State of the Union- My 2014-Personal Part II- The Return of

For the first time in a few years myself and Anna travelled abroad this year, this time to Berlin in Germany.  It was also my first time flying out of Bristol Airport, a curious place nestled in the Somerset countryside.  Myself and Anna have a joint mission to explore more of Europe.  I have travelled fairly extensively in my life, but curiously few of these travels have centred on Europe.  I find Europe a fascinating continent.  It is a tiny continent in size packed with many different cultures and countries that look very different from their neighbours.  We did Paris before.  So Berlin was our next choice.  We stayed in an interesting hostel.  It lost its charming element somewhat when I was forced to unblock a communal toilet on the first morning but it was safe, warm and very conveniently located.  We were only a 5 minute subway ride away from the centre.  We went up the Ferhnstrum (the massive tower in the city centre), we walked down the Unter Den Linden, Checkpoint Charlie, saw the Brandenberg Gate, saw the Reichstag, the Berlin Wall and the Holocaust Memorial among other sites.  We even saw Hitlers’ bunker, or rather its site.  Hitler wasn’t home owing to him having the long term and incurable condition known as death.  Berlin is a fun and varied city.  There is plenty to do and there is a curious mix between the old and the new.  Berliners by and large were friendly.  Waiters and waitresses had manners far exceeding their Parisian rivals.  I never had the chance to experience much German food, apart from a Strudel.  I have made it my personal mission to have a huge Bratwurst on my next visit to Germany.  Myself and Anna have resolved to come back in the near future.  Perhaps to Munich.  Friendly people, culture, fantastic infrastructure, carnivore’s heaven food, very clean cities and with lots to see and do makes Germany quite country.   After the unfortunate start to the summer this was the definitely a satisfying way to end it.

 

Sometimes life sends you a strange curveball.  On the day this happens you start the day conventionally enough and then decide to do something completely out of character at the end of it.  About a month ago I watched a very eye opening BBC Panorama documentary about the Ebola Crisis in Africa.  The programme followed a young doctor who volunteered for Medicin San Frontieres to help in the Ebola relief efforts in Sierra Leone.  The facilities that were being used were little more than camps.  New patients had to be spoken to several yards apart from the doctors before entering the camps, to prevent further infections.  After mounting his extensive protective gear the doctor attached a camera to his goggles and went about with his work.  What his footage revealed was distressing to say the least.  Patients were seated on very basic camp beds.  Some asleep and others were in comas.  Some just waited with a look of fatalistic resignation on their faces.  But the awful virus’ handy work was never far out of sight.  When it attacked people with full force it was like a horror film.  Bloody oozed out of the eyes, nose and ears of the victim.  I am normally pretty stoic when I see this sort of thing on the news.  But one particular scene in this documentary got to me.  During this scene a seemingly recovering father had a brief talk to the father and then rose from his bed to have a shower.  Near him was his 3 month old baby son who was under close observation, no one could be sure he had Ebola.  The doctor looked at the baby, seeing no obvious signs of the virus he left the tent to check on the father.  As soon as the doctor stepped in the shower he saw the father had fallen and was not moving.  After seemingly recovering from Ebola the father had died, possibly because his body was exhausted from fighting the virus.  Shocked the doctor went to check on the baby boy who was now an orphan.  The doctor gasped as he approached the baby, eventually I could see what he was gasping at.  Blood was seeping through the boy’s eyes, he was in the grip of Ebola.  He was crying at the same time and his tears were made of blood.  He was alone, confused and frightened.  The doctor left in a hurry realising there was nothing he could of done, resisting the urge to stay there and take his protective gear off and hug the infant as he passed away.  I was in floods of tears.

I decided then that I had to do something to help with this awful crisis.  I decided to do some sort of sponsored event.  I ruled out sky diving.  Sick baby or no sick baby I would need more of an incentive to jump out of a perfectly good plane!  Such as it being on fire.  That night I decided to train for an run in a sponsored marathon for Medicin San Frontieres. In this way I will kill two birds with one stone.  I will raise money for a good cause and lose weight (the latter a much delayed pet project).  Also in my own way I will be sticking two fingers at the sadly brewing sense of defensive nationalism and sneering  contempt developing in this country for problems outside of the UK’s borders.  Once too often I hear the quotes like “we have problems too” and “charity begins at home.”  The latter quote is usually uttered by ignorant blockheads who would turn their nose up at a Big Issue seller and think that Ebola is the name of some sort of new band.  A bad moon is rising in the politics of this country.  I will go into this more in my State of the Union 2014: Political.  Stay tuned.

The more things change in another year, the more they stay the same.  In that tradition I have remained committed to my nerd passion Model United Nations (MUN).  Despite leaving university I still go to the small and mighty University of Bristol’s MUN Club.  I live in the same neighbourhood, so I have all the more reason to go.  But the main reason I still go is that I bloody love it.  I mean there is nothing better than coming back from a day of working in a soul destroying work and then arguing in favour of an American invasion of Micronesia.  I have spent a lot of time in other university clubs but have never felt as at home or accepted as I have done in this one.  I was initially hesitant coming back this academic year, wondering if I was a bit of a sad git reliving uni glory days.  But you know what?  If that is what I am I simply don’t care.  I have fun with what I do, and two award for international conferences says I am good at what I do.  The University of Bristol MUN is about to put itself thoroughly on the map.  As it is the MUN world is pretty establishment minded and stitched up in terms of power and influence. The big clubs spread their peacock feathers and instead of crying out to mate, cry out for those to come to their international conferences.  To facilitate this very greaseball arrangements are made, mirroring the real corruption in contemporary politics.  This even goes so far it stitches up awards and dooms young clubs with new conferences to have a handful of delegates.  For fellow MUN delegates reading this, note carefully.  I am not going anywhere any time soon.  And while I am here I plan to denounce, protest against and obstruct till this MUN Old Boys club is consigned to the dustbin of history.  Mark my words!

Myself and Anna in agreement.  This year 2014 was the flat year.  The year that the wave of activity and excitement seemed to break.  In the years 2012-2013 either myself or Anna was studying with high hopes about where we would end up.  2014 seemed to represent the iceberg of cold reality at the end of the wave.  We have come to a mutual agreement that we both need to aim high and push ourselves.  I have resolved to push for a PHD scholarship.  Anna has resolved to explore other more fulfilling career paths.  I am tired of working in menial jobs.  I am tired of working in place in which I am undervalued.  I am tired of being talked down to by incompetent agencies.  I am simply tired of working in a job for jobs sake.  So I have resolved to push for PHDs next year.  If that fails I will go all out for jobs in International Development and Relations.  If that fails then the Last Chance Saloon is the civil service; likely in either the Department for International Development or the Diplomatic Service.  In any case 2015 will be a year of change and of setting my horizons high.  All that is left to do now is to thank you all for reading and wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

 

State of the Union- My 2014- Personal Part I

2014 for myself has been for overall a flat year.  A year of looming peaks and plunging troughs.  It kind reminds me of what US President Richard Milhous Nixon said, when he said that you have to experience the dark valleys before you soar upwards.  I guess he should no.  It has been a year of humbling triumphs and unexpected and at times heart breaking lows.

First and foremost this year marks my 10^th anniversary of living in Bristol, the land of the free and the home of the brave.  I hadn’t planned on staying here.  It just kind of happened.  But overall I am pleased I have.  Not only for better or worse is Bristol the city I grew up in, it is also where I met my future wife.  The latter alone makes the mouldy rented rooms and innumerable faceless and otherwise crap jobs I have experienced during my stay here.  Nearly half of that time has been spent in university; first time around at UWE 2004-2007 and latterly in the University of Bristol 2012-2013.  It seems to me that many of the most enjoyable years of my life have been when I have been studying in university.  And so I have resolved that somehow and at whichever institution will take me, I will one day go for a doctorate and I will get one.  I could quite happily settle down in a career in academia.  Being paid to be a nerd seems to be the way forward for someone like me. 

As for the city itself I maintain that it is one of the most unique cities in Britain.  While we Bristolians chafe at most tourists turning back to go home via London as soon as they have seen UNESCO world heritage site Bath, Bristol has a lot to offer.  The docks and the disused cranes there attest to its long maritime history as in many ways does its institutions.  The University of Bristol itself has the dirty little secret of having early grants from the colonial era tobacco companies.  Some of the grand houses in the centre were the homes of plantation owners.  In terms of our more radical history I am particularly proud of the fact that to protest the failure of one of the Great Reforms bills, Bristolians showed their displeasure by burning down the Mansion House, the home of the Lord Mayor, hence why we now have a New Mansion House.  Earlier on in our history more significant history was made in the Seven Stars Tavern just off Victoria Street.  There just a few roads back from the East India docks where the slave trade flourished, Thomas Clarkson worked feverishly with his campaigners to gather evidence against the trade to be presented by William Wilberforce in Parliament.   Then there is the 1963 Bristol Bus Boycott against discrimination.  And then mine and my fellow republican crews motley protest on the event of the Queen's visit to Bristol in 2012.  They have yet to put up a plaque for the last one, but I am sure it is in the works ;-)

Anyway the Bristol shortlist is as follows.  Best pubs: Llandoger Trow on Kings Street and The Hatchet (for atmosphere and authenticity) then Commercial Rooms on Corn Street for price and the beautiful building.  Best takeaway: Rendezvous on Denmark Street hands down (especially since the Cuban Chippy has been bought up).  Most likely place to be bit by a vampire: Lawrence Weston.  Most likely to have a piece of kerb thrown at the back of your skull while riding on a bus: Fishponds.  Most likely place to be bitten by a hipster: Stokes Croft.  Most likely place to speak to be accosted by a posh drunkard: Clifton. 

Well after that strange love sonnet to Bristol lets get it over with recalling the shit things that happened this year.  At the start of the summer a friendship of mine which has lasted nearly as long as my stay in Bristol came to an end.  After racking my brains over what happened I have come to two main conclusions.  The first is that both of us grew up into very different people who eventually got to the point where they didn’t see eye to eye.  Now I don’t normally care very much about how similar someone is to myself in personality.  I tend to make friends with  varied, passionate, friendly, approachable and strange people.  There is no standard type for my coalition of the strange.  The second conclusion I came to was that throughout those 10 years I should have listened to my friends, that is my real ones.  Time and time again they warned me.  And time and time again I made excuses for this person’s behaviour.  Since I consider myself to be socially dysfunctional I decided to him a pass on this score.  But I did this one too many times and decided to ignore what I should have recognised all alone.  I owe the friends who warned me a debt I can never repay.  I have been made a fool of.  And when the end came in a flurry of long and self-serving texts I felt like I had been hit by an emotional wrecking ball.  I don’t exaggerate when I say I was the most angry I have ever been in my life.  I wanted to hit something, anything or anyone.  But I got this indignity at work so I just sank in my chair till the end of my shift then stormed out.  The crying came later.  I didn’t cry over losing him as a friend.  I cried about being treated in such a way, not knowing why and being faced with a flurry of text messages ending in a statement that I wasn’t “awesome” enough to hang out with.  I cut this person off like a diseased appendage and I hope I never see them again.  It was a tough few months but now I feel like I am coming out of the end of it.

2014 marked myself and Anna’s departure from our mould infested flat in Bishopston for our lovely new abode in Kingsdown.  The former was like living in a bad comedy sketch show since everything was falling apart and the agency couldn’t care less.  Now we live where we do I smile a lot more.  I smile at our area, a characterful area with Victorian style street lights and charming cobbled streets.  I smile when I turn a power socket on because I know that unlike the last place this one wouldn’t fall off of the wall.  No matter when I get up in the morning, even my savage early shifts, I always smile and look at the amazing view we have.  Every day I wake up to a view covering eastern and south eastern half of much of the city and look with amazement.  Castle Park, Cabot Circus, Totterdown and the city centre can all be seen from our humble apartment.  This move wouldn’t have happened if not for the help of some special people, they know who they are.  They will always have my thanks.

Life In the Fast Lane: Model UN Conference Life Part II

The start of an Model United Nations (MUN)debate on whichever committee is all about making statements.  We believe this, we believe that etc.  Never “I” since you are speaking as a country so it a typical sentence uttered may go on the lines of “We the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea laugh at the term human rights.”  The overall point at this stage is to firmly outline your position and as necessary justify it.  You may have written a position paper and so may have others.  Sometimes speakers recap what was written on their paper allowing delegates to nod knowingly, hiding the fact that they didn’t bother reading any of it.  For the listeners it is all about looking for key words and key points of future possible cooperation or even friction.  Three groups of people are distinctly outlined for the delegate; allies, adversaries and the undecided.

These three groups are always flavoured by the unique personality of the delegates themselves.  Usually the personality clash with the country’s policies becomes less announced as delegates get more experienced, or at times simply take the time out to research their country.  Some of my most bitter clashes with people in debates is when I perceive them as taking their own policy line as opposed to following those of their country.  In MUN there will always be personal differences of some kind with a country, sometimes extreme ones.  Sometimes people deliberately pick countries that are the polar opposite of their personal views.  More than once I an extreme social liberal and environmentally conscious person has been the gay killing oil swilling Saudi Arabia.  Why do I do this?  Sometimes to have fun but also to set a personal challenge to myself that I can present illogical and at times morally abhorrent views as though I actually believe in them.  I
often feel pretty dirty after the session when I voice these views, but the golden rule with MUN is that that when it comes to feuds in the chamber, what happens in the chamber stays in the chamber.  By my own admission I have not always been able to follow my own rule.  But usually this has been when someone being arrogant in the chamber has been proven to me as being arrogant in person real life, a big red line for me.  Apart from the arrogant among us I definitely respect those who live and breathe their country.  If you act the part through and through you deserve credit.

As true as it is in many circumstances in life knowledge is power in MUN.  Often this means reading through dry General Assembly or Security Council Resolutions.  Sometimes it means learning random dates, names, agreements, treaties and policies etc.  It can be a job to remember them all.  Since I usually turn up at a MUN debate without a laptop I tend to be old school and bring these written down in a folder.  My little intelligence dossier can be useful to correct allies as well as friends.  During a historical MUN Security Council debate about the 1994 Rwandan genocide (then meant to happen within days) the delegate for the UK went on a rant about how terrible the Rwandan Patriotic Front apparently was.  In the unmoderated caucas (free discussion) I showed him the notes from my dossier that showed that not only did the UK support the RPF, they have them weapons and training to annoy the French in their African backyard.  The sheepish and clearly very
hungover UK delegate apologised for his earlier statements.  Against ones enemies proper research can enable incoming broadside attacks into devastating counter attacks.  If you speak with authority on a point you can imbalance your opponents and leave them very unwilling to challenge you.  At times such measures can make them respect you if not fear you, sometimes both.

My favourite part of debating is what I call ‘the takedown’.  Takedowns are simply times when you reply to a delegate with an opposing view in a definitive way that either wins an argument or blunts it.  Takedowns are a potent cocktail of defiance, solid facts, humour, humiliation, bluster and perfect timing. They don’t always land like they should, but scoring a direct hit is exhilarating and tremendously confidence boosting during a tough debate.  Most of my takedowns use an element of what my opponent has just said, indeed at times I directly quote them.  Supportive knocks on the table from your allies can let you know mid flow that you are on to a winner.  When it lands you can normally rely on the look of your opponent’s face to tell if your blows have landed as tough as intended.  Tougher opponents may need to made more of an example of.  The best takedowns are parliamentary ways of saying “sit down, shut up” and have that intended
effect.

A good few hours into an MUN debate you enter what I call “the fray”.  Basically this is like a big and messy verbal skirmish where everyone tries to assert their position.  People get angry.  People laugh.  Emotions are everywhere and everyone gets steadily more tired, leaving the shrewd and sneaky to manoeuvre.  Time seems to have no meaning during the fray because so much energy goes into the vortex of the struggle.  In a sense time doesn’t matter so much as the direction of the debate and the way the weight of it is going to one side or the other.  You have to keep your ear to the ground otherwise our rivals may try and pull a fast one and either unleash some unexpected resolutions or amendments to your own.  Sometimes even the Chairs of the debate get lost in the fray.  I once told a Chair off three times during an MUN debate ; one for drinking (without sharing), one for not doing their research sufficiently and another for basically not
Chairing their debate well enough.  Interestingly enough they still gave me an award, perhaps to shut me up.  But either way this is the point where instinct takes over.

Lobbying and bloc forming is key especially in larger committees.  On the Environment Committee I quickly strived to form a  “Petroleum Posse” and pro nuclear bloc for two consecutive debates.  This is where research comes in handy as does personal lobbying.  Personal lobbying is a skill I am striving to master.  It is all about persuading your target that you are on your side.  “This is in your interests”, “there is nothing here that you disagree with” and “we are in sync on this” are quotes you often tend to come out with in the lobbying process.  If this fails then what follows is the harder sell of letting them know in no uncertain terms the risks of opposing you.  If threats are mishandled they can often call your bluff.  I sent a particularly strong and threatening private  note to Thailand as the US which they proceeded to read out aloud to the council.  To cover up my blunder to confuse the council I stated that Thailand was
misquoting me: the actual note was far less polite.  I am obviously not very good at threatening and feel pretty uncomfortable doing it, in that instance I gambled on it because persuasion wasn’t working.  Still persuasion still seems to be more of my forte.  Persuasion in public can impress the persuaded and those around them, certainly more than those witnessing blunt threats.  Building a durable coalition can be very rewarding.  I have met many friends this way, celebrating with them during victories and commiserating the defeats.

If you get anything voted through or not there is always one MUN tradition that I have come to greatly appreciate.  At the end of a debate the delegates place around their cardboard placards with their country’s name on for their fellow delegates to sign and put messages on.  These messages vary.  Sometimes they come in the shape of thanks, compliments or death threats (just kidding about the latter).  Once we are done pounding each other like paper boxers we put good thought into our messages to our fellow delegates.  I have kept all of my placards and they all contain warm memories.  One message complimented me and invited me to an MUN conference in Israel.  Another message said I was such a good speaker I should be the next Prime Minister!  Another one with a female name said they were “worshipping” me at the debate, temporarily unleashing the jealousy hounds from my fiancé. 

But one of my favourite messages thanked me for being a faithful ally and said they hoped to see me at another conference soon.  The feeling was and still is mutual. When the slagging, scheming and shouting is over that is what MUN is all about: meeting some extraordinary, interesting and funny people and hoping to meet them again sometime soon.

Life in the Fast Lane: Model UN Conference life Part I

There is nothing quite like a weekend Model United Nations (MUN) conference.  At first they can seem a bit intimidating an even daunting.  Eventually however you get used to their natural flow and rhythm.  Each different delegate has their was of riding this flow and their own method of getting into character.  The day you get up for the start of an MUN conference is filled with anticipation.  At first a  flood of very English practical questions rush into ones' mind; what size bag should I bring?  Shall I bring trainers AND my suit shoes?  How long will it take to walk to the station?  This is followed by a flurry of questions typical of MUN veterans; what will the delegates on the committee be like?  Will I be able to work with them?  Will I like them?  Will I be driven to the point where I want to strangle them with a durable piece of rope?  What will my chairs be like?  Will they be devoid of any sense of humour like humanoid androids?  What hotel with this MUN club treat us to?  What state will I be in on the Sunday morning?  How many delegates will turn up on the Sunday morning?  Such concerns confront the MUN veteran at the start of their day.

 

Once you arrive at the train station where the conference is being held you start to bump into some of the usual suspects.  Acquaintances, enemies (hopefully not too many) and friends from past MUN battles fought appear.  Warm handshakes and greetings are given and much reminiscing ensues.  Nerdy political obsessions are indulged in.  An African coup here.  A stupid remark from a world leader there.  Take it from me, after experiencing the forced hospitality of other university club groups, there is nothing quite like the warmth and candour of the MUN community.  It is a coalition of the strange to be sure, but at its heart it is full of kind hearted and passionate people.  One can feel fully at home in such a community, and I do.

 

Most people cab it or bus it to the conference venue.  However if the venue isn't too far away I normally take a leisurely walk.  This serves two functions.  First of all I am by no means a morning person and usually don't look or feel my best at this time of day.  At one conference I woke up in my hotel room and went down to breakfast after admittedly having too much wine the night before.  I saw a good friend of mine sat down with his girlfriend who I was yet to be introduced to sitting with him in one corner of the breakfast hall.  Noting my haggard appearance and bloodshot eyes I thought that discretion would be the better part of valour and made for a table by myself on the other side of the hall.  But mostly my morning walk is one of contemplation.  As I take in the surroundings of a new town I start to strategise.  If it is my first day I speculate on what the delegates on my committee would be like.  If it is later on I either celebrate or commiserate the delegates I am stuck with, knowing that for good or ill I will have to find a way to work with them.  I start to ask myself many questions; who is on my side?  Who could be on my side?  Who is definitely not on my side?  Why is that delegate being annoying?  Are they personally or their country being a jerk?  How do I restrain myself from dangling that person out of an open window?  On my walk strategies are laid down and plans are made.  But soon I find that Colin Powell was right.  The best laid battle plans rarely survive a war.

 

In Model UN there are many committees.  Matters concerning world heritage sights and places of natural beauty are talked about on UNESCO.  Human Rights is unsurprisingly the main talking point of the Human Rights Council.  The Disarmament Committee talks about territorial disputes as well as specific armaments issues.  Ecofin talks about specific economic issues.  SPECPOL talks about subjects relating to decolonisation.  Now and again there are some specialised regional committees such as the Arab League or African Union.  There are also specialised Crisis scenarios, each portraying a unique scenario with unique players at each conference.

 

Recently my main home at MUN has become the UN Security Council.  It is a smaller group compared to the others, 15 delegates in all.  But 5 of those delegates are the big bad Permanent 5 (P5), the veto wielding countries (United States of America, UK, France, Russia and China).  The veto means that any member of the P5 can strike down either a part of a resolution or the entire thing.  In an instant they can destroy an entire day or 2 days work.  With this amount of control it is no wonder that the calls for Security Council reform have increased, since many argue it is somewhat outdated to have the victors of WW2 as the gatekeepers.

 

So why do I like the Security Council?  I see the Security Council as a high stakes poker game.  It is a game of lobbying, pleading, threatening and most of all persuading.  You have to keep your cool and work out what is workable.  Things are a lot easier as a P5 country granted, but then that is balanced out by you being less likely to get an award.  It can suck being a tiny country being ignored, sitting next to the US, frowning as messages get thrown over your desk to theirs.  But then if you think hard enough the chance to provoke other countries or get them to go on the defensive is always there.  Being a small country on the Security Council sets you up for a  very tough fight, but if you handle it well enough it can be pretty exhilarating.

 

 I have only been a P5 country once and that was when I played Russia at the Reading conference in 2013.  I had all the power and of course I let it all go to my head, I had far too much fun at that conference.  The hint of the power I had came when I first walked into the conference.  On the way to the room I tried to make small talk with a delegate.  He was rude to me for no reason at all, so I decided I would make an example of him.  And so I did, he was Morocco and wanted some face saving crap on the resolution .  So I told him to move the offending clause or kiss goodbye to the resolution.  Baffled I told him in no certain to get out of my face and have the clause deleted by the time I got back from getting a coffee.  He dutifully followed his marching orders.  The entire debate basically involved me saying the opposite things to the rest of the P5, except China.  I found that the threat of using the veto was the more potent than the veto itself.  We got closer and closer to voting in the resolution when time and time again I came back with more demands.  Some delegates lost their cool.  Others were very cool under fire and it was those who snuck a very cleverly written resolution under my nose.  In the end I didn't get an award but I had a great time.  I even became a minor celebrity among some Russian students who wanted their picture taken with me!  I have hence called my Russia on the Security Council Strategy the 'taking candy from a baby strategy'.

 

 

See No evil, Hear No Evil

The EU overthrew the Ukrainian Government and started the Ukraine Crisis.  That is the Russian party line for what has happened during recent years In Ukraine.  Sadly this line is also gaining much traction in western countries.  In the west amid the ending of the NATO mission in Afghanistan and the end of the Iraq War, the public are very suspicious about their leaders look for another opportunity to ‘get their gun off’.  While some scepticism about the seeming imperiousness of one’s leaders is welcome in a democracy, such conspiracies can conspire to make those exposing these views to be wilfully ignorant about actual threats to security.  While politicians stand discredited as calling out “wolf” too many times, the publics’ perception about wolves on the horizon can prove flexible and susceptible to other points of view.

Such sentiments are strong at a time when the three main UK parties are in one way or another discredited.  David Cameron of the Conservatives is seen as too cavalier with diplomacy our EU allies as well as Russia, uttering strong words to make up for the failure to secure concessions from the EU for repatriating powers to the UK.  Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats is too associated with EU which is now under suspicion after the Eurozone Crisis and its seemingly inflexible attitude to the concerns of it’s critics.  Earlier policy compromises made by the Liberal Democrats at the behest of their Conservative Coalition partners have also damaged their credibility.  Ed Miliband has barely spoken on foreign affairs, besides ruling out an EU referendum in the future and selling out the Syrian people for political gain. 

Most foreign policy debate that takes place in the UK mainstream at the moment disproportionately is in relation to the EU or immigration or often both.  The rest of the time seems to be devoted to discussing the nearly universally condemned terrorist group ISIL and the ongoing Ukraine Crisis.  Many people including myself were and still are astounded by how quickly events unfolded in the Ukraine Crisis.  First of all there was a news piece about an EU trade treaty being turned down by the President of Ukraine.  This was followed by rumours and then confirmed news about Russia offering Ukraine a large economic recovery package in, while the EU trade treaty was mysteriously turned down.  Protests followed.  Skull cracking by riot police and government hired goons ensued.  Then finally the President of Ukraine Victor Yanukovych resigned and fled to Russia.  The Crimea was swamped by unidentified armed personnel, and then a referendum declared it a part of
Russia.  When we thought it was all over a civil war broke out in the east of Ukraine, with credible evidence emerging of Russian support for the rebels.  Then there was a ceasefire, which is a funny sort of ceasefire since 1,000 people have died during it.  These events came thick and fast and many of them seemingly made little sense, a perfect recipe for conspiracy theories to take root.  And took root they did.

The anti EU version of events, barely distinguishable from the Russian Government’s line, is the following.  The EU in its insidious ambition to expand as far as it can tried to effectively grab Ukraine in a trade pact which would have effectively put it on course to become an EU member state.  When the trade treaty was turned down in preference for Russian cash the EU stands accused of stoking up the protests and sending speakers to denounce the Ukrainian Government’s decision.  The EU is accused of promoting a bloc like mentality along the lines of “if you are not us you are with Russia”.  When the interim government was set up the EU was accused of backing a ‘fascist coup’ that overthrew a democratically elected President. The critics of the EU dismiss their protests at the Russian mobilisation and subsequent annexation of the Crimea.  After all the majority of the population of the Crimea supported Russia anyway.  As for the civil war
they agree with the Russian responses to the allegations of Russian support for the rebels.  Dismissing NATO intelligence as well as sources within Russia and citing the newly prominent new source of Russia Today, they maintain that such allegations are unproven.

So what is wrong with this picture?  The main problem is that it is simply not true.  Where there aren’t lies, there is great exaggeration.  The EU has been expanding since its inception, what conceivable reason does it have to stop if there are willing candidates?  The trade treaty had been negotiated over for months, so if it was an aggressive take over it definitely wasn’t a swift one.  Furthermore why should the EU be accused of having a power bloc mentality, when Russia seemed unwilling to allow Ukraine to have assistance from both themselves and the EU?  As for the speakers at the Maiden Square protests they were members of governments for nearby countries that were also EU member states.  While the EU has its own foreign policy portfolio it does not take away the right of individual representatives from its constituent countries to voice their own views, or the views of their governments.  Being in the EU does not mean countries speak with a
hive mind, if it did a whole lot more would get done within the organisation.

The charge of supporting fascism has a slim bit of historical precedence.  The Ukrainian nationalist guerrillas in WW2 were proven to have helped the Nazis fight against the Soviets, naively believing that Hitler would allow the Ukraine to become independent.  In addition local anti-semitic sentiment as well as an urge to please the new overlords lead to shameful examples of the nationalists helping the Nazi’s to wipe out the Jews.  But to say that today those who support Ukrainian independence from Russia are Fascists is a stretch at best.  Yulia Tymoshenko the previous president is a political schemer no doubt, but a fascist she is not.  Furthermore the composition of the parliament after the departure of Yanukovych remained unchanged apart from the fleeing of his close supporters.  The new cabinet had very few members of the Svoboda party which is alleged to be fascist or far right.  Now the cabinet has Svoboda members in charge of such terrifying
portfolios as forestry and food portfolios, although Svoboda do now have the Defence portfolio.  However Svoboda do not have the interior ministry portfolio, flying in the face of Russian conspiracy theories about Ukraine becoming a police state against Russian speakers.  As for the overthrow of a democratic president, it is true that Yanukovych was elected.  However being elected did not give him licence to deploy force against peaceful protestors.  The bulk of the violence from civilians occurred after weeks of state repression.  I for one don’t begrudge people the right to strike back at a repressive state.

The EU does not dispute the outcome of the referendum of the Crimean referendum so much as it questions the circumstances through which it came about.  It is almost certain that the self defence forces that appeared in the Crimea were badly disguised Russian soldiers.  The Russian Government dubiously justified this move by citing a change in Ukrainian law not recognising the special significance of the Russian language in Ukraine.  Rather that engaging in hard headed diplomacy to appeal against the law Russia simply took over the most Russian part of Ukraine.  The law was quickly rescinded anyway.

As for Russia’s involvement in backing the rebels in Ukraine, there is simply too much evidence to seriously believe Russia’s party line.  Families of Russian servicemen have reported the secret burials of their loved ones, after they have mysteriously been killed while Russia is apparently not at war.  In March 2014 a huge March For Peace of 30,000 people took place in Moscow citing specifically Russian interference in the conflict.  Russian scientists also signed a letter protesting ongoing Russian interference in Ukraine.  Embarrassingly Russia’s own attempts to cover up their involvement have backfired.  Russian hackers were caught trying to change a Wikipedia article about the Ukrainian Air Forces’ planes, increasing their altitude in the article give credence to the theory that Ukrainian fighters shot down the Malaysian Airways flight MH17.  The presence of the advanced Puk air defence systems in eastern Ukraine, likely the cause of
MH17’s demise, have been sighted many times by the OSCE, NATO and eyes on the ground.

The mainstream public who subscribe to the EU causing the Ukraine Crisis theory are trying desperately to not see something they don’t want to see.  They like to think that there is nothing to be scared of in Europe at the moment because the alternative is very unsettling.  The alternative and the truth is that Russia under the direction of Putin is embarking on a campaign of destabilisation and intimidation in order to mark Russia’s sphere of influence.  A 21st century member of the nuclear club is playing international relations in the 18th century rules; might is right.  The problem is that people have free will and don’t always abide by spheres of influence, nor should they out of subservience.  Contrary to what Putin claims the Eastern European countries that have entered NATO did so because they needed a security guarantee against Russia, not an unreasonable desire after centuries of Russian interference.  All countries should be free to
choose their own alliances and determine their own destiny.  It shouldn’t matter if Putin’s views run contrary to this with regards to Ukraine.  It is the Ukrainian people who deserve the right to determine their own destiny and no one else.

Nigel Farage of UKIP is recklessly and irresponsibly helping to spread the cult of personality of Putin that is making unsettling headway in public opinion.  Contrasting faceless EU bureaucrats and a seemingly hapless Prime Minister he presents Vladimir Putin as a strong and decisive leader worthy of respect.  In this strange reordering of the world an international organisation that measures the size of bananas is more terrifying than a rogue state that ignites a civil war.  Not all threats to peace need to be in the guise of a ranting wreck in the mould of Hitler.  Cold and steely villains are a lot more of a concern, not in the least because they are harder to see coming.  Say what you will about UKIP's stance on immigration.  But it's tendency to redraw the reality of international relations to suit it's own narrow ideological vision does not bode well for realism, or maturity.  It is time for Europe to wake up and face down this imminent threat.

In Favour of An Assertive Germany

In 1999 Germany deployed troops abroad for the first time since World War 2 in order to join the NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR).  The seriousness of the threat of ethnic cleansing was enough for the German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to support a break from German Foreign Policy’s traditional pacifism.  With the prospect of German forces helping to prevent  genocide, one could almost sense a certain genocide waging dictator turning in their grave.

Upon Germany crossing the interventionist Rubicon, many in the country and without wondered what was next for the war haunted country.  What came next over the start of the 21^st century can be described  for the most part as careful pragmatism.  While keeping a constant dialogue active with the United States (US) via their mutual membership of NATO, Germany also became heavily involved in the construction of European Union (EU) Foreign Policy.  Now aware of its capacity to project military power abroad for good causes, Germany picked further intervention opportunities carefully.  Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder wholeheartedly gave his support to the US in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, recognising the US’s right to retaliate in order to defend itself in accordance with the NATO charter.  To this end the German Government committed one of the largest contingents of troops to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.  Recognising the importance of protecting international shipping routes Germany also contributed military forces to the NATO anti-piracy task force off the coast of Somalia.  However the German Government was one of the loudest opposing voices to the 2003 Iraq War.  In the case of the Libyan Civil War the German Government abstained on voting on a UN Security Council Resolution authorising a No Fly Zone.  While they did not contribute to the NATO mission in Libya they spoke out against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s

But events may hasten the creation of a more assertive German Foreign Policy.  The rise of IS (Islamic State) in Iraq recently pushed Germany to send arms to the Kurdish militia the Peshmerga, a highly rare and interventionist move. At the same time Russia's call to protect the rights of Russian minority groups in the east of Europe presents a potential powder keg on Germany's doorstep.  Chancellor Angela Merkel has taken a firm diplomatic line against alleged Russian interference in the ongoing civil war in the Ukraine.  These events have run alongside open calls by members of the German Government including President Joachim Gauck and Defence Minister Ursuala Von Der Leyen for a bolder Foreign Policy.  German diplomatic deterrence does not seem to have proved enough to deter Russian adventurism, this begs the question of whether military deterrence may follow.

If Germany does become more interventionist it will have to do so cautiously, due to public opinion being wary of being involved in foreign conflicts.  To this end the objectives of a new foreign policy doctrine will have to be clearly stated.  This author for one is strongly in favour of a more assertive German Foreign Policy.  Cuts in defence budgets throughout Europe has created a power gap.  This has been exacerbated by the US's turning it's security focus to the Asian Pacific region.  Long before this the US has been calling for European countries to take up more of the security burden for the region. 

A decision may have to be made about the future of German Foreign Policy soon, since the Ukraine Crisis has brought instability back to the region.  Germany's eastern allies are calling for NATO support against possible Russian interference.  Poland the most prominent of these voices is calling for 10,000 US troops to help deter possible Russian incursions.  If these do not materialise they may settle for a NATO ally like Germany.  If Germany answers the call to help, perhaps the Polish will greet the arrival of German soldiers with a smile in contrast to 75 years this September.

Why NATO Should and Must Endure

Military alliances struggle in terms of popularity in the wake of the troubles that effect the world.  The rise of the Islamic State (IS) has brought back bitter memories in the United Kingdom, and throughout the West, of the Iraq War and it’s cautionary tale of military intervention.  The British Government’s wavering over an ongoing anti-IS strategy at the same time of the NATO summit in Newport Wales, has stirred fears of leaders and military chiefs using it as a chance to scheme for stirring more wars.  The Stop The War Coalition, the standard-barer of the far left, who are out in force protesting in Newport support this view.

It is ironic that the left would be at the forefront of anti-NATO protests.  The Foreign Secretary in the first postwar government Ernest Bevin was as a socialist and a former Bristol dock worker and union leader.  Before his cabinet posting he was vocally against appeasement of the Fascist powers as well as critical of Britain adopting a similar stance towards the Soviet Union, clashing with the Communist elements within his own party.  With the vanquishing of the fascist powers Bevin realised that Britain and Western Europe faced a security threat, which was the Soviet Union now undeterred by Fascist powers.  Realising that Britain with it’s empire rapidly falling apart could not risk standing alone, Bevin came to the realisation that collective security within Western Europe was the answer.  To make up for the power imbalance between the socialist bloc and Western Europe this meant calling on American support to back up European deterrence.  After a
succession of treaties between Britain and Western European powers including the Brussels Pact, Bevin became one of the founding fathers of the NATO military alliance in 1949.

This idea of collective security was enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO charter which declares an attack on one member state as an attack upon all.  For this author this article alone stands as a principle reason for why NATO has to endure.  The idea of collective security is a forward thinking one that has helped discredit the tradition of bilateral alliances.  On this year the centenary of the start of World War One we can see plainly the problems of haphazard interlocking alliance systems.  In the case of World War One a system that was meant to deter war did the very opposite.  Open military cooperation between states accompanied by open dialogue between them is a sure silver bullet for paranoia and arms races.  Why anyone would protest against such a guarantor for peace escapes this author.  This guarantor is still needed.

In 1991 something unexpected happened, the Soviet Union fell, leaving NATO without the main adversary it was meant to counter.  Or so it is alleged.  This set off an identity crisis within the military alliance.  Parties within NATO's member states justifiably started asking what was NATO's purpose.  Many began to openly call for NATO dissolve as peacefully and efficiently as the Soviet Union.  However the unstable nature of the so called 'New World Order' became evident with ethnic strife that followed the Bosnian War in 1994 and the war in Kosovo in 1997.  In both instances NATO responded with renewed purpose as a humanitarian intervention force.  Russia an ally of the belligerent promoter of genocide Serbia aired it's concerns but largely stayed out of the affair.  Similar humanitarian concerns lead to the NATO air intervention campaign in Libya 2011 which eventually resulted in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.  The rise of IS has raised the possibility of NATO involvement in intervening against the newly formed terrorist state.

 

One particular state has had a rocky relationship with NATO, that state is the Russian Federation.  During the 1990s an informal agreement was made between NATO and Russia that the former socialist bloc states would not become members of the alliance.  The problem was this strange and off the cuff agreement was made in a way harking back to the times of when great powers mapped spheres of influence.  The possibility wasn't counted on, at least not openly that these newly independent (either from the Soviet Union or communism) may want to decide their destiny for themselves.  NATO after all and forever has been an alliance where member can formally apply freely if they wish.  Towards the end of the 20th century and the start of the 21st these states gradually started to come into the NATO fold.  At this Russia aired fears of encirclement.

 Russia's concerns about encirclement were taken seriously by NATO.  NATO sought to set up diplomatic links with Russia, even establishing a special NATO-Russia Council in 2002.  In 2009 the Foreign Minister for NATO member state Poland even openly called for Russia to apply to join the alliance.  Russia's envoy to NATO however politely turned the offer down.  To this author after making these overtures being made by NATO accusing it of being a menacing and encircling group does not stand up to scrutiny.

And then we come to the Ukrainian Crisis.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has routinely stressed that Russian forces are not involved in supporting the rebels, while NATO and Ukrainian intelligence says differently.  NATO satellite pictures offered as proof for Russian involvement have been implausibly dismissed as being years out of date by official Russian spokesmen.  Despite the mounting evidence of Russian duplicity Putin even more implausibly chaired a meeting in Belarus between the warring parties, claiming with a straight face that Russia was not a belligerent and therefore an impartial chair.

 The question remains from these recent events is what to do now.  What NATO should not even consider at this point is reopening the NATO-Russian diplomatic channels that were cut off after the annexation of the Crimea.  If this Russian brokered ceasefire holds at least for the short term some of the wavering powers within the alliance may call for the easing of sanctions.  Doing this is in this authors opinion would be like rewarding an arsonist for putting out a fire that they had started.  NATO must not allow this ceasefire, any future ones or a general peace agreement be largely dictated by Russia.  Such an outcome would reduce Ukraine to a vassal status to Russia.  The NATO alliance should provide any support to Eastern European member who have called for troop reinforcements from the alliance as is their right.  Poland has already requested 10,000 permanent troops to be stationed within it's borders.  While other commentators would argue that such moves would act as a provocation to Russia, this author would counter that you can't counter a warring party that is already committed.

 

The post Cold War strife and the continuing Ukraine Crisis proves to this author that NATO remains an essential alliance.  Far from being devoid of one purpose, NATO has many.  The principle of collective security is still it's primary function and will remain an important one.  However this principle could soon be tested in the face of Russian aggression.  While the Ukrainian Crisis may prove to be NATO's biggest challenge yet, it's member states must keep their resolve.  The future direction of NATO including who joins it in the future should not be dictated by Russia or anyone else but it's members. 

The Tragedy of the Scottish Referendum for Independence

The internet is hardly ever a good place for a calm and rational political debate.  Usually saying something very general and distinctively similar to a previous post on a Facebook thread will allow the slavish ‘likes’ to flow your way.  Sometimes you get some credit for an insightful post, often if it is well researched and doesn’t antagonise people in the discussion.  Doing the latter tends to bring out the most immature of people.  “You brainwashed tit” was the most memorable reply I got from a highbrow intellectual on one such debate after I pointed out the flaws in their argument.  But ever so now and then in the political discussion groups a cause reaches a fever pitch of support.  That cause at the moment is the ‘Yes’ campaign for Scottish independence.

Try as I might I cannot get excited at either the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ campaigns.  The prospect of a new country, which is technically an old one entering the world stage is to a certain extent an exciting one.  How will this country stand our culturally?  What will it’s economy be like?  What will it’s foreign policy be like?  All of these are interesting questions which may soon be answered.  Certainly the Yes campaign has the positive element on its side.  But in order to quieten justified anxieties about the transition to independence truckloads more hope is thrown in by the Yes campaign.  I fear the Yes campaign may fall into what I call the Barack Obama trap; if you keep up raising peoples hopes you only make it more difficult when it is time to cash in, to turn dreams into reality.

The No campaign is a disappointment for other reasons.  Quite simply all it has to offer is a glorified version of the past, it can’t and won’t promise a bright and bold future.  The promise that things were good before and they will be again is a hard sell and not a very convincing one.  One of the points from the Yes campaign that seem to resonate with a lot of people is genuine dissatisfaction if not outright hatred with Westminster, or more specifically the House of Commons.  In a stunning display of obliviousness laced by vanity, the leaders of the three main UK parties have travelled to Scotland in a last ditch effort to prevent the breakup of the union.  This has led to charges being made at them that they simply “don’t get it.”  I am not certain that they ever did, or will for that matter.

So what is “it”?.  As far as I can tell “it” is a general feeling that we don’t have much more to look forward to in this allegedly glorious union.  If you follow this line of thinking to its ultimate conclusion you come to the idea of a clean break, a clean break to salvage at least a part of the union from a presumably unhappy future.  I am not going to lie, this is bleak thinking to say the least.  But for all the Yes campaign’s denouncement of the “Project Fear” tactics of their opposite numbers, they are seizing on this bleak trail of thought to scare people into ignoring the glossed over details in their argument.  In short, both campaigns are as bad as each other as treating their audience like they are morons. 

The idea of displaying the prospect of independence as cure for many (if not all) problems is not a new one.  The people of the newly founded United States of America were promised a government for the people and by the people in very idealistic terms, in stark contrast to the aristocratic ‘old world’.  Today’s reality is a seemingly insurmountable divisions between the rich and the poor and the governed and the governors.  Not to mention record numbers of firearm deaths, regressive social conservatism,  racial tensions and medical bankruptcies.  Ireland had to endure a civil war shortly after independence before it embraced its period of peace and relative prosperity.  The point is not that all independence causes are destined to fail because they aren’t.  The point is that the devils are in the details and independence in itself won’t cure all of the ills of Western countries.  For many years people in new and old countries have tried to make
their countries more equal societies.  Few can be said to have made any measure of progress towards this.

I am not a particularly nationalistic person.  I am constantly cynical and deriding when I talk about nationalism generally.  It is partly down to me not being in favour of promoting artificial concepts that divide people.  At the same time I am aware that nationalism be a useful rallying call and not always an unethical one.  I am not massively proud to be English, I see the English national flag as an unimaginative eyesore.  That said, I cannot help but feel wounded when I hear the Yes campaign talking about what or rather who the Scottish may be leaving behind.  The picture they paint of England is a place destined for continual apocalyptic regression almost to the point where Victorian era workhouses will reappear.  Then stark divisions will appear in society leading to social tensions, which will lead to societal conflict.  Then open war will follow leading to the fall of society.  After that we will end up in a post apocalyptic wasteland with appearances by anti semitic heroes fighting off raider gangs in some 1980s vision of the future world.  Then there will be random cameo appearances by Tina Turner.  Perhaps the SNP didn't go this far, but it would have been interesting if they did.

The point is there is an ugly undercurrent of ethno-nationalism with a hint of ethnic superiority underneath.  To be Celtic is to be more naturally inclined to equality.  To be English is to be doomed to ripping people off and perpetual arrogance. But the tragedy is some of the most progressive parties in the UK (which does not include any of the main three parties) have fallen for this rhetoric.  Campaigners who have previously called against policies that have divided people have promoted one of the biggest schisms of all.  When it is all said and done this is all a big distraction from the bigger questions.  I for one am not prepared to give up fighting for my country with or without Scotland.

We progressives should not be content to just lop Scotland off the supposedly doomed carcass of the union and work on it as a salvation project.  I refuse to believe that my home is doomed and I resent Alex Salmond for implying that is.  I know many people who share a political outlook similar to myself know that there is an uphill struggle in reforming England especially never mind the entire union, but that is no reason to quit.  The real tragedy of the Scottish referendum is that it is not answering long held questions about the future of our union, only humouring them.  With regards to the No campaign and it's discredited front men, if we don't like their uninspired vision of the union we must tell them and point out an alternative.  The House of Lords, the Electoral System, the division between rich and poor, local democracy and the Monarchy are all questions we must face sooner or later.  That is with or without Scotland.

So in answer to the question "how will you feel if Scotland goes independent?" I can honestly say I don't mind either way.  Besides I will be flying off on holiday on referendum day to a country that is at peace with its own destiny.  I do wonder when we will be at peace with ours.

 

Tony Blair Psychosis

His name is synonymous with death, destruction, lies and deceit.  Once it represented the future and the hope that comes with it.  Then that all changed.  In the House of Commons the Leader of the Opposition David Cameron looked at him in the face and mockingly jested “You use to be the future once.”  Who was he speaking to?  None other than former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.  I was only 11 when Blair lead New Labour to power in 1997.  My Mum was a traditional Labour supporter, fed up of years of Conservative rule.  I didn’t know much about politics then, but what made Mum happy made me happy.  So I became a de facto supporter too.  For several years the domestic scene looked pretty quiet apart from the odd fuel strike or Foot and Mouth outbreak here and there.  Internationally the UK intervened militarily in the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone, but no one made much noise about it.  Apart from the unique side shows of a horrific genocide and a rebel uprising in yet another African country, things internationally looked pretty stable and predictable.

9/11 changed that.  Such a horrific attack and our closeness to the US seemed to justify the war in Afghanistan to most people.  But after those events something seemed to change in how we perceived out Prime Minister.  He seemed much more serious somehow and more decisive.  Standing shoulder to shoulder with US President George W Bush he seemed to swallow Bush’s enemies list, the Axis of Evil, lock stock and barrel.  While he mercifully didn’t use Bush’s gung ho language, he didn’t make any effort to counter Bush’s suggestion that another confrontation was very close.  His silence was taken as automatic acceptance.  The British public who at first distrusted him, now feared him.  That fear soon turned to anger when he pointed towards the next venture: the 2003 Iraq War.
The 2003 Iraq War will be remembered in the UK for all the wrong reasons.  I often imagine telling a future child of mine about it and I struggle to think how I would do it.  It was a strange and fearful time.  It was one of sorrow for my family when my late grandma passed away.  The last time I saw her we were watching planes lift off from a US aircraft carrier.  She said she was afraid for the children in Iraq who would soon be threatened by the bombs on those planes screeching into the darkness.  At Christmas that year the family had a debate about the run up to war, fuelled by alcohol.  A the time I was strongly for the war.  I remember Mum telling me about Dad’s Iraqi friends from university, called up for military service on the eve of the Gulf War.  I imagined the arrogant dictator Saddam Hussein hiding in one of his palaces far away from the front lines while such good people were sent off to fight and die for him.  I didn’t very much care for what happened to the man in the palace.
The most bitter thing people remember now and will remember I think is the one infamous abbreviation “WMD”: Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Blair, Bush and their pressmen mentioned WMD daily and seemingly sometimes hourly in the run up to the war.  And then came the 45 minutes claim and the so called “Dodgy Dossier”, the latter of which seemed to be less of an intelligence brief and more of a cut and paste job.  With much doubt cast on this reason to go to war the government proliferated many others.  One of these was the claim that Saddam was hosting Al Qaeda in Iraq, which turned out to be bogus.  The multitude of reasons and the almost hysterical pushing of them on the British public made them confused, bewildered and then finally angry.  Huge anti war demonstrations took place in the UK and many other countries but to no avail.  We went to war.
Despite Bush presenting a “Mission Accomplished” banner the mission never seemed to be accomplished no matter how hard everyone tried.  Resentment towards the coalition’s occupation and it’s mismanagement of reconstruction fed a brewing insurgency.  For many years it seemed as though the country of Iraq would burn to the ground despite our effort.  Then it seemed to calm down and then we left.  That is it in a nutshell.

 But when the UK public thought they had got to the peak of their distrust for their former leader in war time, Blair turned around and seemed to pretend that everything had gone according to plan.  Quotes similar to ‘I would do the same again’ appeared, making some people question his memory if not his sanity.  This is what made people very bitter, but he didn’t seemed to notice and he doesn’t still.  But in not acknowledging any humility Blair, the liberal interventionist may already have done liberal intervention’s grave.

Before Iraq when we saw mass graves filled with men women and children we often asked “how do we stop this?”.  Such sights filled us with feelings of horror and justified anger at the perpetrators.  Now when we see this the question tragically seems to be “how do we avoid doing anything about this?”  The latter thinking has brought out the worst out of people.  Many people openly venerate overthrown dictators, making the Gadaffi’s and Saddam’s of this world look like President Eisenhower’s, albeit with 24/7 torture centres.  Others openly speak of people not being ready for moving towards democracy.  Most tragically many people look at genocides and say “so sad” and then change the channel and think about something else.

 Consider the following scenario.  After nearly decades of his father ruling the country the son steps in and is hastily sworn in as President.  He goes through the motions of confirming himself in power.  The military swears their loyalty to him and the schools pass on his personality cult.  But try as he might he doesn’t fill the big shoes of his father.  Slowly but surely events start to run away with him.  Grumbles in the population get louder and then turn into protests.  The protests then turn in to mini risings and then serious and coordinated uprisings.  The son hides in the Presidential Palace thinking he is safe.  Then the military starts to grumble too and he decides to throw in the towel.  This is a rough outline of the events that lead to the dictator of Haiti Jean-Claude Duvalier aka Baby Doc (son of Papa Doc) fleeing from power in Haiti.  If one of Saddam’s sons Uday or  Qusay Hussein had to take over from their father it is likely that similar events would have played out.  But such hypothetical scenarios are scorned in the post-Blair era.  The hangover of Iraq has made all of it’s critics act like foreign policy experts, and they have no time for people answering back.

 This is my coming out as an ardent liberal interventionist.  Why?  Because I believe that all life is sacred.  Because I believe in helping your neighbours when they are in dire need, despite my lack of spiritual leaning.  Because we cant rightfully shout about the virtues of freedom and democracy and decide who deserves it.  But mostly because I know that past experience, including the Iraq War, can never dictate the future.  This country needs to exorcise the demon of the Iraq War from it’s soul or it will turn us into uncaring, cynical and ultimately hypocritical people.  There is evil in the world and if we profess to be a beacon of freedom we should be prepared to stand up to it.  Yes we won’t always be able to help in the form of active intervention.  But those that lecture about the power of diplomacy and talk must recognise it’s limits.  Sending angry letters to certain evil doers won’t make them desist because of their fear of paper cuts.

But as it is Tony Blair’s aloof and arrogant attitude has pushed this country away from intervention.  He has filled our hearts full of bitterness and cynicism instead of determination and hope.  For that I can never forgive him.

 "The wicked flee when no one is pursuing"

Proverbs 28:1

 

My Great Escape from the Far Left

About 6 years ago I was at the Freshers’ Fair at the University of the West of England helping out at a club.  I was wondering around when a smiley man walked up to me, said something about a meeting very quickly when I was only half listening and left.  I look down in my right hand and found that the smiley man had very expertly slipped off a flyer for the said meeting in my hand.  It was a Socialist Workers Party (SWP) meeting on the subject of solving the impending credit crunch.  Right then I could vaguely describe myself as a socialist and I was extremely bored that day, so I decided to attend the meeting.  The meeting was at the end of the day anyway and I had time to kill before the bus arrived.

 I walked into the small meeting room in the Students Union somewhat reluctantly and smiled and said “hello” politely to the others attending.  There were about 3 other attendees, I assumed the organisers had been expecting a few more.  Yet despite the turnout the same man who handed me the leaflet bounced into the room with the same smile.  He looked around the room and nodded in greeting and then started the meeting.  The table was a rectangular conference table running length ways left to right.  I sat on the side closest to the door next to the head, he sat opposite me.  I did wonder after I left the meeting whether he regretted that decision later.

 For the first 10 minutes a so myself and the participants listened as we would listen to a lecture.  Now and then keeping eye contact with the speaker and looking out of the window at other times.  The speech sounded predictably enough.  “Capitalism is in a worldwide crisis”, “this system of greed can’t last any longer” blah blah blah!  I found myself starting to get more and more impatient.  Paradoxes and inconvenient truths in far leftist ideology started to swirl around in my head.  If they hated this system so much why did the speaker in front of me rely on the fruits of that system?  If the contradictions of capitalism so obvious why hasn’t the SWP come up with a persuasive alternative?  If the SWP believe in a system based on sharing, couldn’t they have started within their own party?  But by bit I felt myself getting more and more irritable.  And then I had a road to Damascus moment.  A moment of complete realisation of the truth, that I didn’t believe anything that was being said.  I took advantage of the informal nature of the talk and started to challenge the speaker.  I started subtly at first and then sunk in the knife as I became more and more unsatisfied with the answers to my challenges.  It came to a head when the speaker praised the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.  His face fell when I asked the question “Can you really call someone a ‘man of peace’ if they tried to take over the government by force? (or words to that effect), and I knew I had crossed a personal Rubicon.  

As I stood up at the end of the meeting I felt strangely relieved.  I shook the speaker’s hand, much in the way boxers do after knocking each other’s brains in.  He spoke first thanking me for coming and for my “contributions”.  I murmured a thank you.  Then while still shaking my hand he invited me for a drink downstairs at the bar with his Army of the Proletariat.  I was just about to seize the opportunity for a free drink before I scurried to my bus when I heard the man say something I will never forget.  “At the end of the day you need to pick a side.”  I am not sure if it was just what he said but the way he said it. With the enthusiasm and glazed look of a fanatic who has not considered for one microsecond that they may be wrong.  That put the nail in the coffin for that encounter and the previous 7 years as a “wacko commie” as a good friend colourfully described me.

No matter where I looked I started to feel cheated and annoyed by the causes and campaigns and the cynical and arrogant people who pushed them.  I went to an anti-nuclear weapons rally in London, only to find that the Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament (CND) had cheerfully folded it in with a march larger Anti War demonstration.  I was furious.  I was undecided on Iraq or Afghanistan, yet here I was counted among the Anti War numbers when I was here for something else. Much later I got leaflets from the CND cheerfully informing me that they are also against nuclear power, which I agreed with, and fully expected us to support this campaign seemingly without question. I spoke out against Kate Hudson when she appeared at a Liberal Democrat Conference’s fringe event, ignoring the wrath of one of her heavies.  It was daunting at first to confront my far leftist demons, but it eventually felt liberating to prevail over them.

My views like many other peoples’ were and still are influenced by events.  My political awakening took place during the most extreme event of our times, the 9/11 attacks in the US.  This event and the political and emotional fallout from it convinced me that I had to learn more.  And so I did, hovering up knowledge about current affairs domestic and foreign.  My family, most notably my maternal side were Labour leaning so I guess it is no surprise that I started from the left side of the fence.  In many ways the War on Terror early years were the perfect environment for a generation of socialists and other assorted lefties.  The left in the UK were just starting to come to the realisation that centre leftist Tony Blair could be just as slippery and untrustworthy as his centre right counterparts.  The US had an almost cartoonish US President, none other than George W Bush.  A tense international situation was made worse by lightning invasions of entire countries.  After Afghanistan and Iraq there were serious concerns about other dominoes falling on the Axis of Evil map, with god knows what following after.  Michael Moore was chirping along with his books and films.  Outbursts of racism towards Muslims excited the conscience of many leftists.  My long held affection for the US was shaken and nearly shredded by ongoing railing by the far left against my former adoptive country.  Constant propaganda followed by an extremely biased documentary about Israel made me start to look at the US with real suspicion.

 So what changed this far leftist trend?  In a nutshell I grew up.  That isn’t to say that in my view all people are destined to go rightwards until they hit Sarah Palin-ville.  I know several far leftist people that are older than me and seem to be travelling the other way.  For better or worse I changed as a person and this was my personal journey.  I no longer trusted the almost zealot like disregarding of other people’s views that characterised the circles I followed.  I have a natural curiosity for alternative views and have a knack of making friends whose views differ from my own.  I no longer saw conservatives as somehow intrinsically evil, even if I still didn’t agree with them and wanted to find out more about them.  Besides Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’ speaks about knowing the opposition as much as you know yourself.  And finally I had enough of the bare faced lies of the extremist left.  In Cuba I listened to a tour guide talking to myself and my family.  He made it sound as though the entire CIA had invaded the country, when I knew many Cubans themselves had fought against a suffocating regime.  Later on he confided with us that he was desperate to leave.  I argued endlessly with Communists online whitewashing the human rights abuses of the Soviet Union.

 

Ultimately I felt staying in the far left would turn me into someone I didn’t want to be: someone who was constantly angry, convinced they had nothing to learn and ultimately very lonely.  I think I am a passionate person when it comes to injustice and certain causes, which may have contributed to my near embrace of Communism.  But in the end I came to the conclusion that truth has to come with passion.  If you turn your back on the truth you are completely lost.