Pondering
I have a number of things swimming around my head at the moment so I think I'll try and put them down in type.
My first is the brilliantly crafted letter I read in the times today which my mother went to buy during a trip to the COOP where she also purchased some baking materials - probability of cookies being munched on tomorrow has risen sharply at the news.
Anyhow the letter was printed thusly:
Sir, I am a reservist in the process of demobilising after a tour of the Balkans. To ease myself back into my civilian calling I undertook one day's supply teaching this week. Of the five classes I had, ranging from Year 7 to Year 11, nobody knew of which country Sarejevo was the capital, and most didn't know where Bosnia was or its recent history.
I doubt very much whether man of the children protesting against the war this week could point out where Iraq is in an atlas, let alone explain what the conflict is about.
I have to commend this individual on writing in to The Times and saving me the trouble of doing so, in fact I was content to simply stew in rage at having watched 16 year olds audaciously attempting to lecture MP's on the legality or morality of war. It is a telling sign that the anti-war lobby, so desperate to make itself heard, irrespective of how futile such an effort might be, is willing to allow and indeed encourage such blatant ignorance to be paraded about the streets of the United Kingdom.
When I watched the news a few days ago and heard an individual of sixth-form age say that "We are having our democracy defecated on" (presumably the use of the scientific term for 'shitting' was designed to give his argument a semblance of intellectual weight) I couldn't help but marvel at his stupidity. To suggest that the manner in which a government carries out its business is to be decided by the day to day sway of public opinion, much less to see the British constitution as obliging the government to rule by plebiscite, is ludicrous.
Had I been present would have simply told him that when he voted for representation in parliament he did just that; voted for a representative, not a delegate but I realized then that not only had the individual in question not voted for any representation in parliament but also that he would still be ineligible to vote today failing to possess the sole prerequisite of such action - a mind capable of a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. He was put simply, below voting age and hence not possessing of the necessary mental faculties to exercise that right.
I admit that it seems remarkably elitist for me to sit here and write my disapproval of such an assumption when I believe that myself and most of my colleagues at Shatin College sixth form would have made perfectly adequate decisions based upon intellectual deliberation and intelligent debate. However the simple fact remains that there is a wide and substantial gulf between our knowledge of international affairs then and that of our English counterparts.
In Shatin college we were deprived the joy of a sixth form common room. Instead we had a sixth form study centre, presided over by a draconian dictator whose duty it was to safeguard the hallowed stationary of the room and to maintain a cerberus like watch over all who dared speak. As a result the one refuge that could be taken was in the ring of comfy cushioned benches in one corner of the room. It was neatly surrounded by a surfeit of international media; Time, The Economist, Newsweek, New Scientist, The Guardian (although sadly my favourite 'The Times' was absent). Consequently nearly every member of my year would have read through the week's Time magazine at least once, we would take to the economist occasionally and consulted Newsweek if we had time. Tuesday heralded the arrival of the new Time magazine and my sprint towards the SSC at the beginning of the day would commonly be performed in competition with others who wished to snatch the red covered journal before me. I honestly have never been in an institution which had such a remarkable knowledge of international affairs. We would debate the merits of the United State's strategic missile defense policy (and laugh at the Russian 1 and a half A4 length European counter proposal) amongst talking of music or films. The outside world was as much a part of our discussion as any other topic.
The Collegiate and truly 'internationalistic' (a term positively 'pimped' by our headmaster at the time) sixth form I enjoyed is in stark contrast with what I have witnessed and been told of its sister institutions here in the United Kingdom. My mother teaches an Italian A Level class and although their knowledge of 'EastEnders' is encyclopaedic the group is thoroughly ignorant when it comes to international affairs. When one receives the answer to the question of "What can you tell me about Mussolini" as "Who was he?" it is time to survey the number on the door to ensure you are in the right year group. All right, you might say, Mussolini was in the past and his fascist movement has been largely overshadowed by Hitler's in the current curriculum but when the group is unable to answer the question "Who is Gerhard Schroder?" one is forced to call into question how the same individuals can actively seek to have an impact upon the foreign policy of Tony Blair's Government.
For the record the last time a class I attended in England was asked who our foreign minister was (at the time it was Robin Cook) one girl immediately piped up "Ooh is it that Slobodan Millosevic?".
I move from that to another thing which interested me as of late. I was watching the commons debate on the possibility of military intervention via webcast (as I wrote earlier this week) and one MP raised an issue I wished to address here but failed to. He noted that after the events of the 11th of September there had been brought into being, a new era of international governance.
Just as the 1st World War taught us that bilateral treaties could not solve international dispute, the 2nd World War showed us that without the credible threat of force there could be no implementation of international consensus and the Cold War taught us that deterrence and containment could be feasible policies to prevent war, the 11th of September should have shown that the world cannot continue using the previous manual for international politics.
Terrorism in its previous incarnation could be easily handled under the framework of international governance provided by the UN and other treaty organisations such as NATO. It was a tool to force political change and compliance. The IRA used Terrorism as a heinous weapon to bring about a unified Ireland.
However the war on Terrorism is not about fighting against the terrorism of that time. Terrorism today is in fact not terrorism at all. It is a genocidal form of war-waging fought not by boundaries and borders but by attrition and the massive murder of civilians. The use of the term "Jihad" by its chief perpetrators is a far more accurate moniker. It is a war conducted with the sole aim of killing as many of the enemy as is possible and makes no attempt to differentiate military forces from civilian.
The threat to our country is not from Iraq as a state. The terrorists do not seek to capture Essex. They have no want of the rich mineral resources of our land (what little there is) they simple wish to kill as many people as possible. Iraq is a threat to our nation for what it can provide terrorists. No one fears, as Robin Cook asserted an Iraqi military strike, for they do not have the means to carry one out, particularly against such a well defended nation as our's. What we should fear, and what the Prime minister does fear is not the missile filled with Chemical warfare agents, stamped with the 3 bands and 3 stars of the once forseen alliance between 3 middle eastern countries (the Iraqi flag) but those same agents released in a far more crude although no less effective way.
To suggest that the principles of containment could work against a rogue state when the act it seeks to prevent requires no transcendence of physical borders by military means is clear and obvious folly. If one were to stop an imminent gun-related crime it would be far easier to close the arms shop than attempt the long and arduous task of hunting and killing the perpetrators. That is a simplistic analogy I admit but it remains effective.
What remains is for people to switch their minds to operate on a different frequency, just as we had to after each war. The old rules no longer apply and as comforting as it might be to believe we can protect ourselves through subscription their well rehearsed form we cannot delude ourselves. If only a few of us have realized this new state of affairs then I could not be happier than I am at the fact that our number includes the leaders of the United States and the United Kingdom.
I now move to a shorter but just as interesting observation. It concerns the current "Shock and Awe" bombing of Iraq. When one looks at the map in The Times the awesome accuracy of the strikes on Baghdad becomes clear. There set out in plain plan form we can see the devastation of the buildings which act as Saddam's centre of power and the complete lack of harm caused to other targets. In fact so accurate was the assault that whilst briefing reporters on site, the Iraqi information minister showed them on of Saddam's ruined palaces. Given the the department was so quick to try and capitalize on the 1 civilian casualty of the previous strike the very fact that he could only show a palace which had been bombed and not a hospital or a school or a market proves that, not for want of trying they were unable to find a single civilian structure hit by the bombing.
Looks like those military commanders who spoke of the extreme accuracy of coalition weapons have been vindicated.
Seems that the argument "Stop bombing innocent iraqi children" is just as vacuous as it was before although I do not doubt it will be wielded in a club like manner by the neanderthals who desire the fiery self-assurance of moral imperialism (or indeed a simple get out of double maths free card) for many weeks to come.
Why is it that everyone assumes that the rest of the world operates on the same level of ignorance as they. "Its all about the oil.." Well perhaps if the people in charge of making foreign policy decisions had the same astounding knowledge of the issue and profound intellectual depth as yourself this might well be the case but, astonishingly a much higher level of deliberation is exercised by those in power.
Right well I think that's everything
Oh yes.. I joined the Labour party on wednesday. Mr. Blair I put my money where my mouth is.
I previously supported the Lib Dems. Their policies on student fees and increased public spending attracted me and I paid no heed to their reputation in Parliament as Vote-Grabbing opportunists. However their activities concerning the war, proved to me 2 things. Firstly that they were entirely without the sufficient ethical fortitude to resist politicising the issue and Secondly that their complete inability to grasp the change in international politics would render them hopelessly inept at any task concerned with the running of the country.
Quite simply it demonstrated to me in completely unequivocal terms that they are not a party ready or capable of running the country and hence unworthy of my vote and forced home the absolute capability, unswerving resolve and true leadership Mr. Blair had demonstrated all these years. I am quite ashamed of my previous inability to tear my eyes away from the obvious distraction put in place by the Liberal Democrats whilst they engaged in rampant metamorphosis to garner as many votes as was humanly possible.
Later
John
Posted by John Swaine at March 22, 2003 05:07 PM