for invading Iraq (in 2003) given by 'Dubya' and his puppet, Blair, of WMD's by the ton, hidden in secret bunkers all over Iraq, that needed to be neutralised before Saddam could (heaven forbid) gain enough traction to threaten the security of the good and almighty West, was all a great big crock of shit. It was, perhaps, one of the biggest propaganda coups of recent times, but one that after 9/11 many of us were more than happy to buy into because the hype and rhetoric at the time was almost deafening in it's clamour. Someone needed to pay!
At the time it all seemed reasonable, logical even. That 9/11 was, and remains still, the worst act of unprovoked terror in modern history. No-one, least of all me, is denying that and I'm sure as hell not, in a ny way, trying to justify what happened. But bear with me here.....
To make a sojourn back to the movies for a second....in Charlie Wilson's War (alright, I know it's not fact, but at least in part, it is based on fact) the late and much missed Philip Seymour Hoffman's character constantly espouses a Chinese proverb. Do you recall it? 'We'll see', he keeps saying after every major event has occurred, be they good or bad. Hoffman's CIA agent character constantly pushes for there to be a reasonable exit strategy once the Ruskies have had their butt's kicked, but it doesn't materialise and, as we all now know, the arms and military training covertly given to the (then) Mujaheddin warriors eventually led to the rise, and continued rise of the Taliban. Winning the war sometimes just isn't enough! But, 'we'll see!'
As the Russians leave Afghanistan at the end of the film and everyone's rejoicing and slapping each other on the back at their wonderful victory, Hoffman's 'we'll see' remains oh so prophetic, especially in light of the exact same mistakes that were to be made in Iraq in the years that came after.
 |
| The late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman in CharlieWilson's War |
In Iraq, the WMD's never materialised, and even though Saddam was ousted, tried and executed, the horrors were just beginning. I think we all know now, that the reason for the invasion was to secure the oilfields and ultimately to make money from them by getting the American, British and French oil companies back in charge of oil production. To say otherwise, I think, is to be naive in the extreme. Of course, no-one will ever admit this, because to do so would be criminally negligent, but 'we'll see!' In Britain the long-awaited Chilcott Report into Britain's involvement in the invasion will eventually see the light of day and then some opinions might change!
In the end, the numbers of Iraqi's killed in the conflict (civilians and military personal alike) are quite staggering, though not something I wish to go into here. But the chaos that ensued afterwards has been many times more devastating than perhaps even the most pessimistic of us might have imagined. The rise of ISIS/Daesh and the sectarian violence that threatens to engulf the whole region was and is quite horrific and could have been, I suggest, largely avoided if any lessons had been learned from the war in Afghanistan.
So was all the chaos, the rise of ISIS and the like, caused by the coalition's invasion of Iraq? No, of course not. But did we contribute to it by not having any sort of grand strategy for what happened after the so-called 'war' was won? Yes, for sure. The Iraqi kids (above) were mostly born into a life of continually evolving violence, hunger and strife. They have seen only that Americans (and British, because the US is not alone in this) blew up their homes, their hospitals, their schools, their families, all in the name of 'liberating' them from a horrid and brutish regime. Had we then spent but a fraction of the money in rebuilding those schools, hospitals, etc, that we had spent on blowing them up in the first place, perhaps those kids would see things differently.
I know, I know....yes, we did try to rebuild, I hear you say. What about all the aid, all the foreign investment..blah de blah de blah? And I agree, that did happen, but whatever was spent and done, it wasn't enough and it was all geared towards making a profit for the various companies that got involved. There wasn't ever a complete, or even a partial plan to put Iraq back together once it had been blown apart. There was no true humanitarian plan to help the people rebuild their lives as they wanted them to be rebuilt, not how we told them they should be rebuilt. Not everyone in the world wants to live in an Americanised (or Westernised, if that sits easier) democracy. Democracy just doesn't work in some places and no matter how many bullets we fire or bombs we drop will make it work. As in Afghanistan, sometimes winning the war just isn't enough. But, 'we'll see.'
Greater strides need to be made in trying to understand the Muslim community at large and we need to allow them to set their own agenda and not try to force a Westernised idea of what we would like Islam to be upon them. Much has been said about the radicalisation of young Muslim's, and in some cases of Western youths, by unprincipled and hateful Muslims; how Islam and the Koran preach hate and anti-American philosophies. But this is simply not true. I am not a Muslim, so have no axe to grind to here, but as an interested party I have taken the time to read the Koran and to read around the subject and to try to learn about Islam because I want to understand the message therein and to try and comprehend all the hate that there is in the world today. Many Western diplomats and journalists advocate a secular, Western style educational system as the way to go; let's turn them all into peace-loving, Baywatch watching Islamists that will present no threat to us now, or in the future. But again, history should teach us that imposing a secular liberal education on Muslim nations just doesn't work. Some Muslim scholars blame the lack of a non-secular education in the Middle-East as part of the problem in the rise of extremist groups such as ISIS, because religious teaching on the 'true' message of the Koran have been lost amid the bloodshed and mire. Indeed it has been suggested that Western democracies often support (openly or not) radical regime's, such as that of Sisi's Egypt (see above), because they cannot (or will not) understand the true message of the Islamic alternative, such as that put forward by Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and see it as something to be feared, rather than something to be understood, or even admired. But allow me to quote the words of Amr Darrag, a former minister in Mohamed Morsi's government who can explain it much more eloquently than me.
There is, of course, much hand-wringing over the idea of the caliphate from some Western politicians and writers who cast it as a byword for everything that is to be feared about Islam and Muslims. Some concerns are credible and require further examination, for example religious freedoms and equality, while some other concerns are merely an extension of viewing Muslims as an exotic “other.” We should ask why “states” desiring a “more perfect union” or European countries working towards “an ever greater union” are seen as both natural and laudable, but Muslim nations working towards the same is viewed with suspicion, requiring much justification.
Well, I can't answer that. Can you, without resorting to the normal, Western-style rhetoric? Send your answers on a postcard to: Anyone left who's willing to listen in the Middle East, c/o the first destroyed house that you encounter!
I don't pretend to have all the answers. I don't pretend that everyone in the world has the potential to be good or that evil doesn't exist, because it does. I'm merely expressing an opinion; my opinion, which may well change over time as I learn more and understand more, and which you are more than welcome to disagree with. But as a new friend from Galilee said to me recently when he quoted Voltaire back to me after we had disagreed on a point of ethical politics, 'I may disagree with what you have say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it'. I believe in freedom and I believe in peace and I believe in everyone's right to the same. I'm a Westerner, a true Brit and proud of it (though some may doubt it now), but as proud of I am of my nationality and heritage I'm also realistic enough to know that the British have a lot to answer for, particularly with regard to our colonial past. We are now in the 21st Century, with all technological and cultural advantages that that should bring. Yet I look around and I see massive inequality and huge indifference in most people to the plight and suffering of our fellow human beings. Even with the planet's rapidly growing population there is more than enough space and resources for us all to live a full and happy life, and yet through basic miscomprehension of the motives and ideals of those who may be a bit different from us, and a lack of understanding and empathy we close our doors, batten up the hatches and sit quaking with fear at the thought that the terrors that we see on our TV's will be visited upon us or our families, and we forget, or just plain ignore the fact that for many those terrors are already a daily fact of life. And it must stop. We should come together as one to make it happen, to make this world a better place for us all.
Have a good day, my friends, whatever your God, wherever you are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)