The Red Line Is About Time

Most people I speak to about the news (and most politicians that I see on the news) tend to be rather tentative about getting involved in the ongoing Syrian civil war. This mainly stems from the unnecessary war with Iraq, but I think there is a significant difference between the conflicts. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Hans Blix and his U.N. weapons inspectors were doing a good job, albeit a little slowly; they would have eventually determined that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and rendered him militarily impotent. I know that it wouldn’t have been particularly moral to leave a previously brutal dictator like Hussein in power, but further political measures would hopefully have been deployed (e.g. harsh economic sanctions) that may have forced a new Iraqi dawn – as in Egypt and Tunisia – without having to resort to warfare. But Syria is different: it is the U.N. Security Council that has been rendered impotent this time with Russia / China and Britain / America / France in a seemingly permanent stalemate that prevents political implementations. So now that today it has been revealed that President Barack Obama’s ‘red line’ has been crossed (proof has been shown that Bashar al-Assad has been using chemical weapons), I’m pleased that the U.S. government has taken the decision to arm Syrian rebels; in fact, it’s about time. Just because Russia and China have their own immoral agendas to keep Assad in power, doesn’t mean that the rest of the world should sit idly by while tens of thousands of people are massacred, many of them innocent civilians. As much as it may be reasonable to avoid sending in the soldiers (so that we don’t get dragged into another Afghanistan) we still have a moral duty to intervene somehow. We were able to get rid of Colonel Gaddafi by helping rebels in Libya (though that was with more political consensus), and that country is certainly better off without him. So I hope that Obama is strong in his decision-making, and forces Assad to back down from genocide.

Sporting Integrity

Some people think that sport and politics should always be kept separate; I suppose their reasoning is that sporting events are purely for entertainment purposes (i.e. the best athlete wins, and that’s all there is to it), and morality shouldn’t spoil that enjoyment. But, as you’ve probably already guessed, I disagree. I was perturbed a few weeks ago when the seemingly amoral - as in, money driven - Bernie Ecclestone pushed for the Bahrain Grand Prix to take place regardless of the serious repression of the masses that has been occurring for over a year now (not to mention the fact that Grands Prix annually take place in China where human rights abuses are even more frequent!). I’m frustrated that shortly the Euro 2012 football tournament will partly be held in Ukraine where Yulia Tymoshenko is currently incarcerated under draconian circumstances as a political prisoner; a country which only a few years ago rightly hailed their Orange Revolution for installing a progressive government, has now managed to take three steps back for its one step forward. And on a more local level, boxing (one of my favourite sports) is being brought into disrepute by Frank Warren, David Haye and Derek Chisora. After an outrageous press conference a few months back where Haye and Chisora brawled like savage animals (for which, I hasten to add, I think Haye was more to blame as he threw the first punch - his claim that pre-empive strikes are always acceptable would have seen us in nuclear war decades ago!), they are now being rewarded by the Luxembourg Boxing Federation with a big fight payday. I know that boxing revolves around money - like a lot of sports do - but this is a step too far. Irrespective of whether the legalities of boxing commissions are technically being followed, it is clearly an immoral fight as it wouldn’t be taking place now had it not been for the demonstration of casual brutality. Boxing is meant to be a controlled aggressive sport, not one for street thugs to show off their barbarism. And unlikely as it is, I really hope Warren gets stripped of his manager’s licence so he can never promote a debacle like this again!

UN Unfit For Purpose

After the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was set up in the hope that it could prevent further terrible conflict. A Security Council was appointed to specifically oversee areas where potential warfare could break out. The five permanent members of that council - the five main victors in World War II - were the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, Russia and China; each of the permanent members was granted the power of veto, so that any military intervention would require the consent of all five countries. These were noble aspirations of introducing democracy into scenarios of violence during a period of difficult political and social reconstruction. Unfortunately, the long passage of time appears to have rendered these constructs unworkable. Syria is a country in chaos. The UN estimates that around 9,000 people have died since pro-democracy protests began in March 2011. Regardless of a recent UN-brokered ceasefire, lethal aggression is continuing; this week an explosion in Hama took more innocent lives. France is now saying that the Security Council should consider the use of force in Syria as the peace plan is failing. Britain and the USA (although preferring to be non-interventionist) would almost certainly be willing to go along with using force as a last resort which we now must have reached. Yet the force option will probably not go ahead due to the veto of the other permanent members. Russia and China have their own agendas: they are anti-American (just watch the Russia Today news channel and see that every other story is slating the US!); they are worried about sacrificing their own economic deals (i.e. oil) that they have previously brokered with the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad, as then they would have to share the spoils with other world powers; and they are concerned about losing dominant influence in a prime political area. Basically, Russia and China are gladly putting their own nationalistic egos first, and genocide a distant second. Shame on them, eternal shame.

Important Principles

Two issues have caught my attention this week.
First, Fabio Capello has walked out of his role as England football manager. I admit that I’m not the biggest football fan - there’s too much dissent to the referee and deliberate foul play for my liking. But an important principle is at stake here: innocent until proven guilty. After John Terry had been accused of racist conduct, the first mistake that the Football Association (F.A.) made was to postpone the trial until after the Euro 2012 championships. My understanding (and again I’m no expert in football) is that part of this postponement happened due the urging of Chelsea football club. But we need to know whether Terry is a racist before he plays for England again; at which point did the F.A. think it was wise to put club politics before the issues of prejudice and discrimination? Then the F.A. made the further mistake of stripping Terry of his England captaincy even though he’s legally innocent. No wonder Capello felt the need to resign.

The second issue I noticed this week was that of Councillor Clive Bone of Bideford Town Council, who won a legal battle to prevent other councillors from conducting Christian prayer before meetings. My first instinct was to think that Mr Bone was being a little petty in taking legal action in the first place against what seemed to be freedom of conscience, but then I realised that ‘Prayer’ was actually on the formal agenda for each meeting meaning that every councillor was obliged to witness it. This kind of enforced worship is a good example of how religious rights can impose themselves too much onto parts of society that should remain secular (i.e. neutral). So well done to Mr Bone for standing up for the rights of secularists, and well done to the court for acknowledging them.
Finally however, let’s not get too carried away with these issues, important as they may be. Perspective is still required when you consider that genocide is currently being carried out in Syria, while Russia and China refuse to do anything about it. Bastards.

Am I Being Harsh?

There is another famine taking place in Africa and people in Western countries are again being asked to foot the bill. Although two seasons without rainfall, leading to drought, have of course contributed to this grim situation, I have to ask why no developmental action is taken in the intervening periods between famines in order to decrease the likelihood of similar problems in the future. The answer is national conflicts. Well-equipped and powerful militia groups have persistently prevented aid organisations from gaining access to the worst-hit parts of Somalia and Ethiopia; and violent battles have deterred long-term international investment. For instance, if charities such as Plan International or Oxfam were able to help African countries in reducing deforestation, improving water conservation, and building new roads for farmers to reach markets, there is a high likelihood that famines would not be happening on such a regular basis, regardless of drought. So, even though I acknowledge how harsh this sounds, should we really be continually throwing money at a lost cause? Wouldn’t it be better to petition our government to apply pressure on the African Union to sort out their domestic affairs, thereby allowing international aid organisations to do their job? If only the AU could swallow their pride a little more and ask the UN for help (which I do concede has its own problems convincing Russia and China to ever take positive action!), then progress might be made on these issues. Therefore, as heartless as I now seem, I will not be contributing any money to charity for this famine.