The Bombing of Gaza and the Justification of Killing

War is killing. I hesitate to use the word 'murder', as war rarely involves the deliberate killing of specific individuals; but it certainly is premeditated. We shouldn't let ourselves be fooled by phrases such as 'surgical strike' or 'avoidance of collateral damage'. When high-explosive bombs are dropped on densely populated civilian centres with the avowed intention of destroying missile-launching sites located there, the people ordering the attacks know full well that many civilians will be killed and injured. They are therefore intending those deaths.

Israel – or at least, its government – is effectively claiming that its actions are motivated by self-defence: it is trying to prevent the killing of its own civilians by missiles launched on Israel from Gaza. In a court of law, however, a case of self-defence would have to prove that the actions taken were proportionate to the aim of eliminating the threat. For instance, if you were in an airport, and a terrorist or madman started firing a machine gun into the crowds of people on the side of the departure lounge where you were sitting, you couldn't say you were acting in self-defence if you got up and sprayed the other side of the lounge with machine-gun fire in order to eliminate the attacker: you'd have to prove you were aiming at the gunman alone and that you had a reasonable chance of killing him. Israel cannot claim that it is aiming at the missile sites alone, as the means it is deploying to eliminate them are more akin to the spray machine gunning: deliberately intending to cause loss of life to surrounding people. Similarly, the fact that Hamas redoubled its attacks on Israel in the wake of the Israeli bombing raids would tend to indicate that Israel has not succeeded in its aim of preventing those attacks. If indeed that was its aim. Guilty, m'lud.

But guilty of what? In a way, what you call it is irrelevant: murder, killing, homicide, self-defence, genocide. Whatever word you use inevitably carries overtones that then get wrapped up into either a justification for the acts in question or a condemnation of them. The more you try to build your understanding of the facts around such words and narratives, the more you risk blinding yourself to the brute reality: that innocent people are dying and suffering in a horrifying manner, and in large numbers. You have to think of them as individuals, families and communities. Think of them as your neighbours, because that's what they are: the next-door post office and its customers, all wiped out; the people who live across the green and their Labrador puppy, bought for the little daughter (also dead) for Christmas; the passengers on the No. 9 bus going shopping – all killed apart from Johnny, who's now an orphan. If someone thought fit to drop bombs on your street and your community because they thought you were harbouring a terrorist bomb factory, would they be justified? Use your imagination, picture the horror, think of your loved-ones and acquaintances lying dead and bloodied in what was once your home; and then say it's justified. Think of it as yourself: would your death be justified in stopping a deranged fanatic living in your neighbourhood from attacking some other neighbours of yours? Would you be willing to die if you thought your death might prevent someone else in the neighbouring town from dying? Which option would you choose?

Of course, the Israelis say, 'well, what about our communities and citizens who are getting killed and injured by Hamas's missiles?'. Well, yes, and that's not justified, either; but two wrongs don't make a right. As I said above, if the claim of self-defence is to stand, then it has to be proven that the measures taken are proportionate and effective. Prima facie, the overwhelming evidence appears to be that they're not. And the assessment is similar if you use the criteria for a just war: you have to prove that the evil you are trying to put an end to is so overwhelming that it justifies the by definition evil means taken to end it; but those means are justified only if you don't escalate the evil you yourself are perpetrating – particularly, through the mass killing of non-combatants, which immediately rules it out – and the end itself can be achieved by your actions. Again, not proven.

In any case, the point I am trying to make is that the justifications that tend to be advanced for this sort of thing are designed to blind people to the realities involved by substituting a logic of means and ends for empathy with terrible human suffering. If you were to experience at first hand the reality of death and destruction – on both sides of the Gazan border – especially if it were your loved-ones who were the victims, you wouldn't say, 'well, our Israeli / our Palestinian neighbours were right to do this to try to put an end to our attacks on Israel / our oppression of the Palestinian people'. The question of who is in the right, and whose life is worth more than another's, often just boils down to which side of the border or other divide you're on. The reality is people are dying on both sides; and the question should be 'how can we stop this', not 'how can we justify our killing while condemning theirs?' The way to stop it is through peace. And the way to peace is not a life for a life, or in this instance ten lives for a life or whatever the ratio is. Peace can come only through a massive and mutual effort towards reconciliation, forgiveness and atonement. But I can't see much prospect of that right now.

The same false logic of justifying killing by reference to a suffering it is ostensibly intended to end is employed in other circumstances where we try to circumvent the commandment 'thou shalt not kill'. In the cases of abortions and stem-cell research, for instance, defenders of such practices claim they are justified because they will prevent suffering: that of the unwanted child, the unwilling mother or sick persons for whom new treatments could be discovered. Such 'ends justify the means' arguments again help to blind us to the reality of the killing involved, which is personal, dirty and bloody: the beautiful, wonderful human embryo or foetus that could have developed into a baby capable of surviving and thriving outside the womb, but instead is destroyed to suit our own purposes – and just as much a human being as you or I, whether inside or outside the womb or test tube. Again, we must employ the 'what if it were me?' test: 'would my parents have been right to have me aborted if they hadn't wanted me?' Most people, I think, would prefer to have been born, albeit amid troubled personal circumstances, than to have been denied the chance of life. And yet, we think we're justified in denying the same chance to millions of living unborn humans aborted every year. 'It's not killing, it's "termination", we try to say'; but whatever terminology we try to wrap it up in, it's killing all the same. And does the trauma a mother might experience about an unwanted pregnancy really outweigh the fact of taking another human being's life; and if so, by what code of ethics? And who gives us the right to decree that an unwanted child will have such a miserable life that we're actually showing mercy by preventing them from being born? This is pure bad faith designed to assuage our consciences. How do we know a child born in such circumstances won't end up being loved and cherished, even if not by ourselves? And does the aim of preventing diseases really justify creating human embryos (living human beings) purely for the purpose of extracting stem cells from them and thereby destroying them – especially if this prevents us from developing other methods to achieve the same ends? 'It's research, science and progress', we say; yes, and it's also killing.

The irony is that the same people who defend abortions or stem-cell research often reject other forms of killing, for some of which a more credible justification could arguably be put together. I always remember the Labour MP for Hampstead and former actress Glenda Jackson saying she was as ardently in favour of the 'right' of women to have abortions as she was ardently opposed to capital punishment. And yet, capital punishment for people guilty of murder or other violent crimes is superficially a far more proportionate act than taking the life of a totally innocent human being, albeit an unborn one. However, we deny that abortion does represent human-killing, partly because we can't or won't see the unborn human – hidden in its mother's womb – as a real, living human being (and certainly not as a 'citizen' with rights) in the same way as a visible, clearly separate and independent, sentient human being and citizen, such as a murderer. But this is just a lack of 'vision', in both senses: because we can't see the unborn human as a living human, we can't or won't accept the ending of that life as killing. But it was human and alive, and our own life started in that form; and our decision to abort it ends that life. That's killing by any definition.

In a similar way, many people who favour stem-cell research are opposed to vivisection and drug testing on animals. Again, the 'logic' is astounding: it's OK to destroy human life for the purposes of medical research if that human life is far removed from how we imagine and perceive human beings as fully human, and as having full human rights (as born, living-breathing-moving beings of flesh and blood), but not fully grown animals that clearly are capable of experiencing pain. Admitted, the embryos in question may not – may not – feel pain when they are manipulated and destroyed in the test tube, or even when they are injected with animal genes. But they were human and alive, and now they're not: that's human-killing, whatever gloss or justification you put on it. They could have been implanted in a womb and could have grown into normal babies; but they were destroyed to help alleviate the sickness of other human beings, whose suffering is clearly thought more important than their deaths.

Now, I personally am not in favour of capital punishment. In fact, I think this is another case where human societies attempt to justify their murderous desire to circumvent the divine commandment not to kill; in this case, by dressing it up as a 'proportionate' punishment that fits the crime. But this is the same talion logic (eye for an eye, life for a life) that the Israelis are employing in Gaza. Does the taking of one innocent life exonerate the killing of those responsible, with the distinction that in the case of Gaza, the Israelis are taking so many innocent lives as well? If you sanction the execution of violent criminals, then you have reduced yourself to their level; and the violence and evil that led them to commit their crimes has taken hold of you. In the case of Gaza, we can see that the danger is that the cycle of mutual violence and hatred is perpetuated. In the case of crimes such as murder, can the rage and grief of the victim's loved-ones ever really be assuaged, and in some sense neutralised and 'dealt with', by taking the life of the person responsible, assuming society has identified the correct person? Is this really better for those loved-ones than long-term imprisonment? Killing the guilty person removes any possibility for those surviving the murdered individual to come to any understanding of, and maybe eventually forgiveness for, the crime; and it certainly eliminates any chance that the murderer themself may come to repent of their crime and seek reconciliation with the bereaved, albeit that that repentance should be accompanied, indeed facilitated, by a long period of atonement and of paying for the crime. Such an outcome has to be the hope of any Christian society; and is the only way that the murder of one person can in time lead to new life and hope for all affected, rather than death taking hold in the mind, hearts and actions of killer and victims alike.

Another example of this tendency to selectively justify killing (i.e. one form of killing, such as stem-cell research, is OK but others are not) is what's now referred to as 'assisted dying' (formerly known as 'assisted suicide' and, before that, euthanasia). Again, some people who are vehemently in favour of abortion or stem-cell research are opposed to assisted dying, which arguably has much stronger claims to being justified. Only the other day, Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, went on record as saying that he was opposed to bringing in legislation to allow relatives and medical staff to assist those suffering from painful, long-term chronic conditions from taking their own lives. And yet, he was firmly behind the recent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which continues to sanction abortions in certain cases up to 28 weeks into the pregnancy and the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos for the purpose of experimentation, alongside conventional stem-cell research. At one point, it even looked as though Brown would insist that Catholic Labour MPs should toe the party line and support the bill, which would involve voting against their consciences. However, he eventually backed down.

From my perspective, such late abortions and the experimental tampering with human embryos, and indeed with the human genome, are far more horrendous and human life-denying than enabling people suffering acute pain and terminal conditions to take their own lives. At least, in the latter instance, the death is chosen and self-inflicted by the person affected, rather than being perpetrated upon helpless, silent, unborn humans. All the same, it's still killing, as the increasingly euphemistic expressions employed negatively testify: they try to distance us and blind us ever more to the reality of killing involved.

But is this 'justified killing'. Well, the point I've been trying to make is that killing can and always will be justified: we'll always come up with words, arguments and explanations that sanction killing in one set of circumstances or another. But it's still killing, and it still contravenes the commandment 'thou shalt not kill'. The focus tends to be placed on the sick individuals seeking to end their lives; and understandably so. But in assisted dying, this still involves other people consenting to that death and effectively carrying it out, or at least 'conspiring' in it. And those individuals will have to answer for that killing, if not in a court of law, then maybe in another tribunal. The commandment is clear; and I don't think a plea of 'well, I never believed in all that religion malarkey' will necessarily wash. And even if that final judgement never comes, there's still the tribunal of conscience; and that still small voice that says 'killing is killing' and 'you have killed'.

We can justify our killing as much as we like; but in our hearts, we know it's killing, all the same.

 

Big Brother's Not Been Watching Enough: The Hypocrisy Of British Tolerance (Part Four)

In the preceding three entries, I've discussed three examples of how British society and culture deal with beliefs and behaviour that are considered to be 'beyond the pale': instances of radical intolerance or hostility towards the 'tolerant society' that are by that token 'beyond tolerance' – intolerable to the tolerant society. These examples are those of 'racism', 'terrorism' and 'anti-social behaviour'. Britain responds to these phenomena in a manner that is reminiscent of psychological censorship and repression. In Freudian terms, the super-ego (the authorities) suppresses the irrational, violent thoughts and desires of the id (the racist / terrorist / anti-social individual) from the conscious mind or ego (from the public domain) and then keeps jealous watch to make sure that these 'undesirable' tendencies do not re-manifest themselves openly – resulting in them being acted out in another way that eludes the scrutiny and sphere of operation of the super-ego. Hence, the racist, terrorist and lout are placed under a regime of watch and control (Celebrity Big Brother, Control Orders and ASBOs); but their thoughts and they themselves nonetheless elude their detention, because Big Brother has merely suppressed and displaced the forces that drive its enemies, not dealt with them and resolved the conflict.

Notice that I referred to these three forms of antagonism towards tolerance in inverted commas. One of the means by which censorship of these phenomena takes place is that particular individuals are stigmatised and scapegoated as representatives of the tendencies that society wishes to repress. In psychological terms, society projects onto those individuals its stereotypical image of the racist, terrorist and yob. These stereotypes in turn partly represent the racism, destructive violence and anti-social attitudes of normal, tolerant members of society themselves. By then suppressing those individuals and confining them to a limited, private space, society believes that it is dealing with racism, terrorism and mindless thuggery themselves – in the same way, and for the same reason, that respectable and respected members of the tolerant society believe they have resolved these very tendencies in themselves: by locking them up in a private, mental space that does not, and must not, be articulated openly.

In other words, all of us individually, and society as a whole, bear an uncanny resemblance to the racist, terrorist and hoodlum. They are as it were extreme manifestations of our own petty intolerances. But because we cannot admit to being intolerant, violent and anti-social in whichever respects apply to each of us, we end up wanting to suppress those extreme examples rather than deal with the underlying issues, which would involve confronting the 'enemy within' ourselves. That's not to deny that racism, terrorism and anti-social behaviour are real problems in the external world, for which practical solutions need to be sought. On the contrary, no real solution to these issues can be found if we're not prepared to admit that we're also an integral part of the problem.

Putting this in more straightforward language: to what extent really is any kind of understanding of the reasons for antagonism between the different races, nationalities and religions currently crowded together in the UK advanced by merely stigmatising Jade Goody as a racist and reprimanding Channel Four for not censoring material that offended the veneer of British inter-racial, multi-cultural tolerance and harmony? Similarly, we do not know whether the terrorist suspects that escaped from their Control Order detention the other week were really terrorists or not: one of the purposes of Control Orders is to suppress any possibility of public scrutiny of these cases and of an open debate on the grievances of those who might be drawn to terrorist-type violence. Tony Blair said we were placing too much emphasis on the civil liberties of the suspect. But if they're only suspects – assumed to be innocent until proven guilty – surely, they should be accorded every civil liberty. But 'suspect' in Blair's book seems to imply that that they are, and indeed they are treated as, guilty without trial.

Mr Blair himself, of course, has been widely accused of being the equivalent of a terrorist: a war criminal and mass murderer because of the direct and indirect consequences of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Branding someone a terrorist or a war criminal is a way to distance and differentiate oneself from one's enemy: to refuse to see any parallel or linkage between your actions and those of your adversary. And so the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are not to be compared with those of 2,000 tragic victims of 9/11. The former are a consequence of 'justifiable' resistance to terrorism and defence of Western strategic interests; while the latter are mere terrorism – not an example of an albeit extreme and, in some cases, desperate response to the injustices for which the West is blamed in Palestine and to Western efforts to place the Middle East firmly under its control. And yet millions of tolerant British citizens gave Mr Blair their approval for the Iraqi foray – apparently accounting the lives of Arab civilians that would be lost as of less importance than those of the Westerners supposedly threatened by Saddam's WMD; just as the so-called Islamist terrorists apparently account the lives of Western 'infidels' as of less importance than those of Muslims.

And is the anti-social individual really any more anti-social than the mass of citizens who pursue their private interests and preoccupations with little concern for those who get left behind? The 'ASBP' (anti-socially behaving person) is stigmatised, on one level, precisely because (s)he is the symbol of the asocial society we have built: one where there is no longer any real shared vision of the type of society and communities we wish to create and sustain, but where individuals invest their energies and aspirations into their own private realm – their homes, their assets, their careers and relationships. The ASBP is someone who is left behind in this rat race. Deprived of the means, opportunity or ability to strive after these personal goals – and without any social or community network to re-direct their energies – they are people confronted by social indifference and lack of personal purpose. So in a sense, it is inevitable that they take it out on a society that has turned its backs on them and attempt to wreck our nice, quiet, comfortable lives. In this way, the ASBP is perhaps more social than the rest of us: they are crying out for the help and attention of a society that doesn't want to know. Rather than opening out and engaging in the social realm that is falling apart around us, our response to ASBPs exemplifies our own social alienation that has given rise to the anti-social behaviour in the first place: the ASBP is merely suppressed, placed under the terms of an ASBO – made to become merely another private individual that will no longer demand that we reach out to them from beyond the parapets of our homes-as-castles, thereby acting in a social, collective manner that could change all of our lives and begin to re-make a broken society.

Those who we ostracise as beyond tolerance – the racist, terrorist and anti-social person – are, ultimately, symbols of the limits of our own tolerance: of the prejudiced bigot, the supporter of violence and the selfish individualist that we all are to some extent. Overcoming these problems will involve defeating them in ourselves: to love our enemies, indeed, as ourselves.

Big Brother's Not Been Watching Enough: The Hypocrisy Of British Tolerance (Part Two)

Big Brother has also failed in its duty of watchfulness in another respect, it was revealed last week. It appears that three persons who were confined to their homes under the terms of so-called 'control orders' have escaped. Control orders are a set of judicially sanctioned restrictions to certain individuals' liberties (effectively a form of house arrest). This measure is aimed at terrorist suspects, where there may not be enough hard and fast evidence to stand up in a court of law, but where the security forces are sufficiently concerned about individuals' activities to wish to impose forcible constraints upon them.

As a result of the escapes that were publicised last week, the Home Secretary (interior minister) John Reid stated that the UK might have to opt out of some of the clauses of European human rights legislation that limited the scope of control orders. He promised tougher anti-terrorist measures would be introduced before parliament by the end of June, when he and his boss Tony Blair step down. Tony Blair himself pitched into the fray yesterday (Sunday 27 May) by arguing in favour of a new police power to stop and interrogate suspects on the street. The prime minister stated, “We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first. I happen to believe this is misguided and wrong”. Well, that all depends on what qualifies you as a suspect, I suppose. And are the civil liberties of 'foreigners' any less important than those of UK subjects?

The control order regime, and the fact that it was sufficiently lax to allow these three suspects to escape, is another illustration of the British approach to dealing with radical intolerance, discussed in my last entry in connection with the Shilpa Shetty episode in Celebrity Big Brother. Control orders bear all the hallmarks of a process of suppressing and censoring people and ideas that are 'beyond tolerance', rather than dealing with them in a more publicly accountable way, or even in a more ruthless, systematic fashion that would definitely put them out of circulation. In this sense, control orders already do represent Britain's equivalent to Guantanamo Bay, a direction in which the Northern Ireland minister Peter Hain yesterday warned that the new proposed anti-terrorist measures were taking Britain.

Indeed, what more striking expression of the ambiguity of British 'zero tolerance' towards the radically intolerant could there be than control orders? Individuals are not locked up in a judicial limbo, like Guantanamo (which, to give him his 'credit', Tony Blair has argued that they should be); instead, they are 'politely' removed from the public domain and confined to the private realm of their homes. It is as if the intolerance exemplified by supposed terrorists – like the intolerance to which every citizen is prone to some extent – can be tolerated so long as it is confined to the privacy of the home and the individual's thoughts. And like any form of censorship – political or psychological – the setting up of control orders represents a means not just to suppress the individuals and ideas that are intolerable but also to censor the very mechanisms by which those persons and thoughts are suppressed: the process takes place in a sort of judicial no-man's land, outside of the normal operation of justice, where the facts of the case, the names of the individuals involved, and the values driving the activities of the 'suspects' are removed from the public domain.

In other words, control orders are a very British compromise between wanting / needing to act in a radically intolerant way towards those suspected of threatening the very tolerance upon which our liberal society rests, without having to admit that one is behaving in an intolerant manner. Because of this, control orders do preserve some elements of 'liberty' for those subjected to them: the liberties of private association, conscience and speech. We don't in fact seek to exercise mind control like the Orwellian Big Brother or, arguably, like the mental torturers of Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib. The specific control order that applied to the three escapees must also have allowed them sufficient freedom to meet or communicate with each other to co-ordinate their flight. There is perhaps even an element of British fair play involved: we allow them a bit of slack, on the basis that our gut instinct is that what we're doing to them strictly isn't fair, and on the assumption that they might have the decency to play fair in their turn and not attempt to abscond – and then we get all indignant when they have the temerity to do a runner anyway!

There's an interesting parallel between the control-order evaders and the lack of editorial oversight on which the Shilpa Shetty furore has now been blamed. When what is involved is censorship of something intolerable rather than acknowledging it and attempting to deal with it openly (whether through honest discussion or due legal process), then what happens is that rather than watching the object of suspicion, it is all too easy to take one's eye off the ball: to stop looking at the real issue and the real danger. And then that real threat, which has escaped your attention because you thought you'd placed it under control and then stopped looking at, can elude you and come back to haunt you.

The evasion of the three control-order detainees represents the danger that their actions and ideas could once again impinge upon, invade, the public domain. But in a more profound sense, their evasion presents the threat of an invasion of our privacy. Our confinement of those suspects to 'their own' private space was a means to keep them away from ours. Our British society is a private society, where the individual jealously guards their right to freely pursue their own personal and professional goals (both ever more exclusively defined in the terms of the market society, or 'private enterprise') untrammelled by the claims that religious or ideological absolutism might wish to impose upon them. The 'terrorist' or the 'racist' extremist is a threat to this tolerance based on mutual respect and pursuit of each other's private goals. They must therefore be suppressed, and their intolerance (as is ours) must be relegated to its own private space: the control-order detainees' prison-from-prison that is their home, or the prison of the Big Brother House. If they should get out – even more importantly, if their intolerable ideas should get out and gain hold – then, like the 'racist' outbursts in Celebrity Big Brother, this would indeed be an unbearable invasion of privacy.

Britain As a World Power: Inventing Britain For the 21st Century (Part Six)

Britain As a World Power: Inventing Britain For the 21st Century (Part Six)

According to news reports, Tony Blair is to give a speech today in which he will put the case for Britain retaining a role as a “major player on the world stage” (sounds like himself after leaving his post as PM), i.e. remaining what you might call a ‘world power’. In Blair’s view, this is important above all in the context of the fight against global terrorism, whereby Britain has a duty – alongside its allies – to stand up for the values it believes in.

Most people would agree that it’s important to try to defeat homicidal terrorist organisations and prevent any further atrocities such as 9/11 or the July 2005 London bombings. However, most British people would now, I think, be sceptical that the best way to do this is to send our troops to former outposts of the British Empire such as Afghanistan and Iraq to wage futile wars we cannot win, in the usual sense of the term.

But I’m not intending to enter the debate over the ‘War on Terror’ here. What Mr Blair’s sense of Britain’s global mission exemplifies, it seems to me, is what I termed the ‘British’ value of ‘ethical imperialism’ (see the second blog in this series, dated 3 December). The idea that Britain in and of itself – irrespective of the degree to which our European allies are prepared to co-operate with this mission – has a moral duty to remain a world power and help lead the struggle against the evil of terrorism is a clear inheritance of the British Empire and the ethical purpose that Britain always strived to bestow upon its imperialism. This purpose was then – and is now increasingly once more becoming – one of establishing and maintaining a particular Western form of civilisation, which elsewhere I’ve referred to as ‘Christo-liberalism’: an ambiguous combination of social and economic liberalism with an ethics and humanistic spirituality derived from (but not necessarily completely consonant with) traditional Christian beliefs.

Wanting to help defeat murderous terrorism, and maintain international peace and security, is one thing. But with Blair, this comes with a mission: ultimately, that of defending and perpetuating a vision of Britain’s very identity as in some sense indissociably bound up with Christo-liberal values and the future of Christo-liberal civilisation. Whether this set of values is in itself coherent and capable of building cultural integration and national unity within Britain is a debate in itself. Whether this set of values is the flagpole on which British forces should be pinning the Union Jack in battles against Muslims (as if this could defeat ‘Islamist’ ideology rather than inflaming it) is of course another.

But really, is it sustainable for Britain (or should that be Tony Blair?) to keep posturing as a world player? In the business world, most people agree that in the era of globalisation, the real powers in the 21st century – along with the USA – will be Brazil, China, India and Russia. Islamism could be seen as an attempt to reunite the Arab-Muslim world into a rival power to these massive states. Curiously, Afghanistan and Iraq are frontier lands between the Arab-Muslim world and three of those 21st century powers.

Dear old Little Britain, on its own, doesn’t have a prayer. Don’t we need to reinvest our energies, and – in the context of the threat of climate change – energy, into trying to build a sustainable economy and security situation in partnership with our European neighbours?

The Madness Of Tony Blair: Fighting For Tolerance and Moderation In Iraq

The Madness Of Tony Blair: Fighting For Tolerance and Moderation In Iraq

Tony Blair visited Iraq yesterday on the third stage in his Middle East tour that is supposedly aiming to promote peace initiatives throughout the region. On two occasions – a press briefing with the Iraqi prime minister Nouri Maliki and a speech to UK troups – he reiterated his government’s policy that British forces would remain in Iraq, in whatever role was required by the Iraqi government, until the job was done. By implication, this means until the survival of Iraqi democracy is assured. As Mr Blair put it to the soldiers, “All over the world, the same struggle is going on, and if we don't stand up and fight for the people of tolerance and moderation who want to live together, whatever their fate, then the people of hatred and sectarianism will triumph”.

Mr Blair seems to see this struggle in terms reminiscent of the Second World War: “Our country and countries like it are having to rediscover what it means to fight for what we believe in”. I don’t think that most people in the UK would share the prime minister’s vision of the purpose and nature of the fight in which British forces are embroiled in Iraq. What struck one as particularly surreal and incongruous about Mr Blair’s pronouncements was the emphasis placed on defending tolerance and moderation, which he has only recently made the cornerstone of his vision of British values and the need to defend them against Islamic extremism within the UK (see my blog of 9 December). This established a curious associative link in Blair’s statements between the battle against the Iraqi insurgency and the efforts to oppose extremist strands within Islam in the UK – a link which the UK government has persistently denied in its attempt to refute claims that British involvement in Iraq has exacerbated Islamic radicalisation in this country – as both enemies are essentially one and the same, united in their antagonism towards tolerance and moderation: “This is real conflict, real battle, and it is a different kind of enemy – not fighting a state, but fighting a set of ideas and ideologies, a group of extremists who share the same perspectives”.

But it is not at all clear to anyone who follows developments in Iraq that there is any tolerant, moderate, democratic position left to defend there. During Mr Blair’s visit, a group of insurgents kidnapped around 30 staff and visitors at the Iraqi Red Crescent office in Baghdad. It would be easy to point to this incident as proof that the security and humanitarian situation in Iraq has completely broken down and that Western forces should get out and leave the Iraqis to work out their own destiny. Indeed, humanitarian crises and violent attacks against aid workers are regularly exploited by the media to make political points like this. Probably, the people responsible for carrying out the kidnap were aware of this, and it was precisely their aim to time their action to coincide with Mr Blair’s visit for maximum impact. So in a sense, describing this incident as an example of the break-down of order and of efforts to really help the Iraqi people merely encourages the men of violence.

But what this kidnapping puts me in mind of is some of the media attention-grabbing tactics of Saddam Hussein when he was in charge of the country, such as the kidnap of Western civilians whom he used as human shields during the Gulf War in 1990/1. Similarly, the mindless violence directed on a daily basis against civilians by the Iraqi insurgency – while also in part a tactic to gnaw away at the Western conscience and keep up the pressure for military withdrawal – is reminiscent of the mass-murderous assaults against his political and ‘sectarian’ enemies that Saddam Hussein is known to have authorised. What makes the present situation arguably worse than Saddam Hussein’s rule is that now it is both sides of the major sectarian divide in Iraq (Shi’a and Sunni) that are perpetrating the same sort of anti-civilian violence against each other. And indeed, the situation has splintered still further, leading to violence between different insurgent groups on the ‘same’ side of the sectarian divide, and to Sunnis and Shi’as murdering civilians of their own and the other side, sometimes indiscriminately.

The democratic politicians are not above all these terrible divisions as some sort of beacon of tolerance and moderation, as Mr Blair referred to them. It is well known to Iraq watchers that many (perhaps most) democratically elected members of parliament in Iraq have ties with leaders of the insurgency on their respective sectarian sides. In a way, this is totally inevitable, as it is the insurgents who are the real power brokers in the land, and it is they who effectively delivered the vote for the democratic representatives of the different sectarian parties in the Iraqi elections. In other words, the relationship between the insurgency and the democratic parties in Iraq is rather like the one that existed between the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland: the parties represent the ‘political wing’ of the insurgents and terrorists, providing PR to Western and Islamic media for their sectarian positions and creating another channel for the fight for political supremacy over their enemies.

It was of course the ‘pro-democracy’ violence of the invasion of Iraq by US and UK forces that unleashed the hatred between the different sectarian communities in Iraq that had been kept suppressed by Saddam Hussein’s autocratic regime; and it was perhaps inevitable that once a cycle of violence between Shi’as and Sunnis got underway, both sides would resort to the homicidal methods that were previously practised only by the Sunni faction, from which the dictator drew his support. But are the insurgents on both sides – whom Mr Blair simplistically lumps into a single category of extremist / terrorist – really united in a common cause against democracy? Or is it the case that the British and Americans are viewed, or at least presented, by the insurgents as defenders of elements within the Shi’a and Kurdish majority (who by that token are the beneficiaries of democracy) who, together with the Sunnis, are engaged in a ruthless, violent civil war for control of the country? British and US support for democracy, in this context, appears like ever less influential but nonetheless destructive support for one side in a civil war over the other: a symbol of Sunni humiliation and a constant pretext for further violence.

The initial violence in the Iraqi crisis – the US-led and British-backed invasion – could even be viewed as providing the template, and certainly the excuse, for the sectarian violence that followed. This is because it was basically a grab for power that used the aim of bringing about democracy as its pretext and as a means to the end. A strong democracy in Iraq, so the strategic thinking must have gone, would shore up US / Western influence and power in the region: acting as a bulwark to defend Saudi Arabia in its own struggle against an Al-Qaeda-backed insurgency; a means to counteract growing Iranian regional agitation; and securing the vital access to the region’s oil reserves.

But what kind of democracy, tolerance and moderation is the UK defending in Saudi Arabia? Clearly one that is so strategically essential that Tony Blair himself had to intervene last week to halt a UK police anti-fraud investigation into allegations of bribery by the arms manufacturer BAE Systems involved in securing a multi-billion-pound deal with the Saudis? And similarly, is UK and US support for the ‘moderate’ Fatah movement in Palestine against the ‘extremist’ (albeit democratically elected) Hamas really contributing to peace and security in the Middle East as those two factions slide into civil war-like conflict in Gaza?

Strong support for one side over another in the bitterly divided Middle East (albeit if the side you back is nominally the democratically elected power, which it only occasionally is) is not a recipe for tolerance and moderation UK-style. Only engaging all the parties and affected countries in negotiation and dialogue – however difficult this is, however long it takes, and however many strategic advantages to one’s own country may have to be compromised – can provide a way forward. This is of course what was recommended by the Iraq Study Group in their report released a couple of weeks ago, which Blair and Bush – shall we say concertedly? – appear to be ignoring. But the way to achieve peace in the Middle East is certainly not standing up and fighting for a tolerance and moderation that has long been lost precisely because of all the fighting.

Creating Britain: Inventing Britain For the 21st Century (Part One)

Creating Britain: Inventing Britain For the 21st Century

I was one of those who opposed Britain’s bid to host the 2012 Olympics. I felt it would involve a siphoning off of precious resources that would be better used for many other development projects – other social and infrastructure needs – throughout the UK. In addition, I could see the Olympics becoming a golden opportunity for politicians to lay claim to all the benefits that were thought to have accrued from this once-in-a-lifetime event, and to showcase the marvels of modern, prosperous, regenerated Britain.

Think of it: by 2012, we could be one year away from the end of the second term of a Cameron-led Conservative government; or the Labour Party could be celebrating 15 glorious years of power, only three years away from equalling the previous Conservative post-war record, and able to point to the Games as the symbol of all its many achievements and of the restoration of Britain’s pride and self-belief the Labour government had brought about. Almost enough to make you want to emigrate!

It does seem as though a process is afoot to redefine the role, identity and values of 21st-century Britain. And this process points naturally to the 2012 Games as its apotheosis – the moment when Britain’s renewed sense of its mission and achievements is offered up to the world – just as the 2008 Games will be the moment when China stakes its claim to be the present century’s leading superpower.

Conversely, pessimistic voices have expressed the fear that the 2012 Olympics could become the occasion for a horrific playing out of the War on Terror. Significantly – or it seemed so at the time – the terrorist attacks in London on 7 July 2005 came just one day after the IOC awarded the Games to the city: a terrible slap in the teeth to the UK’s pretension to be a beacon of multi-cultural social inclusiveness, which the British team running the bid had made the focal point of their successful presentation.

The Olympics, in this light, present a fabulous opportunity for terrorists to strike Britain at the moment when it occupies centre stage in the world’s admiration. By the same token, they set a sort of deadline for the War on Terror to have been ‘won’, so that Britain’s showcase can be the occasion for the nation to celebrate the triumph of the British values, characteristics and abilities that have defeated the negative values of the terrorists – just like the Festival of Britain was the moment when the country looked forward to a dazzling future that would be achieved through the same qualities that had enabled it to win the Second World War.

The War on Terror, on this vision of our near future, will be won by the same values that will re-unite the British nation around a sense of its destiny and identity in the contemporary world. For many of those – politicians, church leaders or cultural commentators – who are backing the effort to redefine, and achieve social cohesion around, core British values, it is almost as if those values were universal. They may have arisen historically within Britain and be ‘uniquely’ suited to the British ‘national character’; but they are at the same time authentic values for the whole of humanity to follow – and indeed, they are the values that will secure a lasting peace and a sustainable future for our planet.

What are these ‘British values’? What is their specificity in relation to Western liberalism and to the Western cultural tradition in general? And does Britain – or some of its leaders – really see itself as having an important (indeed, crucial) role to play in standing up and being counted for those values, whose triumph it will one day celebrate in front of the whole world? These are questions I will be exploring in subsequent instalments of this blog.

Ways Of Saying the Same Thing

Ways Of Saying the Same Thing

When the trees are bare,

We see the beauty of buildings.

That beauty was always there,

It was just the green that drew your eye.

I can’t bear those leafy trees now,

But I wish we’d been green for longer.

She always spends loads of money

When the prices drop.

Volume discounting, old chum:

The oldest trick in the book –

They won’t turn over a new leaf

When the Januaries kick off the New Year.

Another rip-off Christmas draws near;

Correction: the seasonal surge in sales.

But it doesn’t seem much like the season;

Will it be winter that fails?

Nor much goodwill to all men

In the land of Jesus’s birth.

Flares point the way now

Where, once upon a star,

A light drew the Kings of the earth.

We aimed our missiles precisely

At non-civilian targets;

We knew there’d be a slaughter of innocents,

But didn’t intend them to die.

We, too, came from afar,

Like lords of all the earth.

We came in search of terror;

And terror found us out.

Our leaders sold us a lie

And beggared our belief.

They must be even greater fools

Than they clearly took us to be.

They keep saying the same old nonsense,

Making up reasons as they go along.

But it all tells me just one thing:

Our future’s not safe in their hands.

So it’s just as well

It's not.