Britain |
Guardian columnist gets a clue(TM) |
2005-07-10 |
The instinctive response of a significant portion of the rich world's intelligentsia to the murder of innocents on 11 September was anything but robust. A few, such as Karlheinz Stockhausen, were delighted. The destruction of the World Trade Centre was 'the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos,' declared the composer whose tin ear failed to catch the screams. Others saw it as a blow for justice rather than art. They persuaded themselves that al-Qaeda was made up of anti-imperialist insurgents who were avenging the wrongs of the poor. 'The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?' asked Dario Fo. Rosie Boycott seemed to agree. 'The West should take the blame for pushing people in Third World countries to the end of their tether,' she wrote. Article continues In these bleak days, it's worth remembering what was said after September 2001. A backward glance shows that before the war against the Taliban and long before the war against Saddam Hussein, there were many who had determined that 'we had it coming'. They had to convince themselves that Islamism was a Western creation: a comprehensible reaction to the International Monetary Fund or hanging chads in Florida or whatever else was agitating them, rather than an autonomous psychopathic force with reasons of its own. In the years since, this manic masochism has spread like bindweed and strangled leftish and much conservative thought. All kinds of hypocrisy remained unchallenged. In my world of liberal London, social success at the dinner table belonged to the man who could simultaneously maintain that we've got it coming but that nothing was going to come; that indiscriminate murder would be Tony Blair's fault but there wouldn't be indiscriminate murder because 'the threat' was a phantom menace invented by Blair to scare the cowed electorate into supporting him. I'd say the 'power of nightmares' side of that oxymoronic argument is too bloodied to be worth discussing this weekend and it's better to stick with the wider delusion. On Thursday, before the police had made one arrest, before one terrorist group had claimed responsibility, before one body had been carried from the wreckage, let alone been identified and allowed to rest in peace, cocksure voices filled with righteousness were proclaiming that the real murderers weren't the real murderers but the Prime Minister. I'm not thinking of George Galloway and the other saluters of Saddam, but of upright men and women who sat down to write letters to respectable newspapers within minutes of hearing the news. 'Hang your head in shame, Mr Blair. Better still, resign - and whoever takes over immediately withdraw all our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan,' wrote the Rev Mike Ketley, who is a vicar, for God's sake, but has no qualms about leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban and al-Qaeda or Iraq to the Baath party and al-Qaeda. 'Let's stop this murder and put on trial those criminals who are within our jurisdiction,' began Patrick Daly of south London in an apparently promising letter to the Independent. But, inevitably, he didn't mean the bombers. 'Let's start with the British government.' And so it went on. At no point did they grasp that Islamism was a reactionary movement as great as fascism, which had claimed millions of mainly Muslim lives in the Sudan, Iran, Algeria and Afghanistan and is claiming thousands in Iraq. As with fascism, it takes a resolute dunderheadedness to put all the responsibility on democratic governments for its existence. I feel the appeal, believe me. You are exasperated with the manifold faults of Tony Blair and George W Bush. Fighting your government is what you know how to do and what you want to do, and when you are confronted with totalitarian forces which are far worse than your government, the easy solution is to blame your government for them. But it's a parochial line of reasoning to suppose that all bad, or all good, comes from the West - and a racist one to boot. The unavoidable consequence is that you must refuse to support democrats, liberals, feminists and socialists in the Arab world and Iran who are the victims of Islamism in its Sunni and Shia guises because you are too compromised to condemn their persecutors. Islamism stops being an ideology intent on building an empire from Andalusia to Indonesia, destroying democracy and subjugating women and becomes, by the magic of parochial reasoning, a protest movement on a par with Make Poverty History or the TUC. Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows. The only plausible excuse for 11 September was that it was a protest against America's support for Israel. Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden's statements revealed that he was obsessed with the American troops defending Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein and had barely said a word about Palestine. After the Bali bombings, the conventional wisdom was that the Australians had been blown to pieces as a punishment for their government's support for Bush. No one thought for a moment about the Australian forces which stopped Indonesian militias rampaging through East Timor, a small country Indonesia had invaded in 1975 with the backing of the US. Yet when bin Laden spoke, he said it was Australia's anti-imperialist intervention to free a largely Catholic population from a largely Muslim occupying power which had bugged him. East Timor was a great cause of the left until the Australians made it an embarrassment. So, too, was the suffering of the victims of Saddam, until the tyrant made the mistake of invading Kuwait and becoming America's enemy. In the past two years in Iraq, UN and Red Cross workers have been massacred, trade unionists assassinated, school children and aid workers kidnapped and decapitated and countless people who happened to be on the wrong bus or on the wrong street at the wrong time paid for their mistake with their lives. What can the survivors do? Not a lot according to a Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He told bin Laden that the northern Kurds may be Sunni but 'Islam's voice has died out among them' and they'd been infiltrated by Jews. The southern Shia were 'a sect of treachery' while any Arab, Kurd, Shia or Sunni who believed in a democratic Iraq was a heretic. Our options are as limited When Abu Bakr Bashir was arrested for the Bali bombings, he was asked how the families of the dead could avoid the fate of their relatives. 'Please convert to Islam,' he replied. But as the past 40 years have shown, Islamism is mainly concerned with killing and oppressing Muslims. In his intervention before last year's American presidential election, bin Laden praised Robert Fisk of the Independent whose journalism he admired. 'I consider him to be neutral,' he said, so I suppose we could all resolve not to take the tube unless we can sit next to Mr Fisk. But as the killings are indiscriminate, I can't see how that would help and, in any case, who wants to be stuck on a train with an Independent reporter? There are many tasks in the coming days. Staying calm, helping the police and protecting Muslim communities from neo-Nazi attack are high among them. But the greatest is to resolve to see the world for what it is and remove the twin vices of wilful myopia and bad faith which have disfigured too much liberal thought for too long. |
Link |
Britain | ||
Fun & Games as G8 looms | ||
2005-07-05 | ||
EDINBURGH: Up to 1000 anarchists have been blamed for bringing the Scottish capital to a standstill and provoking fierce confrontations with police. The centre of Edinburgh was flooded with hundreds of riot police who fought anti-capitalist protesters repeatedly less than 48 hours before the start of the G8 summit. With more trouble predicted for today's summit opening at the Gleneagles Hotel in Perthshire, police said up to 30 protesters had been arrested. Tom Halpin, Assistant Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police, accused protesters of "reckless and irresponsible behaviour". However, protesters accused police of being heavy-handed after several dozen officers, in full riot gear, drew their retractable truncheons as they ran through Prince's Street Gardens, on the northern side of Edinburgh's main thoroughfare, striking onlookers as well as protesters. A cyclist trying to move out of the way of a skirmish was hit with a baton. Tensions had been rising all day during the unofficial "Festival for Full Enjoyment", a series of marches and blockades across the city involving about 1000 anarchists, clowns, drummers and a troupe with sparkly wings calling themselves the Fairy Army.
A winged member of the Fairy Army said he was there to have fun and to "spread a little magic". But the presence of small groups of masked youths, some waving black flags, betrayed a more sinister element. Hundreds of anarchists mingled among the protesters and by mid-afternoon most of Prince's Street was sealed off by riot police. A handful of officers moved among the crowd photographing people. In Canning Street, in Edinburgh's financial district, police hemmed in about 300 protesters. One scaled a 7m wall and mooned police below. The police response could not have been more different from the low-key presence at Saturday's well-organised and peaceful Make Poverty History march, attended by an estimated 200,000 people. The turning point was a scuffle in Prince's Street Gardens, in which anarchists tore up plants from flower beds and threw them at police. Chuffy Dominguez, 18, from Glasgow, who was dressed as a clown, said: "This is unbelievable. The police are baton-charging people who are here today to party on the streets. It's a deliberate ploy to stigmatise anarchists by flooding the place with riot police and penning us in. It's a sad day." | ||
Link |
Britain |
What Labour Wants out of the Push for African Aid |
2005-06-12 |
The last half of an article in the Tory magazine the Spectator. Free reg required. The broader political significance of this poverty agenda has not yet been noticed. It has its roots in the terror all mainstream politicians feel at the collapse of mass party politics. The Labour party and the Tory party, which both enjoyed memberships of over one million voters barely a generation ago, today cannot count on more than 500,000 between them. By contrast, the four largest aid agencies Oxfam, Christian Aid, Action Aid and Save the Children have the best part of three million members. Just before the general election the ace Labour strategist Douglas Alexander, now minister for Europe, delineated the problem in a pamphlet, Telling It Like It Could Be. 'Citizens are increasingly participating in activities such as single issue campaigns,' wrote Alexander, 'without seeing these as activities in which party politics should or could play a role. Labour needs to engage these people in our vision of the good society.' Alexander, a key adviser to Chancellor Gordon Brown, argues that Labour must take full advantage of all this energy. His pamphlet, though published before the election, was a manifesto for much that has happened since. It explains exactly why the British government is so mesmerised by the Geldof agenda, and accounts for the perplexing collusion that will take place when the G8 summit takes place in Scotland: the British government conspiring with protesters by urging them to come and disrupt its own event. For New Labour, Make Poverty History will win back the voters lost over Iraq. It is, of course, good that we should think about Africa, and there is no denying that Bob Geldof is a wonderful man. Nevertheless, there are substantial reasons for concern at this new method of making policy. For one thing, it is not democratic. Africa did not loom large during the general election campaign. Pretty well all MPs report that alarm about mass immigration was a much bigger issue. And yet we have heard nothing about immigration since 5 May. The day after the election Tony Blair announced that he had been chastened by the result, and would spend much more time addressing the domestic agenda. Instead, he has set about the prodigious task, which has frustrated all politicians since Alfred Milner a century ago, of how to solve the African problem. This project is about re-energising lost activists, not appealing to the average voter. Giving way to pressure groups like Make Poverty History is as bad a way of making policy as surrendering to corporate lobbyists. Its agenda debt forgiveness and a huge increase in aid is very hard to defend. As Richard Dowden of the Royal Africa Society notes, 'If aid were the solution to Africa's problems it would be a rich continent by now.' Tony Blair is open to the same criticism over Africa as over Iraq: that he is guilty of a naive belief in interventionism. The contrast between the British insistence on aid and the American focus on proper governance is very striking. Nevertheless George Bush did his best for Tony Blair this week in Washington. He is extremely fond of the British Prime Minister, and the real venom is felt towards Gordon Brown. The Chancellor badly upset the White House when he tried to railroad Condoleezza Rice over Africa at a meeting in the British Foreign Office on 4 February. According to well-placed sources, he treated Rice with the same contempt that he normally hands out to Cabinet colleagues. Afterwards the Americans briefed that Brown's financing plan was poorly thought through and would 'be forgotten within a year'. Well-informed sources say that President Bush is proud of what he has done for Africa, and is 'affronted by the way Gordon Brown is trying to get cheap publicity ahead of the G8'. The US President may well have spent a portion of his private meeting with Tony Blair this week urging the British Prime Minister to remain in power as long as possible. Meanwhile the volume of private briefing against the Chancellor from within the White House is remarkable by any standards. None of this will do Gordon Brown any harm at all with the Labour party. Quite the reverse: falling out in such a spectacular fashion with the White House, and the prospect of a sharp cooling in the special relationship with Brown at No. 10, will help ensure him the succession. Even so, the Chancellor's clumsy, bullying diplomacy raises real questions about whether he has the calibre to be prime minister. |
Link |
Fifth Column | |||||
Anarchist groups plan takeover of Geldof's march | |||||
2005-06-05 | |||||
![]()
| |||||
Link |
Home Front: Culture Wars | |||||||||||||
Noted statesman Bob Geldof urges G8 protests | |||||||||||||
2005-06-01 | |||||||||||||
BOB GELDOF ![]()
| |||||||||||||
Link |