Historic Parallels

Paddy Ashdown has said that the decision to not take action against the use of chemical weapons in Syria will make England “be a country that shrugs its shoulders and says ‘nothing to do with me’”. I agree. Of course I understand that there are many well-intentioned people who disagree with Syrian military intervention, mainly because they do not fully understand the difference between the Iraq conflict and that which is going on now – i.e. U.N. democracy, or lack thereof – and I fully accept that British democracy has been proven functional in its resistance to warfare. But unfortunately, Syria now stands alone, just like Britain once stood alone, and tyranny will have to take its toll before decent human beings realise that allowing Assad to commit torture is almost as bad as when America refused to fight dictatorship in 1939. This is not sensationalist, it is historical relevance that many people have seemingly forgotten.

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.

Well That's A Relief

Barack Obama has won the U.S. Presidential election. This means that we will be spared four years of Republican belligerence, as they would probably have been threatening unilateral war with Iran (well, bilateral alongside Israel) and been much more reactionary towards Russia - not that Russia deserves a round of applause for recent decisions (i.e. Syria) but we can do without the old nuclear foes at loggerheads again. So as much as Obama isn’t perfect - he never was able to shut Guantanamo Bay - at least he guarantees us a calm head in any future storms, and he believes in universal healthcare (something us Brits take far too much for granted). And not forgetting, of course, that Democrats are generally liberal and free-thinking people; rarely a bad thing.

 

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.

Let 'em fight!

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to dominate the news. Is it really necessary to deluge us with this unnecessary feud? I can't help feeling that both the Israelis and the Palestinians forgot a long, long time ago exactly what this war was about. Forget the territorial disputes (and that's what it was originally, purely territorial), the two countries simply desire - or indeed enjoy - vengeance, retaliation, and all out victorious demonstrations of power! The UN has been rendered redundant by the United States' unwillingness to condemn Israel because there is a large Jewish community in America. (The UN's veto system is another matter entirely!) But blame has to be apportioned equally between the two rival countries because neither of them has any moral high ground other than "they bombed us so we're bombing them"! It seems that no politicians have any recognition of an idealistic conflict of principles anymore. So, as far as I'm concerned, just let them fight it out amongst themselves. If Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, or any other Middle Eastern country wants to get involved, then let them. The morality disappeared long ago. Until these countries are able to realise the simple principle that killing is wrong, there is little hope left for any of them. Sorry if that sounds a little bleak, but perhaps we should focus a bit more on our own social morality.