De-clawing the British Lion

One of the lesser acknowledged people who have passed through my fair city of Bristol is a man called Ernest Bevin.  Bevin knew what it meant to be poor, working as a manual labourer on the docks for pennies and then working as a driver at the same place for not much more.  He rose up to become an effective and passionate trade union organiser, becoming instrumental in organising a huge trade union confederation the Transport and General Workers Union.  However while he prided himself in standing up for the working man against a government seemingly dominated by an oligarchy of the ruling class, he refused to swallow the rhetoric prevalent in the socialist movement about all threats being manufactured.  He used his influence and his own fiery rhetoric to denounce George Lansbury at the 1935 Labour Party Conference.  George Lansbury and his supporters only saw a ruling class conspiracy in rearmament, a line supported by a wide spectrum of leftist authors and celebrities including Virgina Woolfe.  Ernest Bevin meanwhile saw the world as it was.  Italy was invading Ethiopia.  Hitler who had been in power for only a few years had already begun to violently crack down on trade union activity.  The German leader incidentally was almost in stitches of laughter after meeting George Lansbury.  Bevin’s courageous stance lead to the end of Lansbury’s resignation from his position of the Labour Party.  After a distinguished term serving as Secretary of Labour during World War 2, upon Labour’s victory in 1945 Bevin became Foreign Secretary. During his tenure has Foreign Secretary, recognising the threat from the Soviet Union Bevin was instrumental in cofounding the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation better known as NATO.  And today that organisation still stands.

 Bevin helped form NATO because while he recognised the need for major domestic reform he knew that Britain could not afford to ignore the strategic map.  Divided and disarmed Europe was prey to danger.  However united, ready and able Europe would be ensured that it could enjoy the fruits of the postwar peace.  Bevin realised the truth that both guns and butter are needed and ultimately one can’t survive without the other.

 Our present leaders, in the government and without, are not strategic thinkers in the least.  They act more like managers and mis-managers at that.  When they look at lists of our strategic interests next to lists of our armed forces.  They look at both of those lists and in place of what they should see they see pound signs.  And that creates the need for efficiencies, cost saving measures, expedient minded solutions and ultimately cuts.  The armed forces are really just an inconvenience to them.  Something to be patted on the head next to the cenotaph and to provide a musical accompaniment to the opening of the Ashes at the Lords grounds.  They talk so much about how much the members of the armed forces sacrifice while they dismember their regiments and close down their bases.

 So why do they get away with this?  Well at the moment it appears the answer is, because the balance of the British public support it.  Leon Trotsky once said “You may not have an interest in war, but war has an interest in you.”  But the problem is not so much that we are not interested.  The British are simply tired of war and the military that comes along with it.  They are tired of sharp suited politicians sending the armed forces to fight in far flung places only to see the shooting carry on long after they have left.  They are tired of being given multiple reasons why they our forces are being sent to a certain place when one solid golden reason would do.  And most of all the British are tired at seeing their money seemingly being ploughed into the military while public services are cleaved.  The peace dividend in short is looking very allusive and all too far away.

 But the problem is the world doesn’t stop being a dangerous place just because we have had enough of it and the problems within it.  We don’t even need to look on the world scale to realise that, looking at our region is bad enough.  President Vladimir Putin of Russia has thrown down the gauntlet to Europe.  It’s vastly outnumbered eastern neighbours are fearful while the central European powers do what they always do; make a lot of noise and postpone a challenge without meeting it.  And meanwhile we go about our paper tiger business as our hard power declines every day.  Vladimir Putin is a remorseless and determined nationalistic fanatic who targets weakness and exploits it.  From the start we have shown weakness.  We treated and still treat Alexander Litvinenko’s assassination in London like some kind of minor diplomatic inconvenience, like an ambassador’s outstanding parking ticket.  As Euromaidan started coming into force and the Russian supported Ukrainian President Yanukovych’s thugs started launching themselves at protestors, Vladimir Putin was having his pictures taken in front of Number 10.  Only now the rhetoric from our government has started to heat up.

 But Putin must know this rhetoric is empty.  Either as our government is spouting it they are tying themselves in knots strategically.  British bases are closing in Germany in a region where our commitments are increasing, while a base is being opened in Bahrain in a region where our operations were allegedly powering down.  How can we hope to deter our enemies when we give off such mixed signals.  How can we reassure our vulnerable allies, including those in Eastern Europe, when we are so lacklustre when it comes to defence?  Despite the fanfare, they realise that a NATO ‘spearhead’ force of 5,000 strong is pretty puny when set against the Russian Western Military District’s 65,000 strong.

The public rightly do not want war with Russia.  Such a war would be devastating for everyone, although by numbers (not in the least 3 NATO nuclear weapon owning states versus one) Russia would lose.  But wanting a peaceful endgame and going out of your way to show how little resolve you have to stand a challenge are two different matters.  If you are confronting a determined foe such as we are with Russia, it is unwise and dangerous to lay all of your cards down on the table at once.  An open public acknowledgement of our desire to only go so far until Eastern Europe is on its own is a very unwise stance on our part.  We are a part of an alliance that commits us to help those in need and in distress.  Now is the time to own up to that commitment.  If that upsets Vladimir Putin (and there isn’t much “if” about it) then that is too bad.  There is no honour or satisfaction to be had in appeasing a bully.  Historically it is not what our country is known for.

The Iraq War has left a toxic legacy in this country.  It has stoked the fires of isolationism and in it’s aftermath terrible and frankly wrong narratives have emerged from it.  One of which is that all military action not sanctioned explicitly by international law is wrong.  Tell that to the Kosovans alive because of NATO’s intervention in 1999.  Another is that every single humanitarian intervention we have been involved in has failed.  Tell that to the people of Sierra Leone.  Those forces conspire to tell us that the UK has never been and can never be a force for good in the world.  I for one believe that they are completely wrong.

In the upcoming general election the future of our armed forces will hardly be discussed.  To be sure there will be a few patronising remarks about how much good they do, probably by the same powers that be who want to carve them up.  It isn’t popular to talk about defence or about using our defence capability to help others.  It is much more popular to be ashamed of our power, or rather our former power.  On the right we have UKIP who want a massively financed military to go virtually nowhere.  Perhaps more persuasively we have the Greens who want to go nowhere too but for good measure hack away at their financing too, so they will hardly be equipped to go anywhere.  I wouldn’t vote for UKIP regardless of what their defence policy was, unless I had a frontal lobotomy.  But I do fear the momentum of the Greens.

The Greens have a toxic and corrosive view of Britain with regards to international security.  They support the sadly popular leftist moral relativist philosophy of the day that basically traces the source of all suffering in the world back to our doorstep.  It also seemingly advocates the appeasing of bullies like Putin.  In short the legacy of George Lansbury is alive and kicking, so it is time to invoke the spirit of Ernest Bevin.  So my parting advice with regards to confronting this terrible and enduring philosophy is simple: don’t stand for it.  Be proud of us being committed to the defence of the little guy.  Instead of only  decrying the unfairness of the UK’s Permanent seat on the UN Security Council, we should think about the good we can do while have it, and consider carefully whether our successors may prove as altruistic in their motives.  Our country has made mistakes with regards to military intervention, but that is no excuse for isolationism.  In the face of mistakes we should endeavour to do better, not endeavour to do nothing at all.  Our philosophy should be similar to Thomas Paine’s “The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”

 

Standing Up For a British Presidency

Mentioning the possibility of Britain becoming a republic and one day having a president to someone can often provoke a surprised and somewhat dumbfounded response.  It is almost as though you said “hey I think it would be a good idea if I crossed that main road at rush hour doing a handstand.”  It is seen in the mainstream as simply a bizarre idea and often portrayed as against British values.  As a republican I believe this reaction is somewhat typical of the human condition.  People after all can get used to pretty much anything, especially if they are lead to believe they can’t change something or more controversially that they shouldn’t.  “If it ain’t broke why fix it?” is the usual response from royalists, who then usually ignore the multitude of ways the institution of the British Monarchy is broke.  But this response is often prompted by the fears of what could replace the monarchy, which as far as Republic is concerned would be a democratically elected British President.  President; that title has many controversies around it.  And yet all it means nominally is the not so very an radical idea, these days anyway, of electing your own leader.  But it stands to reason that if we republicans are for a presidency, we need to tackle the stigma that is attached to it.

 The past is continuously mythologized and the characters and actions of past leaders along with it.  But curiously the myth making seems to be different when it comes to mythologizing monarchs on the one hand and mythologizing Presidents on the other.  When one king annuls marriages or executes their (former) spouse this is largely overlooked to preserve is greater legacy, politics is separated from the personal.  Yet with Presidents this separation doesn’t seem to exist.  If a President cheats on his wife, who cares about them stopping genocide or passing life changing reforms?  Many Kings and Queens practiced corruption and torture on a gargantuan scale.  Their greater legacy remains intact while a single corruption or spy scandal can bring down an entire presidency in historians and the public’s view.

So why do we have these double standards?  The conclusion I have come to is that Presidents are just too close to home while most monarchs are silently in their grave, hardly vocal witnesses to a controversial history.  Put simply Presidents just remind us too much of well……us.  But we have fell into this narrative where we apparently don’t want Presidents to be like us.  We don’t want them to be fallible.  We don’t want them to say the wrong thing.  We want them to reflect the power and status of our country as it was, to take our minds off our continuous decline.  We want them to be confident and to know what to do and when to do it.  In other words we want our leaders to be special.  How much more special can you get than a line of people trained from birth to be leaders? 

Politics for all its good and very visible ills is at the end of the day a product of the human condition.  Like it or not we are responsible in one way or another for the way politics has developed.    Confronting the problems synonymous with contemporary politics will lead us to have to deal with many difficult issues.  The biggest issue that our paradoxical fixation on the monarchy highlights is our completely unrealistic and warped view of human nature.  We expect the best from the leaders we don’t choose, but we expect the worst from the leaders we don’t.  We have come to the point where we are so frustrated and ultimately dumbfounded about where politics should ultimately go, we give ourselves an escape from reality in the form of the Monarch.

“Its (British Monarchy) mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic. We must not bring the Queen into the combat of politics, or she will cease to be reverenced by all combatants” Walter Bagehot

 The “mystery” element is pretty alien to a democratic system, ordinarily.  Could you imagine a member of the US President’s staff being called into a Senate hearing and when asked a question refraining “sorry, can’t say anything.  We have mysteries to keep.”  If this was heard the questioners would be forgiven for wondering what the staff member had been smoking.  Royalists tend to reflect on human nature as it should be.  Republicans see it for what it is.  Presidents aren’t corruptible, people are corruptible and Presidents of course are human (although some may not live up to the name).  But in functional and transparent republics the President is seen as the leader but is ultimately bound by the strains of the constitution of their country and ultimately the ability of the public to renew or cut short their job’s duration.  And of course monarchs are just as human as Presidents.  But the difference between them is that while monarchs perpetuate the myth that people are born leaders the legacy of Presidents prove time and time again that leaders are not born, they are made.

The life experiences and challenges of monarchs are reflected on and mythologized, while those of presidents have by contrast often been taken for granted.  This is a great shame since these stories humanize the characters we describe and give colour to lives that on reflection look a lot more inspiring and at the same time less remote.  These experiences have lead Presidents to make bold leadership decisions.   Here are a few examples.  Please forgive the mainly male selection.

 US President Abraham Lincoln was accustomed to loss from an early age with the death of his mother in childhood.  At the same time he learned the virtue of patience as he worked himself up from being a common labourer, to a lawyer and eventually President of the country.  While he lead his country through the bloody American Civil War, he had to put his own loss aside when his young son died during the war of natural causes.  He did this since he thought it was hypocritical to visibly mourn for his own son while he ordered hundreds of others to fight and die for the country.  This caused an massive strain on his marriage that never really recovered.  This also contributed to what many historians speculate was acute depression that Lincoln had to live with among his other burdens.  To add to those burdens he was likely a closet homosexual, no doubt contributing to his depression.  Another experience when he was young tuned him away from slavery for life.  He went to work for a slave owner, didn’t like what he saw, then turned around and went home in disgust.  One of his successors was Ulysses S Grant.  Grant struggled with alcohol and depression all his life.    This struggle ended his army career once.  Then when the American Civil War started he became a patient, modest and yet determined general.  He got support from his friend and colleague William Tecsumeh Sherman who himself suffered from depression, leading them to help keep their mutual demons at bay.  Ultimately they became successful generals and won the war.  As President Grant promoted reconciliation with the south, but deployed the army against the violent Ku Klux Klan.  French President Charles De Gaulle was fully accustomed to loss due to his country falling prey to fascism.  His experience of fighting against overwhelming odds steeled him for tough fights later.  Many people recall from history King Juan Carlos of Spain telling the soldiers to stay in their barracks, but he stole that act off De Gaulle.  As paratroopers threatened to land on Paris De Gaulle went on TV and demanded they pledge allegiance to their leader and preserve the French Republic.  And in a more modest though not in the least important example, President Mary McAleese of Ireland sought reconciliation in a country where it has all too often been absent.  When she stated her intention to celebrate Protestant heritage as well as Catholic heritage, an American Catholic Archbishop denounced her.  Undaunted she turned around and said that his comments were out of line and she would do what she thought was right for all of her people, not just those who were Catholic.

If we republicans truly want a President we have to be prepared to argue and fight for one.  That does mean dealing with some controversial history.  There are people who empower and taint the presidential legacy.  But if the legacy of Presidents is controversial then that is the least that can be said of monarchs.  The main difference between the two positions is that we are ultimately responsible for Presidents since we choose them.  That is a big responsibility.  But shouldering big responsibility is what being a republican is all about.  Starting a British presidency and giving it a worthy legacy will be hard and it will take time.  For myself personally I relish the challenge and can't wait to start.

 

 

 

Book Review: ‘Revolution’ by Russell Brand

My first impressions of Russell Brand before his recent foray into politics were not particularly warm.  From what little I had heard about him, not that I enquired that much into him, he was some sort of comedian.  Hearing snippets of his humour from sources such as the radio I found his humour was a bit hit and miss with me.  Sometimes he struck a shocking but genuinely funny note.  Other times I found his humour hard to digest because of it’s often loud and manic delivery.  And all too often his humour focused on the sexually profane too much more my taste.  I am not a prude, but I find that humour based on sex can often be as unpleasant as the comedian in question pulling down their trousers and going “look at what I have got.”  Perhaps in that way I am stereotypically British.  But Russell Brand’s foray into politics intrigued me.  It comes at a shambolic time for the left.  We seem to be being routed by an alcoholic who acts like a game show host.  At strange times like these stranger figures seem to come forward to provide counterweight, and so Russell Brand enters the ring.  His tweets and Facebook entries have taken on a progressively more political character, and are often accompanied by videos articulating his views.  But the more and more I saw of him on these outlets the more I became simultaneously intrigued and frustrated.  Intrigued because at least some of what he said made sense.  Frustrated because he seemed unwilling to commit himself to many policy ideas, if any.  Russell Brand was, and still is, preaching revolution and I had but one question: ‘what would his revolution look like?’  I asked and received the book for Christmas to try and find out the answer to that question.

The tone and rhythm of the book was at first quite hard to get into.  Serious points were separated by either random jokes or monologues about various amusing stories.  While this was somewhat expected, given that a comedian wrote it, it took some getting used to.  In many ways the hard arguments and solutions it was trying to make could of done with a bit less of this formula in order to have given them credibility.  But this isn’t the main thing I noticed at the start of this book.  The main thing I did notice was it’s deep and unapologetically spiritual message.  Russell Brand told tales from his unsettled childhood leading up to his unsettled life, laying it out as a kind of quest for mental fulfilment and tranquillity.  It felt often more like I was reading something from the Dalai Lama or some other type of spiritual authority.  At first this put me off but much of this talk addressed a few key points.  For instance the parts which reflected on the importance of the present, so as not to be preoccupied with the past or future especially resonated with me.  By my own admission I am especially bad at this and worry constantly about the next event coming up in my life.  That is good advice, hopefully one day it is advice I will stick to.

However as the book went on it unexpectedly and disappointingly posed spirituality as being in constant competition with rationalism and its partner science.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions but I find these arguments trying at the best of times.  Why does science and religion have to be in an open war against each other.  Granted my one time hero Richard Dawkins has turned into an arrogant bully, basically turning into a Twitter troll and an atheistic hate preacher.  But that doesn’t mean I view the advancement of science as bad.  And I am sure that opinion will be confirmed if I have to rely on a newly researched drug in the future to keep the Reaper at bay.  Like I said I am an atheist but I am realistic and tolerant.  Whatever I do and whatever I say won’t change the fact that not everyone thinks like I do.  And I accept that.  So why doesn’t Russell Brand?  He seemed to condemn science for spoiling the mysteries of the universe.  I just have one response to him; don’t worry Mr Brand, there is plenty more universe out there.  Sometimes this belief in the spiritual seems to override his common sense.  He speaks of a Transcendental Meditation experiment held in Washington DC in which hundreds of people meditating allegedly contributed to a 23% drop in crime.  Really?  I somehow doubt that.  If the criminally inclined out there knew where and when the experiment was being held perhaps the participants would have woken up to find their wallets and cars missing.  Who knows?

 

The spiritual instruction/biography third of the first book was followed by an outlining of the political problems the country faces from the author’s perspective, as well as a confirming of his political position.  In very frank terms the “system” (a term Brand uses to describe contemporary western democracy and capitalism) is failing and leading us all to our doom, ecological and spiritual doom to be precise.  As though he presumes all of his audience is convinced of this Brand doesn’t even try to counter argue for balance.  The message is continuously drummed in; the ‘system’ will only serve the interests of the rich and kill the planet.  Asides from him not putting much effort into arguing his case I in part agreed with him.  I believe he is too dismissive of capitalism but I am convinced that mankind needs to change its ways in order to protect the environment, or suffer terrible consequences.  But I did not agree with him when it came to his views on democracy.

 

We don’t have a democracy is Russell Brand’s argument.  It is basically a big stitch up by the wealthy, with corporations mentioned innumerable times.  I would counter that we don’t have a FULL democracy.  I am certainly with him with his pro republican arguments, arguing in favour of an elected Head of State, I say lets do it!  But given that we have in this country (broadly speaking) tremendous respect for human rights, universal suffrage, free media etc I think his argument is inaccurate and hyperbolic.  It does however have an element of truth.  Human rights are being chiselled away in the name of counter terrorism.  Votes for parties doesn’t always lead to the change we would like to see, and often a lot that we are against.  And the media is shamelessly monopolised by a few greedy conglomerates.  I am not in favour of this.  But nor am I in favour of throwing the baby out with the bath water.  What also made me deeply suspicious of his arguments was that he argued that anyone who argued in favour of the status quo was basically a reactionary and by extension evil.  Well it didn’t take long for the brotherly love message from the chapters before to disappear either?  I see here that Brand more than once falls into the extremist trap.  And later he falls for the anarchist one too.  More on that later.  Furthermore when it comes to examples of direct democracy that already exist in the world Russell Brand tends to pretty dismissive about it's results.  He waved them off by saying the people who voted were "conditioned" which I think is pretty condescending.

So after throwing the ‘system’ into the dustbin the last third of the book is dedicated to coming up with new ideas.  Interestingly as it got closer to the end more concrete ideas were described.  Some of these were actually pretty good, like private companies dedicating their profits to community benevolence funds and new forms of participatory democracy.  Some of these ideas could have used a few tweaks, but I was getting into it.  Then the book ended!  It’s a real shame Brand didn’t dedicate more time to outlining such policy ideas.  A big reason why I read this book was to essentially see what his revolutionary blueprint was.  If he writes a follow up I recommend he researches a lot more and courts more controversy by putting down some more bold but constructive ideas.  He should put his money where his mouth is, so to speak. 

The main political creed Brand seems to support is anarchism, mainly of the syndicalist variety.  It is ultimately a rejection of all government.  Fair enough.  But then we lead to what I call the anarchist trap.  Basically anarchists agree that humans need to come up with some sort of arrangements by which they cooperate with each other.  This leads to voluntary organisations.  Organisations eh?  Almost like a ………..government.  But the voluntary part also looks on human nature as being ultimately altruistically motivated, not negative.  The problem is I don’t think all people are at core good or bad.  There lies the ultimate need for government in some form or another, NOT solely run by volunteers.  But if the author and his friends are so keen on starting collectives and cooperative businesses I don’t see any reason for anyone to stop them.  What harm can it do?  It can certainly do a lot of good.  I just don’t think such organisations can stand up to the responsibilities that governments deal with.  If Mr Brand wants to prove me wrong I invite him to try.  If it goes his way I will humbly admit that I am wrong and he is right.

Overall I see Russell Brand’s ‘Revolution’ as an interesting if at times frustrating read.  I don’t think I will read it again.  The book isn’t particularly large by my standards and I am confident that I have taken its central messages and arguments in.  You can’t fault Brand for enthusiasm for his new interest in politics, he seems very determined to challenge the status quo.  The problem is he speaks like a fanatical convert, seemingly oblivious to covering his bases when arguing for his ideas.  Those arguing in favour of keeping things the same are rashly written off essentially as evil counterrevolutionaries.  Mr Brand needs to consider why these people may object to his plans.  Better yet, why doesn’t he talk to those people?  In one sentence he dismissively turns down the suggestion of talking to a regular pro capitalist economist.  I ask why not?  If his arguments are so self-evidently solid, then surely he should challenge the major leagues to a duel.  I think Russell Brand could learn a lot from talking to his political opponents and trying to empathise with them.  In many ways Brand needs to take his own advice from the spiritually focused chapters and talk to his fellow man.  With regards to capitalism I think Brand needs to reacquaint himself with the positive elements of the system.  The competition of ideas alone that are inherent with capitalism surely should give many people pause for thought.  Capitalism isn’t perfect and it needs some work.  My own manifesto is busy trying to harness it’s advantages to tackle positive causes, such as saving the planet from us.  But on a positive note I do agree with him that we humans have mentally and physically have become too distant from nature.  This distance has caused us to lose respect for nature.  Sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost to punish us for our ignorance.

The observant among you may notice that this is a largely critical review.  That isn’t to say I detest Russell Brand.  I think he is OK and for the most part has his heart in the right place.  He seems to have quite an open door about who he talks to about his ideas.  In that spirit my door would be open.  I plan to send him an email, basically critiquing his book.  If he invited me round to his house for a chat I don’t think I would turn him down.  Besides that would be rude.  But on a serious note I do think in his own way he is pushing for constructive change.  In many ways he reminds me of myself 10 years ago.  I was on the extreme left back then but I came back.  I came back because ultimately I realised a lot of my heroes were more suspect when I first thought.  I came back because I was tired of being angry all the time.  I came back because I was talking more than listening.  But mostly I came back because I was tired of bending the truth to fit my arguments.  Without the truth you are completely lost.  So if Russell Brand was willing I would happily sit down for some decaf (given my allergy) and explain to him why I think he is mistaken.  Ultimately Russell Brand is trying in his own way to push for positive change and that has to count for something.

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'.