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.......!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Nice, pale skinned Aladdin!  No less an Arab than Jafar methinks

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,

Slightly scary looking and darker skinned Jafar, because darker
equates to more evil in the movies.

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.

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.

Iraq: Endemic Corruption, a failing Government and Sectarian divides.

Today Arutz Sheva7, the national broadcasting service of Israel, reports that the Iraqi government is close to collapse after a sit-in by over 100 MP's demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister, President and parliamentary speaker after their failure to implement government reforms that had been proposed and unanimously carried by the parliament in August last year.  Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, had promised sweeping reforms to the nations Administration, Service industries (e.g. electricity and water supply), the economic and Financial sectors, as well as the activation of an Anti-Corruption Council that was supposed to tackle corruption in whatever sphere, that would be chaired by none other than, the PM himself.

No conflict of interest there then!

However, political commentators, such as Anthony Cordesman at CSIS (the Centre for Strategic & International Studies), doubted the efficacy of al-Abadi's proposals and whether they could actually be implemented given the huge problems that exist in Iraq.  The proposals were vague and undefined in many instances, with Cordesman suggesting that al-Abadi may struggle to get the internal backing necessary to bring the reforms to fruition, and that they were merely interim measures designed to pacify critics of the regime, both from within Iraq and those of the international community.

The proposed measures were aimed broadly at the implementation of a technocratic government that would be more representative of the various sectarian communities within Iraq and would be composed of individuals (appointed by al-Abadi himself) who had demonstrated sufficient 'competence and integrity' to warrant their appointment, together with the expulsion of others who did not possess the 'required conditions' (as above) to fulfil their duties adequately.  Government ministries were to be slimmed down or even abolished, with corrupt or inept officials being dismissed, all with the stated aim of increasing government 'efficiency and reducing costs.'  There were additional measures said to tackle tax evasion, custom tariffs at borders and a retrospective restructuring of officials pensions, both past and present.  Economic reforms included the activation of loans to sectors such as housing, industry and agriculture that were meant to create employment and increase investment from the private sector.

However, all these grand ideas were not backed up with any specifics as to how, when or with what resources they were to be achieved and, as Cordesman said, they did not have any clearly stated 'goals and priorities.'

Further measures aimed at identifying failures in the delivery of services, such as water and electricity, and to rectify said failures, were perhaps, the most opaque of all stating that competency here was the required idyll at both ministry and local government levels, but with no specifics as to how such competency was to be achieved.  Anti-corruption measures were to include the activation of various 'regulatory institutions' who were to identify 'corrupt officials' and establish a 'criteria for evaluating the performance' of officials in order to 'consolidate them (i.e. their particular offices) and increase their efficiency.'

But nowhere in the (I think) relatively short list of proposed reforms is there any mention of how Iraq was to deal with any of the core issues (as Cordesman calls them) facing the nation.  For example, no mention was made of how to deal the problems posed by ISIS, the Iraqi Kurds and the Sunni minority, all which adversely affect the security, profitability and future prospects of a nation whose largest demographic is now under the age of 14 (c.40%; CIA estimates made in 2014 and taken from CIA factfile).

Further to this in February this year Iraqi law-maker, Mishaan al-Jubouri, appeared on satellite TV to admit to blatant corruption, saying that he himself had received bribes amounting to a 'few million dollars' in order to facilitate the closure of corruption cases, where he actually kept the money but didn't (he says) close the cases.  Furthermore, he went on to state unequivocally that 'the whole government is corrupt, including me,' and that everyone in 'the ruling political class is involved in corruption' and that the Commission of Integrity, set up by al-Abadi to investigate corruption, open cases against officials only to shut them down again once a sufficiently large bribe had been paid over.  He couldn't, however, tell the whole story on TV because if he did then he said his life would be forfeit, and that his motivation for going on TV had been to bring the corruption debate into the public forum and to take it our of the hands of the judiciary.  But perhaps the most damning indictment of the regime was when he stated that 'we (the) politicians are behind Iraq's destruction' and were to blame for 'every hungry child' and every Iraqi 'who dies for the lack of medicine.'

Whatever the future holds for Iraq and it's hapless, war-weary populous, one thing is for sure; that the strife will continue to roll and roll on.  There is no simple answer, no one solution that will adequately and succinctly solve the seemingly endless list of problems facing the Iraqi nation.  Cordesman suggests that the US should use it influence more wisely.  The absence of a grand strategy on behalf of the US, was and remains a major flaw that is, at least in part, responsible for the chaos that ensues today.  However, the problems run much deeper and go back much further than even the first Gulf war and today these outstanding issues (such as those mentioned above) present major obstacles to the future prosperity of not just Iraq, but the Middle east as a whole.  Sectarian divides run deep all over the region and Islamic extremism (including the Salafist philosophies espoused by ISIS) are running riot.  It is going to need much more than an end to the various wars to put this region back together.  Aid agencies too should shoulder their part of the blame.  Cordesman recommends that (financial) aid should be withheld until it can be demonstrated that it can be delivered wholesale to it's intended recipients and that it will not simply evaporate into the pockets of yet more corrupt officials.

The situation is horribly complex and intricate, fraught with moral and ethnic potholes that are inevitably laced with sectarian incendiaries that threaten to ignite the current levels of civil strife within Iraq into full blown civil war, that would further inflame the already heightened tensions and stresses across the region.  The problem is not one that can be solved by the Iraqi's alone; the international community, aid agencies and neighbouring countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, even Iran, must all play their part.  But this should be done honestly, openly and without the sectarian, racist prejudices that currently rack the region if we are ever see the end of all this chaos and emerge from the other side peaceably and intact.

Whatever, whoever your God is....have a good and a tolerant day.

The Evolving Face of Racism across my lifetime

The BBC's excellent Sunday evening drama 'Undercover' must make uncomfortable viewing for many.  It deals with issues concerning racism and in particular institutionalised racism within the Police, both in the UK and the US, a problem that is increasingly becoming big news, especially in the US where shootings of young black men have reached almost epidemic proportions in the past few years.

Statistics they say, don't lie, and these are some of the outrageous numbers uncovered by The Guardian during a recent study.  Young black men in the States (between 15-34 years old) were 9 times more likely to be killed by the Police than those of any other ethnic or demographic group.  During 2015 there were an astronomical 1,134 deaths of young black men at the hands of US law enforcement agencies, a figure that made up 15% of total deaths recorded (by the various agencies) despite the fact that this demographic group accounts for only 2% of the population.  Some cases in particular (such as that of 12 y.o. Tamir Rice & 18 y.o. Michael Brown) highlight the massive miscarriages of justice that can occur in the US where political activists, like Brittany Packnett, have determined that the justice system presents 'no deterrent' at all to excessive Police force with the assailants often getting off scot-free despite (often) overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I know that 'Undercover' is a fictional drama, but nevertheless it's powerful message has a ring of truth to it that is more than a little disturbing (for me at least).

I'm white.  Born in 1960 and grew up in Brighton on the south-east coast of England.  Brighton, as many will be aware, has (shall we say) a liberal attitude to most things.  It is well-known for having the largest gay/lesbian community, not only in the UK, but also in Europe.  I grew up thinking it was quite normal for guys to hold hands with other guys (and yes, I was aware they were 'queer' as we called it back then, and that I wasn't) and never thought twice about it.  As far as I knew it was the same everywhere!  In the same way, as a child I was unaware of racial prejudice as an issue.  The colour of a person's skin was just the colour of their skin and that was it.  They were the same as me to all intents and purposes, except that some had a better tan than me!  Oh, the innocence and folly of youth!  It just never occurred to me to dislike someone for any reason other than if I thought they were 'nasty' or 'scary.'  Such things just weren't an issue!

However, growing up in 'my' part of Brighton I was oblivious to the fact that weren't any 'coloureds' (as Mum and Dad called them) or Indians back then and really only noticed that about my own upbringing when, as an adult, I moved to London for work and found myself in a multi-cultural society for the first time.  My first black mate came along when I was 16 (still living in Brighton) and he spoke better English than me, which I remember being surprised at when I first met him, because up until then my inter-racial experiences had been largely limited to watching episodes of 'Love thy Neighbour,' where the white guy called the black guy 'Sambo' and he responded in a West-Indian accent, calling the white guy 'Honky,' which I thought was all good fun and was the sort of good-humoured behaviour that occurred wherever such interactions were taking place.  As a very young kid mum used to dress me up in those nice 'nigger-brown' flares and I took a gollywog to bed to cuddle and thought nothing of it!  It wasn't offensive to anyone (or so I thought - why should it be?) because as far as I knew that shade of brown was really called 'nigger-brown' and my gollywog was just so cuddly that I couldn't do anything other than just love him!  And to call blacks 'coloured' was the acceptable term, just as calling them 'Sambo' was to me just a nickname, much like my mate Neil, who we called Nellie!  Where was the problem?

The incomparable Pele as he was back then.

Looking back am I ashamed of what I thought?  Do I consider that I was being racist in any way, shape or form?

Not a bit of it!  I was a product of where and when I grew up; nothing more, nothing less.  I don't really remember the World Cup of 1966 (to my everlasting frustration) though I do remember being fully aware of Pele, the greatest footballer in the world, and admiring the magical things he did with the ball.  Pele's black of course, but to me he was just an exotic Brazilian with dazzling feet and an even more dazzling smile!  Perhaps the first time I remember noticing that anything vaguely racist was going on in the world was at the Mexico Olympics in 1968 when Tommy Smith made the 'black power' salute on the podium.  I recall all the furore at the time about this but in my innocence (I was only 7, so give me a break, and not allowed to watch the news at that time) I thought 'black power' was a reference to his amazing athletic prowess - I mean the guy had just broken the world record and for me, he was a hero.  I even remember standing on a box in the garden emulating that salute and being miffed that mum wouldn't loan me a black glove to complete the image!

Tommy Smith and the infamous 'black power' salute.

I was also obsessed with all things African as a kid and became convinced that I had been born in the wrong place!  I was African inside and no-one was going to tell me otherwise.  In nature and cultural documentaries on TV I recall being astounded at the beauty of African tribeswomen and wondering why English girls looked so drab and unadorned by comparison!

Of course now this all seems terribly quaint and naive, even to me.  But in the end I was lucky.  I grew up in a liberal land, with liberal parents who harboured no grudges (that I am aware of - but check with my mum, just in case) and was eventually fortunate enough to work in and backpack around much of Africa, which didn't disappoint one iota, and I even got to marry my own African beauty.  I have lived a full and relatively happy life and I'm grateful, but fully aware that I am perhaps in a dwindling minority and that above all else saddens me.

And now, as I move past middle age, I feel I've lost the innocence of my youth, but none of the mystery.  I still cannot view anyone as other than they are and remain bemused by the immoral, bigoted and racist behaviours of the people's of the world that we all share.  Now I realise that bigotry can take many forms; it's not just white on black, or black on white.  Religious bigotry is perhaps the single biggest problem we face today.  The horrors committed by the followers of one so-called 'peaceful' religion on those of another are beyond my comprehension.  Arabs, Jews, Sunni's, Shi'ites, Christian's, white, black, poor, rich.....whatever you are, whoever you are, there's someone out there who hates you, just for being you.

And that's sad.

In the end we are all one.  But for an accident of birth, a radicalised Muslim could have been born into a devout Catholic home in Rome and vice versa.  I could have been born in Africa and subjected to unspeakable horrors by another African just because I was born into a different tribe or because I am weaker than the other.  Trying to understand sectarian violence amongst the various Muslim factions is an exercise in futility.  They worship the same peace-loving God.  Why kill your brother because he was born on the other side of an arbitrary line (we call a border) and sees the same God in a different light?  Why persecute Jews just because they are Jews?  Why do Jews see Palestinians as second class humans?  Why did Hitler hate Jews so much?  These are all just accidents of birth.  Born in a different time, a different place, he might have been a successful artist and Netanyahu might have been a gay hairdresser living in Brighton!  I digress.

Just the sort of African beauty that bewitched me as a child
and still does as an adult.
Why would anyone wish to destroy such beauty?

My views on racism, in all it's forms, are simplistic I know, but if you cut me do I not bleed the same as a rich Arab, or a poor Arab, or an Aborigine, or a Sioux, or a Jew, or an Orthodox Russian, or a Houthi, or a Protestant Christian, or a Sufi, or a Hindu?  Where did it all go wrong?  Where's the love?  Where's the understanding?  We live in an amazing, beautiful world with more than enough resources for all of us to enjoy the fruits of a rich, happy and prosperous life; so why should it be otherwise?  I don't understand.  Will never understand.  As the world falls slowly into hate-driven anarchy I retain little hope for future generations.  Extremism in all it's forms seems to be the norm these days, but that doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it valid.  One person is no more or less valid than another and we should be helping our neighbour, our brothers, our sisters, rather than filling our heads, and those of our children, with racist agendas that abound.

It's good that dramas such as 'Undercover' are broadcast; the fact it is fiction is neither her nor there.  It helps to throw a light on the issues that surround us all.  I just wish that it wasn't necessary, that's all.  Our energies would be far better served in helping to eradicate the inequalities and inequities that exist in our world; in helping to limit the effects of climate change that affect us all; Muslim, Jew, Christian and Hindu alike.  If we ploughed our money and resources into changing the world for the better, rather than in buying weapons with which to kill our neighbour just because he/she is different from us, we could each live in our own particular nirvana, whatever that might be.

Peace and Love Brother, whoever you are!

Moral turpitude on the Jewish-Palestinian dilemma within the Labour Party.

In today's Guardian Jonathan Freedland discusses very eloquently whether the Labour Party under our Jezza have gone soft on antisemitism after comments from Labour Party members were allowed to pass unchecked by the party hierarchy, and he suggests that current anti-Jewish feelings are being further inflamed by recent developments in the long-standing Israel-Palestinian conflict.  He goes onto suggest that Britain (and other European) colonial powers are historically culpable for much of the current tensions in the region and in taking the moral high ground (as witnessed by the comments of Downing & Kirby) we are basically on very shaky and dangerous ground.

I couldn't agree more.  I have said time and again that in spite of the recent history of this particular conflict, which incidentally has been ongoing in one form or another since the late 19th century if not before, that Britain, France and the post-War powers are largely culpable and liable for the present chaos we see in the region as a whole and (I believe) need to hold their hands up and take greater responsibility for the ongoing mess that we see on our TV's on a daily basis.

The problem is not just one of Jews against Arabs (including the Palestinians) or vice versa, because it all goes much, much deeper than that.  Historically of course the Jewish people had always lacked a homeland, though their spiritual home had always been the regions of the Middle-Eastern Levante.  Perhaps inevitably, rampant antisemitism through the ages and the lack of a place to call home, had to lead in the end to the idea of Zionism as originally championed by Rabbi Sholomo Alkalai in his 1834 booklet Shema Yisrael, where he called for the establishment of Jewish colonies in (what was then) Palestine.  The first Aliyah* began within a generation (1882-1902), but it wasn't really till after the beginning of the second Aliyah in 1904 that Arab resistance to the Jewish settlements in Palestine really took hold.

In 1917 the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, in a letter to Lord Rothschild, gave the first official acknowledgement of the need to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  This led to an agreement at the Paris Peace Conference at the end of WW1 to grant the British a mandate in Palestine to establish a Jewish homeland based on the so-called Balfour Agreement.  However, during the 1920's Arab resistance to continued Jewish immigration into Palestine led the British High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel (himself a Jew) and Head of the Colonial Office, Winston Churchill, to attempt to establish a Palestinian Constitution which would include all secular and non-secular factions of the Arabs, Christians and Jews, who would have been a minority on the legislative Council (Jews only accounted for ~11% of the total population at the time) but who had, nevertheless, agreed to the Constitution because the Balfour Agreement was enshrined within it.  The Palestinian Arabs objected to some of the wording in the so-called 'Churchill White Paper' which they deemed to be pro-Zionist taking exception to phrases such as 'Palestine (was destined to become) as Jewish as England is English' and they rejected the Constitution under this basis and once again the establishment of the Jewish homeland came into doubt.

Jewish immigration into Palestine continued during the 20's and 30's leading to increasing tension and dissatisfaction on both sides with the Palestinian Arabs fearing that their population, culture and language would eventually become subordinate, or perhaps even disappear altogether, beneath the British-backed Jewish demands and claims.  The growing disenfranchisement of the Palestinians was increased by the lack of a unified Arab response to continued Jewish immigration into Palestine and by what they saw as complicit British involvement in the loss of their land, jobs and livelihoods.  Incidents such as the 'wailing wall' crisis in 1929 and continued civil unrest on both sides led to the establishment of a Royal Commission in 1936 under Lord Peel that, amongst other things, stated that the interests of the Jews and Palestinian Arabs were in fact 'inherently reconcilable' and included the first proposals for a partitioning of Palestine into Jewish and Arab cantons that would be run more or less autonomously, but would remain under the overall control of a Mandatory Authority.

However, even as Arab leaders rejected the proposals, countering with their own Mandate, events in Europe and elsewhere around the globe started to take precedence over the growing unrest in the region.  Despite this the British pushed ahead with their new proposals and issued a new White Paper in 1939 which stated their continued intent for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.

Throughout WW2 the Jewish cause gained momentum, whether spurred on by feelings of gross sympathy, horror or guilt, the international community rallied behind the tragic remnants of the European Jewry and calls for a Jewish homeland, whilst in contrast Arab unity and backing for the plight of the Palestinians Arabs faded until the eventual declaration of the establishment of Israel on 14th May 1948, when finally a United Arab force (of Jordanians, Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese & others) occupied the territories destined for the Palestinians under the new partition plan.  But it was too little too late for the Palestinians who have basically been on the back foot ever since.

The subsequent Colonial divisions of the region among the 'old boy' network compounded the problems and certainly led to many of the religious, cultural and social divides that plague the Middle East today.  The short-sightedness and selfish interests of Britain, France and the other powers in dividing up the region as they saw fit for their purposes, and not those of the resident populations have, in my opinion led to much, if not all, of the current troubles that plague us all today.

In my head I can't believe that such short-term political gains (for the Colonial powers) were placed above the long-term welfare and stability of the region as a whole.  Decisions made in haste after WW2 are now being repented by those of us that bear witness to the almost daily horrors and atrocities committed under the name of one God or another in the Middle East and around the globe.

I believe that every human being should be allowed the chance to live their life as they see fit; that each individual should be able to worship whatever God they choose to worship without fear of reprisal or repercussions for doing so.  I make no excuses for Israel.  Their abhorrent treatment of the Palestinians as less than human more than mirrors their own vile experiences under the Nazi's, and they should know better and they should be ashamed.  But don't make the mistake of thinking that all Israeli's feel the same because they don't.  One only has read much of the online press from Israel to see the futility of that argument.

The only way, I believe, to save the region from falling into complete chaos (which could eventually consume us all) is to give each and every ethnic group it's own economically viable homeland, be they Jewish, Palestinian, Kurdish, Shia, Sunni, Christian or otherwise.  And as part of this radical solution I would also allow those who wish to live under Muslim Sharia Law (including those of ISIS - once they have been disarmed) to do so because in my world everyone should have a chance for a full and happy life.

But we live in the real world and not the peace-loving Nirvana of my dreams.  Antisemitism has been around for a lot longer than the Labour Party and shows no sign of dissipating in the near future.  The fact that some small-minded individuals, with small-minded ideas, have wormed their way into positions of relative power is nothing new; it's sad, but not new.  Donald Trump is just such a case to point!  And as to whether Jezza does anything about these people is a matter (I would argue) for his own conscience, as are our own views on the Jewish-Palestinian question and one can only hope that each one of us is morally strong enough to stand up for whatever we believe in.  And I can only hope that your view, whatever it might be, is made with an open, and not a closed mind, and a loving heart that decries oppression in all it's forms, wherever and whenever they may occur.



* Aliyah is the term used for the waves of Zionist immigration into Palestine

The Panama Papers & the Road to Corruption

Lord Acton, British Historian (1834-1902) said that 'power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'  As they say....never a truer word spoken!  And what was true back then remains just as insightful and relevant today.

The leaking of the Panama Papers is, no doubt, a story that will run and run and as revelatory as it may be I have no doubt at all that our Vlad (a.k.a Comrade Teflon) will brush it all off, slip on a nice, new sports jacket and have a damn good laugh at the furore it has all caused.  Because not one iota will stick to him or any of his cronies who remain insulated from international opinion behind an iron curtain of absolute power in Russia.

I'm sure, somewhere down the line, that someone will get clobbered, but it won't be our Vlad.  He is quite simply untouchable.  His name never appears anywhere.  To all intents and purposes he owns not a single thing, so where the buck stops is where he wants it to stop.  I've no doubt that most of this money has been re-channelled; in his situation a contingency plan (or three) are de rigour and that even before this all came out there would be some chump, somewhere, thinking he's sitting pretty under the huge shadow that Vlad casts, who will be the ultimate fall guy.  But it won't be him, and it won't be Rodulgin.

Back in the 90's I knew a guy who was sent to Moscow by a (nameless) chain of British supermarkets who decided that Russia's burgeoning middle class and new capitalist society would provide the ideal outlet to expand their operations.  He was there for several years after which time the company withdrew, unable to do business in a society where corruption was so ingrained that they couldn't breathe without paying someone off just to be able to exhale!

Comrade Teflon looking tight-lipped as usual

I have no doubt that things have only gotten worse since then.  The thing is, Russia is just so big and so corrupt that it doesn't matter what anyone says they just don't give a shit!  They just do what the hell they want; economically, militarily and socially the Russian regime is immune to public opinion.  That Vlad has absolute power within his borders is undeniable.  In some ways, one has to admire the guys fortitude and resourcefulness.  He is no doubt one of the brightest, but also one of the slipperiest minds of our time, and he is probably viewing the whole farce as little more than a tremor on the political seismograph creating no more than a ripple on his lake of indifference.

In the end maybe the saddest thing (for me) is that these people (not only the Russians, but Mubarak, Peroshenko and all the others) already have more than enough money for one hundred lifetimes (no matter how their wealth was garnered) and yet they still find the need to secret away yet more millions which they can never, ever possibly spend.  I just don't understand what it is about excessive wealth that makes even the nice guys eventually try to cheat the system and not do as the rest of us do; pay their taxes, look after their families, give a bit to charity and try to be happy with what we've got.

I'm a huge football fan!  Massive fan!  For me an on-song Messi in full flight is a sight to behold.  Perhaps he's the best there's ever been, maybe that there ever will be.  And with the outrageous money he must make why o' why o' why would he or his advisors ever consider trying to cheat the system just to try and keep hold of a bit more of what he obviously feels he's entitled to?  Whether he did, or whether he didn't, I know, is yet to be determined but the fact the question even arises means that all isn't rosy in Messi's garden.  Again, even if found guilty of tax evasion he'll just pay it all off and carry on to pick millions more.  It's not right!  If that were you or I cheating for a fraction of the sum we'd have the book, in fact the whole damn library thrown at us.  Just another example of money corrupting and ultimately money protecting money.

It seems that as wealth grows it eats away at the recipients moral backbone until they can't tell right from wrong; morally, legally or otherwise.  And I know that my opinion amid all the others will just fade away into digital insignificance as the corruption bandwagon continues to roll on and the only ones squashed beneath it's wheels are the poor, the weak and the good.

 

Female Segregation during Menstruation. Do we have all the answers?

On Friday The Guardian reported on Nepal's bleeding shame - where Nepalese women are shockingly banished to cowsheds during their menstruation to live in utter squalor.  The process, known locally as 'Chhaupadi,' or 'untouchable being,' has been legislatively banned since 2005 but is apparently still a widely held belief that can often lead to the hapless victim becoming horribly sick, possibly even leading to death in extreme cases.  In Nepal the supposed 'uncleanliness' and 'sins' of women during the time of their menstruation is an ancient tradition that has been observed for millenia as part of Hindu religious practises and reportedly continues today in areas rife with poor (or low) economic development and education leading to these huge infringements on the human rights of the young girls and women concerned.

In the West we are rightly abhorred by such seemingly barbaric and medieval attitudes.  But Hinduism is not alone in this.  The 'sins' of women are a commonly held held belief across other religions (for example, in Islam) and the monthly segregation of women can often be considered normal practice.  In 2009 I was lucky enough to travel to Mali, passing from Bamako, the capital, all the way across this beautiful country to Timbuktu and beyond, into the dunes of the Sahara for the Essekine Music Festival; a celebration of sub-Saharan music that was a privilege to see.

Our guide for this amazing trip was Mohammed (*), a Tuareg elder and family leader, who was a man caught between two worlds.  On the one hand his lifelong belief in the teachings, traditions and religious upbringing that his late, departed father had imparted and that had instilled in him his own sense of family in which he took immense pride as the new head of the family.  But, on the other hand, he was a man striving for his place in 21st Century Africa where the pace of change dwarfs even that which we see around us on a daily basis in the West.  During the course of our conversations it became clear that Mohammed was fully aware of how Westerners viewed his ancient Tuareg ways.  He was a lovely man; open, engaging and intelligent but also completely intractable in some of his attitudes.  After his father had died Mohammed had become head of the family, a concept that is easy to say but hard to relate to when you have grown up in Western society.  Not only was it a huge honour (for him) but it was also a huge weight around his neck.  Overnight he became responsible for his aging mother, all his younger brothers as well as his 14 year old (at the time) divorced sister.  It was down to him to pay all the bills, put food on the table and to organise and arrange the lives of his younger siblings.

This is Mohammed.  He used to say to me, "Peter, I am a bad man! A very bad man!" and then he would squint, screw up his face and start to laugh!  When I snapped this picture I asked him to show me the 'bad man' and he duly obliged.

Of course, when he mentioned his divorced younger sister being only 14 we were understandably shocked.  "What's the problem?" he would say.  "You don't understand how we live!"  His sister had been married off (by the his late father) at 12 to a man who had beaten her repeatedly.  Mohammed tried to explain how the wealth and prosperity of the family unit was dependent upon the men; the women were there to bear children, to cook and to clean.  When he told me how he was relatively forward thinking, in that he allowed his sister to get a divorce rather than giving her a further beating and sending her back to her husband, I found it hard to take.  Divorced at 14, she was one one of the lucky ones, because Mohammed still offered her his support and was actively searching for a new husband for her but his task was made all the more difficult simply because of her marital status.  He couldn't understand why we give our women in the West so much freedom.  "This is why you have so many broken marriages and so much unhappiness!  Why are you not more like us?"

During the course of our travels we passed through the Dogon highlands on the fringes of the Sahara, bypassing many ancient, mud built villages, some with mosques many hundreds of years old.  The way of life in these regions had changed little over the centuries and the segregation of women during their menstruation was a universally held practice.

Low slung buildings like this, often contained within a rough built compound, were
home to the women for the week of their menstruation.  As a point of note, the village elders (all male) held their debates on village policy in similarly, low slung buildings where the men would sit cross-legged under the shelter to decide the future direction of the village.  Mohammed explained they were built so low to the ground so that if any one man got angry during the discussions and tried to stand up quickly he would bang his head hard which always led to laughter and not the violence that might otherwise ensue!  

In Nepal the practice of Chhaupadi appears to be a uniquely extreme version of this type of segregation, whereas in Mali it did seem to have a slightly more favourable aspect to the whole process (in that the health of the women didn't, on the face of it, appear to be threatened) but remains nonetheless, an oppressive and backward idea that I found hard to understand.  Didn't they know that if women do not menstruate then they cannot become pregnant?  

But are such attitudes merely just a result of poor education or is it an indication of something much darker; a deliberate and premeditated plan to keep women in their place?

I don't know.  Perhaps it's a bit of both, much as it has been in the Christian West where women have been second class citizens for the vast majority of our history.  Most Westerners would consider themselves to be part of an enlightened, more forward thinking society who can look at the long-held beliefs of other, so-called lesser (or more primitive) societies and take the moral high ground, abhorring what we deem to be such medieval attitudes.  But we have to be careful in this and always remember that it wasn't that long ago that we in the West burned free-thinking women at the stake for being witches!

Things are changing and it is important that we highlight, discuss and debate openly things that are so plainly oppressive and radical, such as the practice of Chhaupadi in Nepal, but it is also just as important to have these discussions within a framework that fits the particular society under discussion and does not merely replace one form of oppression with another that might be more palatable to Westerners.  There are places in this world where Western ideas and ideals do not fit and will never fit no matter how much we would like them to.  Not everyone in the world wants what we want, and not everyone in the world holds the same set of values as we do, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong or evil merely because they believe differently from us.

Mohammed was a man trying to breach the gulf between the past and the present, and I could feel the love and huge weight of responsibility he felt for his family.  He was a man on the cusp and I could sense he was a good man who was willing to listen, who would try to understand and who would strive to change if he felt change were needed.  

In the I Ching we learn that the only thing that never changes is that everything is always changing.  I think Mohammed was aware of this and I could feel from my talks with him and others that positive change was coming.  One friend said to me, 'don't make the mistake of thinking that all Africans want BMW's and plasma TV's because we don't.  Look at the pollution and disease you have and I think, you can keep it.  All we want are the same chances you have in the West and we will change for the better, but in our way.  We will learn from your mistakes and make Africa a better place to live than Europe!'

Change is coming, but change takes time.  We need to be able to give the people's of the world's poorer nations the time needed to change, but more importantly we need to allow them access to their own resources and allow them to change and to grow as they would wish to change and not how we would wish them to.

*  Since I left Mali has fallen into chaos and civil war and the last thing I heard Mohammed had lost everything he owned and was interned in a refugee camp in Mauritania with his brothers and sisters, his mother not having survived the journey.  For a very proud man like Mohammed I can imagine this is a very hard situation to take and I can only hope that wherever he is he retains some sense of self and what is truly right and wrong and that he and his brothers have not fallen victim to the extremist ideals that were already apparent in some corners of Mali when I was there.

Interestingly on the day I flew home Air France decided to change the flight time of my plane without bothering to tell any of the people booked on it!  Welcome to Africa!  I arrived at the airport in good time to see the plane taxi-ing down the runway and leaving without me.   After some consternation on my part, I was eventually put up for the night in the Radisson Blue hotel that was attacked earlier this year by Al-Queada rebels!