Syria: Watching it Burn

Suddenly Syria is back on the agenda. This issue has been meandering in and out of the main public discourse for as long as the conflict has been going on, pushed out by various issues deemed more important to Britons. An Olympics there, deteriorating economy there a Royal baby who you would have to live on the moon to avoid news of. Things started out in the now familiar Arab Spring context. The people protested against their government and demanded more of a say in how their country is run. In response the government shot at them, over and over again. Soon the inevitable happened; the people shot back. What started as a few simmering skirmishes turned into a civil war, then slowly and surely morphed into a glimpse of a regional one. But as bad as it got it wasn't quite bad enough to discuss anything other than sending over non-lethal aid. It was certainly not bad enough in the opinion of the politicians and the people who voted them in this country and much of the West. In the wake of a shaky Eurozone and austerity measures, this additional problem came at a time decidedly inconvenient for us. It is undoubtedly immeasurably more inconvenient for the Syrian people themselves.

 

So the brain trust of our political masters had a plan. Granted it seemed hardly justifiable to act now, it simply wasn't horrible enough as defined by their humble assessments. But if Assad or the rebels used chemical weapons a "red line" would be crossed, all bets would be off and the West would race in and settle accounts. It seemed no one believed that this line would come, then it did. And the US in particular as demonstrated for Obama opted for more caution instead of more action. If chemical weapons were used, verification would have to be carried out it was reasoned. Even when verification from the UK, France and Israel among other came Obama urged caution, the US intelligence juggernaut had still not delivered its verdict. Just to make sure the world was listening the culprits pulled the same trick again almost as if to make sure we were looking. Now it is no longer in debate that chemical weapons have been used. Certainty has been restored, and the inconvenient fact that over 700,000 lives have been snuffed out with good old fashioned firearms and bombs has been put aside as a minor annoyance.

 

So the arm chair politicians and strategists, admittedly a vice I am not completely innocent of, are out in force. What is to be done? How? Who's army? The latter question is the most permanent. Conservatives and UKIP supporters in particular are out for blood thanks to the UK defence cuts making a mockery of our previous imperial power status. We are not powerless, but our power is waning. But in this we are not alone. Europe with the exception of Germany is in economic recovery mode and suffering under similar austerity measures. So no one nation is really in a position to solve this problem alone. This has to be a coalition effort. France seems keen to get involved. The US seems less so but has begun to position itself on the warpath.

 

We the UK seem as little more than an assertive and at times a little bit of a morally self righteous little country at times like this. But we are far from powerless and we still have a powerful voice. I am divided for practical reasons about what a military intervention might achieve. My pessimism is mostly down to my belief that an earlier intervention may have supported a more cohesive and less extreme rebel force. Now extremists are growing among the rebels. But for principle and long term stability's sake, I am pretty certain that President Assad has to go. But in order to bring this about there is one angle we have avoided for reasons of political expediency, leaning on Russia.

 

Assad's Syria has long been a client state of Russia. Even now despite sanctions and international condemnation Russia backs Assad, only slightly wavering at the chemical weapons. You need only look at the tone which Russia addresses the West with to know that the Putin clique does not respect us. An infamous feature of the Syrian debacle has been their Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov wagging his finger at us, urging us to stay out while Assad 'resolves' the problem. Despite the fact that such resolving seems to require an extreme amount of bloodshed. And yet what is the UK's response to Russia? There were pictures taken and handshakes given in front of No 10. Putin is feted like a statesman while he acts in the manner as anything but one. Meanwhile a Russian ship carrying arms to Syria is stuck in Scottish waters in insurance grounds, hardly a bold blow struck for freedom.

 

Germany is one of the only larger nations that have taken a harder line against Russia. Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel has openly criticised Putin, cancelled state visits between Russia and Germany and has encouraged the growth of Russian human rights activist groups in Russia. I firmly believe that it is in the UK's interests to encourage Germany to come out of its World War Two shadow. The decline of European hard power thanks to defence cuts means a more assertive Germany has a place in the world. I hope one day Germany will be as keen to commit to interventions such as Syria as much as France is.

But today is Friday 29th August 2013, the day after the House of Commons vote on Syria. The government has been defeated, meaning that the UK will militarily at least sit this one out. Many people are happy about this, including many friends of mine. For myself I could not be more disappointed. As far as I am concerned Labour has done the "right thing" to exorcise the demons left from the Iraq debacle more than anything. Ed Miliband is now spoken of very disingenuously as a statesman. And now the UK will sit by and do nothing, while the unlikely alliance of France and the US may take the lead instead.

 

My anti-war friends tell me that this is good news. We aren't going to kill anyone. No imperialist solutions etc. Despite what I believe, for better or worse they have their way now. Maybe future events will prove that this fight will resolve itself before too much more suffering befalls the Syrian people. However I would like my friends to consider this; if you were the Syrian rebels, after your victory over Assad, would you come to the UK's aid if they were in need?

The Star Wars-ification of Star Trek: A concern for all dedicated Trekkies

I have a dream that one day people will respect your Science Fiction franchise, without it having to sell its soul to the mainstreaming ambitions of up and coming directors. 

I have a dream where such franchises will not make its loyal fans mourn for its golden years, by littering it with cheap gimmicks like pointless little creatures following around main characters and jokes that aren't funny.

I have a dream that the dumbing down of the political-cultural make up of the universe the said franchise will cease.  To show respect to the fans who took the time to understand it and the writers who had the vision to write it.

These are the thoughts and feelings that swept over me as I watched the latest in the series of the Star Trek reboot, Star Trek: Into Darkness.  On the whole, I have to say it is a film that is hard not to enjoy. However I think this is more from the standpoint of someone who hasnt experience the wonder, the magic of the Star Trek world.  Yes I speak about this from the standpoint of an out of the closet trekkie. The film hits you with a sledgehammer of expensive CGI, blends a few War of Terror related issues into the plot and has plenty of gags in the script and is generally very well acted.

So what is the damn problem?  The damn problem simply put is I want Star Trek and this isn't it!  Too much of what I saw calls me back to the tragedy-comedy and at times car crash awfulness of the Star Wars reboot that began with the Phantom Menace.  Plenty of money was spent on a story which while hinted at depth, largely avoided depth of any kind.  It was basically a cinematic theme park and not much else.  And that is where I see Star Trek going, and it is for the most part already there.  Let me tell those not blessed by the world of Star Trek (the real one), so you know what you are missing.

Put simply Star Trek has everything.  The Klingons are a warrior race who place a high value on honour.  They at first act like an imperial power until suddenly disaster strikes.  Their moon explodes, polluting the atmosphere of their homeworld and leaving them without their main source of energy.  They are threatened with extinction, so have to start a peaceful partnership with the United Federation of Planets next door.  They eventually become valuable allies, eventually fending off an empire seeking to dominate all civilisations in their quarter of the galaxy.

 To avoid war with the Cardassians the federation has to withdraw its presence from the fringes of its territory, leaving many colonies to the Cardassians.  Former Federation settlers refusing to abide by the terms of this treaty form a paramilitary organisation The Maquis in order to defend their homes from the Cardassians.  The Ferengi are a commerce obsessed race that abides by the Rules of Acquisition like a holy book. 

Data is an android who enlists in Starfleet.  At first devoid of human emotions he learns to fit in with his human crewmates and adapt to human behaviour.  When he gets human emotions he struggles to control them, but eventually sees their value.  His Captain Jean Luc Picard passionately defends him in a trial to argue that he should be treated as a person, not a machine.

This is but the tip of the iceberg of Star Trek and its multiple series and films.  Full of depth and complexity which is being crushed out of it with a big budget steam roller.  I have come to the conclusion that what the overrated JJ Abrams is trying to do is adapt Star Trek for 21st century culture.  And it angers me that this is being done.

21st century culture is against complexity.  In this world of instant gratification where you can see a youtube clip on your phone without having to wait to see it at home on your PC, who has time for complex subplots about character development?  Who has time for long running debates about technology's effects on human beings?  Who has time to care about the intricacies of an alien culure someone has took the time to make up?  Who has time and who cares?  Not the people carrying the baton of Star Trek right now.  What we have now isn't Star Trek, it is Star Trek-lite.

For those who disagree with me I leave you this thought.  If you dont want complexity, compelling character development, cultural debates and genuine nerd-tastic sci-fi then stick around the JJ Abrams incarnation of Star Trek will fit your bill.  But be warned, this is not Star Trek and your lives will be duller for not experiencing real Star Trek.  To call it Star Trek is blasphemous and dishonours its great legacy. 

And one final thought to stop you all sleeping at night; what kind of a culture are we if we reject complexity and debate for the sake of money?

Running

In September 2007 I found myself in the living room of my first post-university house in Bristol.  As days went by I eventually managed to meet all of my housemates and introduce myself.  One night a few of us were in the living , I think we were watching CSI in the background.  Not knowing a huge amount about each other we asked each other what we would like to be in 10 years time.  A teacher came the first.  A businessman was the second one.  Then there was Prime Minister as the final answer.  That was myself.

I was almost as surprised as my housemates, who gave me a kind of disconcerting as though I was a megalomaniac.  I only knew there was a glimmer of truth in it myself.  Did I want to be an MP?  Certainly, but Prime Minister is a different ball game.  I am not even anyway near being an MP and the 10 year timetable I seem to have set myself since 2007 now stands at 4 years.  It is conceivable to be elected as an MP in those years, but without the assistance of a future coup d'etat, PM is almost certainly a near impossibility. 

Looking back on my impulsive declaration to my housemates, much has changed since then apart from the scrapping of my hairbrained semi-serious political timetable.  I do not as it stands fully identify with any of Britain's political parties, the big 3 included.  Historically I stood with the Liberal Democrats and indeed there are many Lib Dem MPs and councillors I proudly speak up for.  While they have put some useful reforms through while in coalition government, which they will never get credit for, I get the feeling that something has changed in the party.  Some of the MPs have become too pro-establishment and too hard skinned towards the public to whom they used to be more approachable.  Power changes people, and if I am elected into political office I am sure power will change me too.  But I will endeavour to remember not to bite the hand that feeds me.

So as it stands I have one of my goals to run for Parliament at some point in my life.  I must stress this wont be any time soon.  Financial restrictions aside, as it stands I feel I am simply too young to stand now.  I need more life experience, which informs my own developing political views, which are never concerete.  As John Maynard Keynes said "when the facts change, I will change my mind.  My political views generally hail from the left although the possibility of progress through practical centrist politics fascinates me.  I started out as my Tory friend once called me as a "wacko commie".  After coming to my capitalist senses, due to growing up and talking to my friends on the right my views have moderated.  But some of my views associated with the hard left remain.  I remain a secularist and a republican.  I am also ethically against the use and maintaining of nuclear weapons.  I think a few Tory friends of mine are hoping these ideals will chip away in time.  With all respect to them I know different.  Some views are just a part of who you are.

So why do I want to be an MP?  The short answer is, I would like to help people and as many as I can.  I would like to help people with their bread and butter issues.  I also want to renew peoples enthusiasm with politics.  I hate political apathy, but I can see why some people feel it is easier just to sit on the sidelines.  I dont because instinctively I am a fighter and an unashamed political nerd.  But many people dont get involved because they dont feel knowledgable enough about our system.  I think this is very sad.  I want to be an MP, but I dont know everything about our system.  Even many MPs are lacking in expert knowledge, not in the least about the issues they are voting on.  I think the healthier attitude is to get involved and freely admit that you are learning as you go, and more importantly want to learn more, even from your ideological opponents.

As it stands I am playing around with some democratic reformist ideas.  Needless to say this includes a vision of Britain with an elected Head of State.  But more short term are some ideas that have been around since the foundation of democracy.  Ancient Athenes had a system called Ostracism in which voters could decide to exile a select number of elected officials for 10 years.  The idea behind this was to ward off possible tyrants and deter career politicians who dont pull their weight.  I am experimenting with the idea that we bring this back in the form of a 10 year ban on politcians being able to hold political office.  In addition I am considering promoting the idea of ballot initiatives, the public voting on laws that they choose to do so.  All of these ideas lie within my Radical Party manifesto, a continous work in progress.

So this is all to come one day.  Along with my plans to finally finish my novel (pending my plans to edit it to avoid possible lawsuits).  I am in no hurry with to accomplish either of these plans.  I am not going anywhere and I plan to live a while.  In the meantime I hope to embark on a career within the International Development sector, likely as a researcher and sit back and enjoy life.  I will marry the woman I love, read and watch my country's journey through the years. Then I will prepare for one of the biggest challenges of my life.  I am looking forward to it.

A Lightning Rod For Russian Democracy

Ever so now and then the media identifies a cause that generates a certain amount of buzz. They are often agitated by celebrities of some kind and may spread to become supported by sports personalities and the like. The genius of them lies in the simplicity of their message, and the contrasts between an issue here and somewhere else. In this case the issue is Russian Gay Rights, or lack thereof. This issue has piqued the consciences of many in the western world, due to the practical non-existence of government discrimination against homosexuals in the west (a few exceptions exist granted). How can they do that? Can you imagine that here? These questions are often heard in the context of these campaigns. As far as I understand Russia has had a rocky road with gay rights before, but the latest concerns have arisen from a law passed about preventing spreading "Gay Propaganda".

Words fail me when I mull over the term "gay propaganda", especially when it comes from the legislature of a country past and present that has much worse propaganda to worry about. From what I can tell this odious waste of Russian taxpayers money basically seeks to restrict awareness within the Russian public about gay issues. I believe this law is concerned about the teaching about gay rights issues to children. It is always about the children when it comes to backward social conservatism, then way I see it. And in some ways so it should be. Children need to know that people are born different and that the lives they lead are to be respected. The biggest lie of arch-social conservatism is that being gay is some choice. A gay friend of mine once turned around to me and said, "you know Zac if I could choose to be straight I would. Why would I choose a life that makes me more likely to be persecuted". Then my right honourable friend turned around and concluded with "But I like cock, so that is that" with a cheeky grin on his face, no doubt trying to make me squirm and thus leave me in a fit if liberal guilt. He failed in both endeavours I may add.

So homophobia is bad. I have established my tolerance credentials. Now for the controversial part. While I am acutely aware that the "gay propaganda" law will make many people's lives possible I think it is a campaign that is stealing the limelight from another one that will affect all Russians. I am referring to the steep decline in democracy in Russia. It is exemplified every day by stories of yet another opposition figure put on trial for fabricated corruption charges. It was exemplified by Vladimir Putin unconstitutionally running again and winning again the Presidency of Russia, allowing him to carry on putting nails into the coffin of Russian democracy, never fully realised. This Czar mentality was very publicly demonstrated when an operative of Putin's killed Alexandrer Litvinenko on our soil.

The Germans, through their Chancellor Angela Merkel have very publicly shown that they have had enough of Putin. And yet in the year of Alexander Litvenenko's inquest I see pictures of Putin striding across Downing Street to No 10, grasping the hand of our Prime Minister like some respectable state leader. President Vladimir Putin is a gangster-in-chief who is barely fit to crawl through Larry the No 10s cat flap never mind be given the full State welcome package. Dont get me wrong, diplomacy has to carry on. We still have diplomatic links with the inappropriately named Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

So Stephen Fry to his credit highlights an important issue, gay rights under threat in Russia. But democracy in Russia is important to gay Russians too. In the media the issue of democracy in Russia took on a high profile with the reporting of mass demonstrations and the righteous outrage that came out over the imprisonment of the punk band Pussy Riot. But this very soon died out. In the interim between then and now came the issue of legalising gay marriage in Britain, which surprisingly enough the government turned into a debacle. The issue was widely talked about, the issue could be described as fashionable.

I think for better or worse the gay rights in Russia campaign is a typical 21st century campaign. The issue is important, because it is picking up a thread that has been bubbling around the media ciricuit in one form or another almost constantly. But in some ways that makes the prospects for other campaigns very bleak indeed. Are we so full of information and hooked on trends and issues of the moment that we can lose perspective? While gay rights is seized on now, questions about what is happening to democracy in Russia and what it means to us is being left alone.

The last issue what democracy means to us I think is the one that is most disturbing. From the evidence I have seen, I think a part of the reason of why we don’t trouble ourselves with the issue of democracy in Russia is because we are so disillusioned with our own. Turnout at the polls is shameful and the numbers are getting worst year after year. Anyone who talks about politics is seen as frankly a bit sad, or at best a nerd (derogatively). Even when people do talk about politics it is in reference to a few key issues. And always in reference to the bottomless cauldron of hatred the British have for politicians. There are very few places in the world where the profession is seen as entirely honourable, but even in places with worse corruption politicians in the UK are disliked disproportionately.

This sea of despair in the UK over our politicians halts most talk of what democracy means, and what it should look like structurally as well as how people would like it to change. But in order to go that far the British public needs hope. Hope that we can change our system for the better, which is in very short supply. Put simply, addressing questions about Russian democracy brings up inconvenient questions and bad feelings regarding our own.

If there is anything I want people taking the time to read this to take away with them it is the following. If athletes or visiting politicians feel the need to show a gay liberation flag at the Russian Winter Olympics, what is the harm in them flying the purple flag of democracy? Because by flying the colours of democracy in Russia they would be reminding Russians and their politicians of what we have and what many of them hope to achieve.