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.

The New Appeasers

Steven Seagal and Tony Blair walk into bar.  If that unusual event happened they would probably have more to talk about than you would first think.  Recently Seagal has started to sound more and more political especially about recent troubles over in Ukraine allegedly involving Russia.  In an interview with the Big Issue magazine he stated that in his view the west and Russia should not be at odds with each other since we after all have a common enemy; Islamist extremists.  To illustrate this world view he expressed his desire to make a film showing US  and Russians joining forces to destroy militant Islam in a giant Seagal style kill fest.  While stating this view he waved off people portraying Russian President Vladimir Putin as a bully and a thug, contrasting it with him as a hard man and a strong leader.

Tony Blair in his implausible role as UN Middle East Peace Envoy suddenly came up with a similar brainwave.  Recently he came back into the media spotlight to come up with a way of solving the Syrian Civil War.  Acknowledging that Russia was the main backer of the Syrian dictator Bashar Al Assad, Blair suggested the west should settle our differences with Russia with regards to the conflict quickly.  After this settlement which would presumably have to leave Bashar Al Assad in power, the west could start to cooperate in a broader counter-terrorist alliance with the Russians. 

The policy of making the enemy of our enemy our friends has regularly been used in world politics.  Indeed the emergence of militant Islam itself was helped by generous western (and other countries) aid to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, with the purpose of dealing the Soviet Union a bloody nose.  This laid the foundations for Al Qaeda which as well all know lead to the West’s chickens coming back to roost so to speak.  Almost exactly 200 years before that Britain in its war with Napoleonic France made common cause with the deposed Bourbon royal family.  Upon the French royalty’s return to power in 1815 they exacted their so called “White Terror” to exact their revenge on the beneficiaries of the revolution.  But ironically the people who should know well the dangers of making common cause with the enemy  are the Russians.  Under the direction of Stalin the Soviet Union conspired with Hitler’s Nazi Germany to share resources and redraw the map
of Eastern Europe to their mutual liking.  This lead Stalin to believe that Hitler could be dealt with and that he was on some level reasonable, thus creating an almost fatally false sense of security.  Even more ironically the resources the Soviet Union sent over to Nazi Germany fuelled the latter’s war effort, hastening the inevitable clash between them.

The lesson to draw from here is not that we shouldn’t cooperate with countries who have common causes with ourselves, of course we should.  But when it comes to players who play for as high stakes as Putin we can’t let our guard down.  Furthermore the kind of deal Blair would propose and Seagal would back would involve a complete turnaround.  We would be supporting the Syrian rebels one minute and then telling them the game is up just after.  One has to wonder what encouragement that would lend to potential rebels living under other odious regimes, such as Zimbabwe and North Korea for one.  Indeed the latter’s propaganda carries the same message, ‘you can’t trust the west’.  If we abandon commitments we have made so readily, why should they?

To avoid confusion the UK should state clearly the rules of the game which should be the following.  The UK should separate counter terrorist matters from all other dealings with Russia.  Russia should be told in no uncertain terms that it will not get special treatment to elicit it’s cooperation in combating terrorism.  If the UK suggests to Russia (or gives signals) that this kind of cooperation could be an incentive for the UK to change its policy with regards to other areas, we may find ourselves continuously giving with little in return.  Putin would then rely on the counter terrorist card as a kind of carrot to dangle over us every time we have a problem with his conduct.  Furthermore we are already a part of a vast network of countries that oppose militant Islam, so why bend over for Russia?  Secondly we can say with some confidence that Russia will want mutual cooperation with regards to combating terrorism, regardless of what else is
happening with West-Russian relations, short of open war of course.  Russia needs Western intelligence’s help more than we need theirs, so we should act like it.

The Blair and Seagal initiative bears much resemblance to the bright idea Churchill once had of uniting with Fascist Italy to combat Communism.  History proved this idea to be unworkable as it will with this proposed alliance.  If cooperation is to come about, it can’t be with an attitude to completely ignore what our partner is doing .  Putin is a bully.  He is responsible for bomber flights probing our airspace, killing dissidents on our soil, Russian oligarchs in Britain mysteriously being blown up and two ongoing civil wars.  When bullies are given an inch they will take a mile.  The diplomatic channels should always be open, but not so appeasement will be the only option.  Our attitude to be Putin should reflect Jose Broz Tito’s the former leader of Yugoslavia.  After refusing to take orders from Stalin a Soviet assassin was sent to kill him.  The assassin was captured by Yugoslavian security and taken to Tito to deliver a message to Stalin.
Tito told he would-be assassin to tell Stalin that if this happens again Tito would send an assassin in return, and he would not have to send a second one.

 

National Anthems

I would like to discuss my recent nerdy fixation.  That is none other than national anthems.  I am not sure what exactly made me so interested in them, however it may have had something to do with a You Tube video I saw a few years ago.  This video was of a Kazakhstani athlete at some sort of Pan Asian games in Kuwait, she stood tall and with her hand over her heart ready to hear her national anthem.  She was in for a rude awakening when the tune she heard was not the one she was expecting.  Instead of hearing the fairly bland but pleasant "My Kazakhstan", the first line's echoed out "Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan, greatest country in the world.  All other countries are ruled by little girls".  The athlete was in fact hearing the spoof national anthem from the comedy film Borat.  Two things struck me about the strange scene I was witnessing.  The first thing I thought was that was impressed that the athlete kept so disciplined, posing with her hand over her hear, albeit with a look that exhibited concern and confusion.  The second thing I pondered was, how seriously should we take national anthems?  Should we bother with them at all?  I then resolved to answer this question by seeking out as many national anthems as possible and answer those questions.  I wondered as I embarked on this strange quest if I would find anything interesting.

Searching out national anthems proved to be gold mine for nerdy facts.  The origins of national anthems in many cases tell interesting and varied.  The South African National Anthem post apartheid is an African nationalist song fused with an Afrikaaner song, symbolising the joining of two peoples.  The Greek National Anthem was written on the eve of Greek independence from Turkey.  The Japanese National Anthem's lyrics derives from a poem written nearly 900 years ago making it the oldest anthem in the world.  Many national anthems are martial orientated, in that they focus on soldiering and shedding blood.  While many of the martial anthems are bland some of them are surprisingly catchy and well written, more on this later.  Others like the Mexican national anthem frankly over do the emphasis on killing.  All countries rich and poor have an anthem.  Some of the poorest ones have an anthem, often with an interesting back story.  Thomas Sankara was a modest Marxist dictator by the standards of Africa.  He renamed Upper Volta to become Burkina Faso and instituted life saving immunisation programmes.  He balanced out this public good with a human rights record that Amnesty International called "appaling".  He reportedly had modest possessions including a refrigerator, 4 motor bikes, a bungalow and a guitar.  It is with the latter that he wrote Burkina Faso's national anthem "One Single Night".  It is interesting as African Marxist anthems go (Angola's is a carbon copy of "Rise Serbia).  It sounds a bit like if Brahms swallowed a Communist Manifesto when he was composing "Lullaby".  The anthem has lasted to this day, Thomas Sankara however was not so lucky.  His Deputy and 'friend' deposed  and brutally murdered him.  This so called friend rules Burkina Faso to this day.

The national anthems I like the most are either ones that capture a significant historical moment in a nation's history movingly.  I also like the ones that try to inject some interesting imagery and actually reflect on the culture of the people the anthem claims to represent.  The Polish National Anthem entitled "Poland Has Not Yet Perished" hails from the time the Polish were fighting with Napoleon Bonaparte on his first Italian campaign.  While they were helping the French in Italy, the Third Partition of Poland occurred in which Russia, Austria and Prussia annexed the entire country.  The anthem written in 1797 (2 years after the partition) was a message of defiance meant to be from the Polish legions, basically saying 'once we are done here we are taking back our home'.  I will now highlight three examples; the US, French and German anthems.

The US National Anthem 'The Star Spangled Banner' at first glance just appears to be merely a vainglorious description of the US flag.  But describing it as such would be to have no respect for its historic context and the origins of the song that was formerly a poem. The US anthem was written by Francis Scott Key, who was witnessing a time in history when the young US republic was under serious attack.  This was the war of 1812 when the UK and the US went to war with each other.  The causes of the war were various including UK restrictions on US shipping (to limit trade to Napoleonic France) and the desire of many US politicians to annex Canada.  Francis Scott Key witnessed a night attack on Fort McHenry next to Baltimore in 1814.  The sense of danger was real to the US, the White House had been burned by the British in a reprisal for the US's allegedly accidental burning of the Canadian capital.  And now the US's old enemy and personification of the old world was descending on the East Coast.  At the top of Fort McHenry stood a huge Star Spangled Banner several feet in height and width.  The song contrasts the ugly and threatening scenes of battle with the majestic looking and seemingly fragile flag.  In this was fragile and pure democracy is seen as standing defiantly in the face of old world tyranny. In later years the poem was sung with the tune of a British drinking song, which I have been told has very crude lyrics.

 

And then we come to the French National Anthem, “La Marseillaise”.  This is quite simply the Gangster Rap of national anthems.  It is ultraviolent, it is blunt and the description ‘over the top’ doesn’t even do it justice.  In what other anthem would you get blood curdling lyrics about watering your furrows with the blood of your enemies?  The message is very simple: ‘we are here and we are French and if you have a problem with that, we will crush you and go on our merry way’.  Yet despite everything it works surprisingly well.  It is helped by a memorable tune, the start of which is sampled in The Beatles song “All You Need is Love”.  The Beatles song lead to an amusing diplomatic misunderstanding when the start of anthem was heard at a diplomatic reception which UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacque Chiraque were both attending.  Hearing the tune Chiraque automatically stood up and posed with his hand over his heart.  Blair knowing it wasn’t La Marseillaise stood with Chiraque to save him the embarrassment of standing alone to what turned out to be “All You Need is Love”.

 

La Marseillaise was written in 1792, 3 years into the revolution.  At this point the revolution looked far from secure.  The King and Queen having been brought down from Versailles to Paris by a revolutionary crowd now faced an uncertain future, after they had made the very unwise decision to attempt to escape France for Austria.  The ancient regimes of Europe were panicking at the potential for the revolution to spread like  a contagion throughout the continent.  The armies of Prussia and Austria strode into the French heartland batting aside initial resistance.  A stand would have to be made against the armies that made no secret of their intention to snuff out the revolution.  Before the eve of what would be the Battle of Valmy the Mayor of Strasbourg asked a young officer to come up with a song to stir up the troops.  The result was the Marseillaise, although not yet known by that name.  The name derived from the song’s own success, when the right people in Paris heard it being sung by troops from none other than Marseille, hence “La Marseillaise” was born.  And what of the Battle of Valmy?  The French routed their enemies and set in process a tragic series of events.  What was initially justified as war in terms of self-defence and the spreading of the revolution corrupted as the revolution corrupted.  I often look upon the French Revolution as one of history’s lost opportunities, but right here in this song you see it’s hope and defiance in full view.

 

Sometimes history conspires to put the legacy of certain national anthems in jeopardy.  Recent concerns about the rise of Japanese nationalism have led to accusatory fingers pointed at the National Anthem “Kigimayo” mostly because it just happened to be the anthem that was in official use during the Japanese Empire.  Russia felt obliged to change their anthem just after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.  The Stalin era anthem while grandiose and tub thumping was littered with Communist totalitarian imagery seemed to pale next to its replacement.  Unsure about how to proceed into an uncertain future the Russian Government adopted a piece of instrumental music as an anthem.  The problem was people didn’t like it.  So much so that Russian athletes in one case walked up to President Vladimir Putin and expressed regret that they didn’t have an anthem so sing to.  For Putin who has long expressed nostalgia the solution was simple; bring back the old tune and change the lyrics.  It was a shrewd move which allowed Russians a bit of nostalgia and pomp while acknowledging a controversial past, but not apologising for it.  The problem is that many of these calls against imperialism are either born out of ignorance or uttered by hypocrites.  How can we a country which sings about ruling the waves cry imperialism?  Stones and glass houses spring to mind.  The Japanese anthem, while not particularly to my taste since it is a royal anthem seems pretty mild content wise next to many states that claimed to suffer under imperialism.  And then there is the interesting case of the German National Anthem.

 

The German National Anthem officially “The Song of the Germans” has long been known by its allegedly controversial lyric “Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles” which translates as “Germany, Germany above everything”.  The rest of that offending stanza repeats “Germany over everything in the world”.  But because of Germany’s recent history, the Germans have been put in the position were on official occasions it cannot be sung.  Now only the third stanza is sung at official events such as sporting ones.  First of all historically France arguably has a longer history of violence than Germany, yet do the French change their anthem?  Not in the least.  And what of we the UK?  A country that owned a quarter of the world at one point?  I challenge doubters to listen to the song and read it’s lyrics and try not to be moved.  While the original music composition was indeed meant to be an imperial anthem, since it was composed by Joseph Hadyn for the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the lyrics were written much later. The lyrics were written in the mid 19^th century by a revolutionary minded German.  “Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles” is not meant to be a call for an invasion but unity.  Germany at this point in time existed in a loose confederation of separate states thanks to its overlord Austria.  This state of affairs was maintained to minimise its potential for revolution and clamour for liberal reforms (which were introduced under Napoleon’s occupation).  This conservatism was maintained at the price of unity.  So the call is meant to be a call for a greater fatherland and brotherhood over everything, including the rule of kings that benefitted from this system. These ideals were expressed in the abortive revolutions in 1848.  However it wasn’t until Otto Von Bismarck came to prominence that this greater Germany was united, and Imperial Germany was born in 1871.  Albeit this was accomplished through several wars and not the popular revolution that the author of the anthem seemed to favour.  Overall I like ‘The Song of the Germans’ because it is moving, dramatic and also hopeful.  It seems to stay moving without dwelling on violence, instead reflecting on Germany’s people and culture.  German women, song and even drink is mentioned.  I believe this is the way anthems are supposed to be written, hence why this is one of my highest rated anthems.

 

I have spent much time reflecting on the National Anthems of foreign nations, now it is time to say a few choice words about my country’s own anthem “God Save The Queen”.  ‘God Save The Queen’ is quite simply an embarrassment.  It is empty and soulless and it is a lost opportunity.  It barely mentions our country at all, almost as an afterthought.  Of course I am biased, since this is my own humble opinion.  But after the anthems I have been talking to about I think it still shows what a rich tapestry of songs ours lies against.  Good anthems are stories and banners for noble principles; whether it is preserving freedom against overwhelming odds or waiting for many years till a people can finally have their own country.  Anthems reflect on the history of their peoples as well as he characteristics of the people themselves and their lives.  None of this is in our anthem.  Our anthem isn’t a celebration of a country, it’s a rather soulless dedication to a personality cult.  Some people stand up and sing when the national anthem is playing and hold their hand to their hearts.  I on the other hand use it as a valuable opportunity to shift in my chair and scratch the itches out of the cheeks of my backside.  As far as I am concerned it is not our anthem, it is theirs.

 

Britain and all it is, is notably absent from our anthem.  Our authors and playwrights who have helped to define our language.  Our pioneering achievements in engineering, including Stonehenge that helped make the earliest foreign tribes look to Britain in awe.  Our music which has inspired legions of fans throughout the world.  Our inventions of sports that endure massive followings in far flung corners of the globe.  The waves of immigration and occupations that have all left their mark on our country, from Roman roads to old sayings.  Our history of fighting for freedom, which is still ongoing.  Our weather which we can’t seem to stop talking about.  And most importantly our resilience in the face of all odds and our determination to make our own destiny.

 

Our anthem doesn’t come close to capturing any of that.  But I hope it will one day.