Letter to the I: Brexit Letter

Hugh Bennett's article in favour of Brexit is an impressive example of rewriting history to suit one's, otherwise unjustifiable, argument.  Pro Brexit commentators wax lyrical about how much the Euro has apparently punished the economies of southern EU member states, but have completely ignored the structural weaknesses in these economies that have long been present in them.  Greece for one has a toxic culture of tax evasion throughout its elite that has nothing to do with the EU.

     Bennett's hint that the real forces of internationalism are behind Brexit fly in the face of reality.  Throughout Europe Brexit is not supported by dynamic internationalists but by preachers of the old nationalism that have worked hard to set our continent back decades.  I trust Bennett will not let the truth get in the way  of a good yarn on my account in the future.

Regards

Zac Barker

Letter to the I Newspaper: The Death of Martin McGuinness

The death of Martin McGuinness in the same week as the Westminster Attacks forces us to face some inconvenient truths about terrorism.  As strong willed as PM Theresa May seemed after the Westminster Attacks the truth is that she was completely wrong in saying that there are no "types" of terrorism.

     The truth is the motives and the causes of terrorists matter.  Some can indeed and should be addressed through political means such as diplomacy and peace processes.  Martin McGuinness did not just spontaneously decide to start blowing things up.  His experiences convinced him that he was at war with the British state since it seemed to support a society that kept his people living like second class citizens.

      The trouble is that while Sinn Fein see the merit of working with democratic pluralism, Islamists by design seems hell bent on destroying it.  If individuals in this country support an ideology such as that, then they should have the right to campaign and stand on a party platform for it.  Just as I should have the right to campaign vigorously against them.

Regards

Zac Barker

Letter to the I: The Labour Party

The I's interview with the Labour Party Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was very revealing into how deluded him and his leader really are.  He points to the 2008 economic crash as the main point at which Labour lost economic credibility.  Very tellingly he mentions nothing about how Gordon Brown as Chancellor escalated spending to the point where extra borrowing topped it up.  It is obvious that he didn't mention this because this is exactly what his economic plans entail; spending and borrowing without limits.

     The Tories exaggerated the extent to which Labour overspent to justify their fanatical quest to shrink the state at all costs. But this does not mean that Labour must revert to stereotypical socialism.  It is clear that Corbyn and his allies are more interested in discrediting the New Labour legacy than he is in gaining power.  The problem is that he and his allies mistakenly see New Labour and the Tories' vision as being synonymous.

Regards

Zac Barker

Letter to the I: The Russian Threat

I read with great interest in this paper in the 13th March issue about how GCHQ will be holding seminars to educate politicians about the threat from Russian hackers.  I find it staggering how complacent the political class in and out of government, and the general public, are about the Russian threat.  Theresa May in her previous cabinet role moved to postpone the inquest into Alexander Litvinenko's assassination, so as not to upset our relations with the Russians.  Jeremy Corbyn has disgracefully belittled NATO, despite the fact that it was a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, who helped found the alliance.

     This country is sleepwalking into appeasement towards an aggressive Russia.  But by pursuing this course we are clearly displaying our sense of weakness in a changing world, and Russia's president proves that he exploits weakness.  Theresa May needs to focus less on the UK being a trading nation and more about us being a nation that stands up to international bullies.

Regards

Zac Barker

My Model United Nations Story...........so far

"The purpose of our lives is to be happy".

Dalai Lama

When we are younger, there is undoubtedly  pressure to conform,  to behave a certain way,  to hang out with the right people.  But as we get older, or at least as I do, those pressures seem to become less and less.  It is not that those pressures are no longer there, it is that I simply do not feel a need to live up to them.  My current involvement with Model United Nations is a case in point.  Here I am, going to regular Tuesday night meetings with a bunch of students, a few years after I have graduated.  And then on some weekends I trot off to some city to pretend to be a country at a conference  for a weekend and if I am lucky I get an award for it.  The path I have chosen is an unusual one.  But it is one I cherish.

My first year of involvement with Model United Nations did not start off on an especially exciting note.  For one it was clear that the current President at the Bristol club clearly did not like me.  I happily reciprocated this attitude by choosing to play the small island nation of Tuvalu every week.  We could of been discussing the Syrian Civil War and I would choose to be Tuvalu just to annoy her.  MUN conferences were very weakly advertised so I went to my first one at UCL.  To be honest I wasn't overly impressed.  I was Togo on the UN Security Council and we discussed drug trafficking.  Togo is too small and poor to have much of a drugs problem.

I was starting to wonder what the big deal was about MUN conferences when I went to the Bath MUN conference of 2014.  I was Egypt on the Disarmament Committee where the main topic that was being discussed was nuclear disarmament.  Egypt didn't have much to say on the matter.  Egypt's nuclear ambitions pretty much died when Israeli intelligence assassinated all of it's missile scientists many years ago.  Early on, the debate seemed to sway towards the established nuclear powers who talked down the rest of us, literally (they were on the higher seats in the lecture theatre) and in terms of tone.  They dictated what they wanted, pretty much their continued dominance of nuclear matters and then went out of the room for a smugly congratulatory smoke break.  In the last hour a delegate arrived who helped kindle my love affair with Model United Nations.  He had a cheeky grin and he was here as Pakistan.  He asked me if I wanted to wipe the smile off the faces of the nuclear powers.  I nodded in approval and watched with wonder as he darted around the room with some furious lobbying.  In no time at all he came back an sat next to me rubbing his hands with glee.   When it came to voting time I could see why he was so happy.  One clause after the other we shredded the resolution that was dictated to us by the nuclear powers.  The developing world cheered at it's successful rebellion.

At the end of my Masters degree I watched the changing of the guard as the despised President of our Model United Nations Society left.  As I turned to leave the door the new President, Mark, asked me what I would do upon my graduation and whether I would still attend the club sessions.  I expressed doubt, after all I was no longer a student and now a mere civilian.  Mark replied that I should consider coming back to MUN and if I did I would be most welcome.   Something touched me about what he said.  I thought back to the strange little debates on a Tuesday evening in a cold room of the University of Bristol's Students Union and of course of that eye opening encounter with the delegate of Pakistan.  I wanted to stay, and so I did.

My civilian career in Model United Nations is when it really took off for me.  One of my first conferences after graduation was Reading MUN.  On this I was Russia on the Security Council and we were discussing Syria.  Needless to say things got heated very quickly.  I wielded my veto like a serial killer wields a bloody machete in a horror film.  I met Western horror with standard Russian Government lack of concern and disdain.  I even got to make a guy's life hell who was deliberately rude to me before sessions began.  All in all I was having a lot of fun.  It was also a fulfilling conference on a personal level since I met a good friend of mine who will now be a Stag Do attendee and friends from Israel and Palestine on the same committee.  The formula appeared to be set; dead end job during the week and vulgar displays of power at the weekend.

My time with MUN became a big confidence booster when I started to win awards at conferences.  The first time I did was during one of my most emotional MUN battles.  This was at the Bath conference a few years ago when I was New Zealand on the Historical Security Council where we were discussing the 1994 Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian War.  I felt determined to make this performance a spirited one so I invested in purchasing the book "Shake Hands with the Devil" by Romeo Dallaire, the former UN Force Commander of the UN mission.  While this book was incredibly helpful for debate research it was extremely harrowing.  Dallaire, who had a nervous breakdown after the mission, threw all of his tortured guilt and anger at the UN hierarchy into the pages he wrote.  It was impossible to not get emotionally invested.  So I was pretty hyped up when it came to the actual debate, since New Zealand was one of the few countries who at the time who wanted to intervene to stop the killing.  The next debate was interesting too with a sinister visiting speaker from the Republic of Srpska claiming to have not ethnically cleansed any of their Muslim citizens, who seemed to have vanished.  "You can't make us prosecute our generals and politicians!" they cried.  "What kind of country does that?" she wailed.  "Germany", I responded.

The debates can get especially emotionally exhausting if you are playing a country whose views you are completely opposed to your own.  I remember the eyes boring into me with discomfort and alarm when as the Pakistani representative (always a troublemaker it seems) I announced to the Human Rights Council at Belfast MUN that all gay people are basically born criminals.  At a recent debate I felt pretty dirty inside articulating Russia's views in the South Sudanese War.  This basically cast me as a merchant of death with a veto preventing an arms embargo at all cost.  My political brief prevented me from admitting that I was arming pretty much everyone in the region including the parties to the conflict and would probably ignore any arms embargoes if any were set up anyway.  At the same time a very confident and determined British delegate called me on pretty much all of the bloody lies I was spreading.  I had maximum respect for him and yet my position made me root for the bad guy in this Blofeld versus Bond scenario.  This was also the first time after years of trying that I won a Best Delegate award at UCL MUN, which meant a lot.

But winning isn't everything and it usually takes losing to remind people of that.  My winning streak this year came to an abrupt pause at South West MUN.  I admit my ego was riding high at this point.  I had expected to walk away with something, but stiff competition prevented me from doing so.  Despite walking away empty handed awards wise I had a fun weekend and yet again met some lovely people.

Not winning at South West MUN made me reflect on my unusual situation philosophically.  Here I am, a graduate, some years older than my colleagues due to my large study gap between my respective degrees.  I tend to use MUN conference weekends as an escape from whatever humdrum job I tend to have.  I reflected on whether I should act my age, but then I remember a piece of advice my soon -to-be wife gave to me; "life is too short for you not to do things you enjoy".  I also wondered about how I used to attend clubs during my undergraduate degree in which , no matter how hard I tried, I never felt accepted.  I never felt that way at MUN, there this strange wanderer has always been welcomed.  And my rude interruption in my winning streak taught me something else, despite my MUN experience I still have much to learn.  But I am fine with that.  My philosophical musings also revealed something interesting and slightly disturbing; that I tend to win awards when representing illiberal countries.  Does that mean if I represent the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) I can go the distance?  Well there is only one way to find out I suppose.

And so I carry on with my rock and roll time with Model United Nations.  My weekends going to conferences have a certain rhythm.  I come to some interesting (usually) city or town, find vital utilities like a Wetherspoons or late night take-away outlets and then go in search of my lodgings.  Belfast is probably the most interesting city I went to with interesting tours of former paramilitary occupied areas, and yes a Wetherspoons.  My lodgings tend to vary from hostels of varying quality to Airbnb rooms with similar hazards, although at the last one I was spoiled rotten by my hosts.  I usually walk into conference each morning listening to my music to make me determined, or angry up my blood if I am playing a particularly hard-line or brutal country.  Then there are the debates which are such a hive of activity that ours go by feeling like minutes.  But the traditional farewell at the end of MUN conferences is one thing that I find the most touching.  Traditionally delegates write messages of congratulations or good wishes on their colleagues' country placards. That way in the future one can look back on these messages and smile.  I have kept most of my placards and yes they do still keep me smiling.

The Dark Soul of Libertarianism

One of the most notable developments in modern life is the tendency for us to lead ever more separate lives.  Changes in our economy have led to jobs for life becoming ever rarer.  These same changes have led to people seeking work further and further from their homes leading to villages and towns with communities having ever more transient communities.  This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that it has become ever more difficult to get on the property ladder thanks to ever increasing prices, leaving many captive in the rental market, encouraging mobility for better opportunities above staying put and establishing roots.  In many ways our culture has reflected this seeming transcendence of a collective existence to a more nomadic one.  The internet seems to have given a massive impetus to a kind of 'me' culture, which includes an aptly named Youtube where people often share the most intimate parts of their lives.  In a way the internet almost seems to simultaneously embody both trends, an older yearning for a community and a tendency towards collectivisation and it's opposite a more recent trend toward a more libertarian existence remain important to us.  My argument is this piece is that while libertarians would push us towards a soulless and apathetic society and collectivism would impose suffocating paternalism a future course surely belongs in some sort of middle path.

Libertarianism's two governing themes come from the Liberal and Conservative ideologies.  The Conservative one that is recurring is individual responsibility.  This is defined as responsibility mostly to oneself, to be disciplined, take responsibility for one's actions and their well-being.  The Liberal theme is one of individual liberty.  At face value their importance is hard to argue against.  We all have responsibilities for our own well-being and our place in society.  Our individual freedom of course is precious and often under threat.  However the relatively modern concept of using the state as an engine for social improvement and advancement is a trend that has earned the deep suspicion of classic liberals who place an importance on individual freedom.  While this is an important danger to keep one's eye out for libertarians turn this into a kind of paranoid obsession.  Universal healthcare and welfare is regularly described as "tyranny".  Of course the use of such hyperbolic language threatens to confuse the question of what a tyranny actually is. 

Joining the obsession with any state involvement in people's lives with an iron clad belief that all such involvement is doomed to failure, the importance of helping people in a wider community is lessened.  Their individual circumstances of not being able to achieve this vaunted individual liberation is also wilfully dismissed as not worth a concern.  The late British MP Tony Benn's question "how can someone be free if they are enslaved by debt?" is willfully ignored by such ideologues since it takes them out of the comfort zone of their world view.  A libertarian would argue that their anti-state goals pushes people to not let the state take care of the social ills in their community and thereby force them to  step up to build stronger community organisations.  While there is a certain logic to this in that people have a responsibility to keep the fibre of communities strong, it dangerously overestimates people's capacities by themselves to tackle the many problems that pervades it.  Of course the state is not a solution to every problem, but that does not automatically validate the libertarian argument that the state cannot ultimately help in anything.

Libertarian's justification for self improvement above helping others extends to international relations.  Libertarians view our commitments to the international community simply in terms of trade and diplomacy for strict narrow self interest.  The concept of international norms, rules and laws going against their fundamentalist interpretation of the concept of individual liberty have no place in their world view.  This attitude has grave implications for tackling global problems and facing down atrocities.  Since the end of the Second World War the concept that certain crimes are universal and violate Human Rights has been advanced, albeit over troubled terrain.  Wide-ranging international agreements such as the Geneva Convention Against Genocide are all too often not hailed as valiant measures against crimes against humanity are snarled at libertarians for just providing an avenue for sorting out "other people's problems".

 In their quest to persuade the British public, shell shocked from interventions in Iraq and Libya, that we can ultimately do no good in the world libertarians have made an unholy alliance with the Far Left.  The myths of the Far Left with regards to Western foreign policy are swallowed whole in order to provide seemingly legitimate excuses for writing off any grand designs we have for our troubled world.  And yet their world view goes against the evidence.  International cooperation to tackle global problems is a hard road with some notable successes, not a futile one.  Through international cooperation CFC's were outlawed largely successfully in order to stop severe damage to the Ozone layer.  Through such cooperation Polio is nearly extinct and AIDS is on the way to the same fate.  Thousands of people have been saved by international relief efforts provided after natural disasters, not because it would ultimately help them but for the single concern for preserving life.  At the same time many libertarians willfully deny the existence of global problems such as climate change in order to justify their aloofness to international affairs.  And yet ignoring rising sea levels is unlikely to stop them rising.  For the cause of keeping out of 'other people's wars' they also spurn concepts vital to our security such as collective security, which in the form of NATO has preserved the freedom of Western democracies against determined opposition.

Like many ideologies that become important libertarianism is seductive in it's simplicity.  All state intervention is an unacceptable violation of human liberty.  All problems can be related to state involvement.  This kind of simplicity is of course misleading.  Ultimate freedom without state aid or any aid means nothing to someone who is in distress.  The freedom to be not helped and waste away without anyone knowing, caring or doing anything is not a sign of progress.  Libertarian's ultimate problem is it's seeming obsession with persuading us away from wider fights but our own individual improvement.  Individual improvement and enjoyment  is of course important, but the promotion of it as a soul concern of our own lives I find is ultimately soulless and not a little depressing.  The soullessness is perfectly captured by millennial generation enthusiasm for US Libertarian US Presidential candidate Gary Johnson.  Here is a man who glorifies in his ignorance of the world and his enjoyment of recreational drugs.  What he does in his spare time I could care less about, but the promotion of ignorance I cannot respect. 

Ultimately libertarianism is a creed that promotes a society governed by a shrug rather than a call to action against it's ills and those further afield that we can do something about.  Ultimately it is an anti-society ideology.  My opening point about our lives becoming more separate is not to try and set the clock back, but merely to bring up the point that such trends have consequences which we should seek to address.  Wherever we end up and for however long it is important for us to try and learn to respect the people we live near and foster a certain pride for our community.  I don't want people to be cemented to where they live thereby passing by life changing opportunities, but ignoring the community that is right in front of you is it's own kind of failure.  Some communities can make it on their own and they should be left alone as they wish.  But struggling communities need state support to avoid tragedy.  There is no shame in asking for help.

Military Coups: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

"When the generals have up to now managed nothing, the colonels have now to step in".

Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, 1944, ringleader of the "Valkyrie" German Military conspiracy against Adolf Hitler

Most countries at one time or another have had their destinies changed by the intervention of their militaries into their internal politics.  Brazil's military moved against their monarchy making the country henceforth a republic.  In the closing chapter of the English Civil Wars General George Monck made the fateful decision to send his forces down from Coldstream in Scotland to occupy London in order to bring about the restoration of British Monarchy.  Recently the elements of the Turkish military allegedly took part in a coup against the controversial President Erdogan.  If this was a genuine attempt by the Turkish military to implement regime change, then this is in many ways a continuation of a tradition the military has had in anointing itself the guardian of the values of the republic Kemal Ataturk helped found which include secularism and (with some irony) democracy.  While in power Kemal Ataturk forbid the Turkish military from participating or interfering in partisan politics, but seemingly contradictorily gave it the responsibility for being the guardian of the constitution.  Militaries throughout the world are charged with defending their country and it is often with this reason in mind (at least nominally) that they have taken the extraordinary step of pushing aside their political masters.

Coup d'etat translates directly from the original French as "blow of state" is used in modern political language to refer to a forceful seizure of power by a certain party.  Samuel Huntington identified three different types of coup d' etat; Breakthrough coups, Arbiter coups and Veto coups.  Breakthrough coups are when soldiers play the part of a radical reformer, in Huntington's context to create a society where the middle classes are more involved in governing decisions.  Arbiter coups are said to take place in a post-breakthrough society, where the military steps in because public order has broken down.  Veto coups take place in an effort by the military to deliberately prevent mass participation in politics or allegedly guard the values of a given society.  The recent coup in Turkey can roughly be categorised as a Veto coup since it involved the military acting against the elected Government of Turkey, ironically for the stated purpose of protecting democracy.

Breakthrough coups which have been initiated have not always been carried out to help the middle classes, since the working classes have often benefitted too.  Army Captain Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso led a coup against another coup clique heralding a reformist government which introduced environmental programmes, mass vaccination and anti-poverty programmes.  Napoleon Bonaparte's coup of The Directory at the end of the French Revolution was in many ways a combination of all three coups.  Napoleon did introduce reforms such as the Code Napoleon and the emancipation of the Jews and yet this also had support to stop the disorder associated with the revolution, while he controlled which parts of the middle class advanced in his regime.  However some coup leaders have seized power while advertising this effort as a genuine radical people's coup only to betray such ideals.  Idi Amin's seizure of power in Uganda in 1971 exemplifies this tragic incidence very well.  Amin's coup was popular since his predecessor Milton Obote was widely acknowledged to be a tyrannical and corrupt.  However Amin proved to be much worse introducing years of disastrous policies including but not exclusively the mass killing of political opponents, rampant defense spending, rampant corruption and disastrous economic policies.

Arbiter coups are most unusual since they are seemingly blatant violations of democracy made in the name of defending it.  Some of the most interesting examples of this can be found in Africa.  In Nigeria Olesum Obasanjo who was a part of a military junta handed power back to a civilian government.  Obasanjo based the new democratic constitution for Nigeria on the United States Constitution before the handover.  In Ghana Flight Commander Jerry Rawlings overthrew a civilian government after it got embroiled in a financial crisis but later restored multi-party democracy.  Early on in Pakistan's history Pakistani civilians had street celebrations when the military took power for the first time from a civilian government widely seen as dysfunctional, corrupt and incompetent.  Although as time went on, uncertainty grew and Pakistanis started to wonder loudly how long it would be until the soldiers returned to barracks.

Veto coups much of the time exemplify clearly the folly of having the military involved in politics, as well as the human tragedy it can bring to a given country.  Perhaps the most infamous example is General Augusto Pinochet's coup in Chile on 11th September.   This military coup like many others in Latin America was given covert support and encouragement by the United States and was initiated with the declared aim of fighting Communism.  President Salvador Allende was indeed a Marxist, but one who undoubtedly had an electoral mandate.  It is also clear from historical record that much of the economic chaos existing in Chile at the time was more due to the economic war the United States was waging on the country (to help justify the coup) than Allende's economic policies.  While the economy stabilised under Pinochet this was at the grotesque cost of thousands of lives.

It could be said that military coups are times of great uncertainty and at worst a sign that a country is on a downward spiral.  It is not a complete coincidence that they often occur in newly independent countries where institutions are weak.  This does not mean that military coups cannot happen in  long established countries.  France faced the real possibility of a military coup during the Algeria Crisis, which is widely thought to have it's roots in the French military's losses in the Second World War.  However in the case of the newly independent countries the coups normally happen due to widespread dissatisfaction with political elites who are often corrupt or ineffectual, therefore the military are often seen as the ones to get things done.

However even the apparently good coups came with a price.  Thomas Sankara's revolution in Burkina Faso came with the price of a lack of democracy and an abysmal human rights record.  Jerry Rawlings' time in power in Ghana led to approximately 300 citizens disappearing due to his "house clearing".  In the case of the "Valkyrie" plot against Hitler many historians cite the plotting officers' old Prussian militaristic ideology as reason to doubt that if they were successful, they would plant the seeds of a new German democracy or submit to unconditional surrender conditions.  And of course most coups, though not all, come with some form of loss of life and liberty.

I think that perhaps instead of daring to praise the military coup men themselves it is perhaps more honest to the spirit of democracy to remember those who have courageously stood against them.  The former President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff spent many years being brutally interrogated and put in isolation for her defiance to the Brazilian Military.  Aung San Suu Kyi refused to leave Burma and surrender to the military even when her husband was dying on the other side of the world.

I would say the strongest argument against coups apart from the damage they cause is the way they make democratic institutions less credible, since they are merely overridden.  That said I will leave readers to consider the dilemmas faced by people who live under two examples of non-military tyrannies that render such institutions meaningless already.  In Zimbabwe corruption is rife as is political violence thanks to the old dictator President Mugabe who uses his power to make elections and the judicial branch completely meaningless.  In Venezuela President Maduro gets ever more powers from a parliament that bows to his every whim as he imprisons more and more opposition politicians and activists.  Some of the Venezuelan opposition has openly called for the army to intervene.  My question is; could a coup make things any worse?