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.

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.

Nuclear Proliferation ... And Religious!

The UK has signed a deal with France regarding the progression of nuclear energy, i.e. more of our energy demands will be realised through nuclear power. It apparently strengthens co-operation between the two countries. However, putting aside the problems that Britain and France are currently having over Europe, this is still a bad idea. Eleven months ago, a tsunami swept into Japan and reached the Daiichi nuclear plant in Fukushima. The result was radioactive material being leaked into the air and sea; a twenty kilometre exclusion zone was necessary - can you imagine having to evacuate your home because something twenty kilometres away had blown a gasket?! Yet that could soon be the reality. Germany has become the example of nuclear correctness: they are going to decommission all of their plants in the coming years. But Britain and France don’t care about what other countries have been through. Please simply acknowledge this point: if a nuclear power plant is severely disturbed, it can cause inestimable results. The Chernobyl disaster created problems that lasted for years, if not decades. And as much as there is obviously no chance of a tsunami happening in Britain, the Japanese government didn’t see it as a likely threat either; any random event could possibly afflict us. Nuclear power just isn’t worth the risk - randomness can fuck us up too readily!

Addendum: last week, I wrote about Bideford Council’s right not to have to witness Christian prayer. Unfortunately, this week Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, has arbitrarily decided that the High Court made an “illiberal ruling”. He stated that the ruling was “striking a blow for localism over central interference”, but surely if he is now introducing a law opposing the High Court’s judgement, that is the epitome of central interference! Pickles said that “freedom to worship” was more important than “intolerant secularism”, but forcing councillors to pray to a god that they don’t believe in at the beginning of every council meeting is intolerant by definition and opposes freedom. The communities secretary is basically worried about losing Christian voters, rather than preserving liberty.











P.S. Don’t mess with David Haye, he’ll bottle ya!