(Sedgefield, England)
May is an important month in the life of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He was born in May 1953, became PM in May 1997, and announced his resignation at a meeting in Sedgefield in May 2007.
It is now two years since that speech, in which Blair told the democratic world what it had deserved to hear for some time, and yet nothing has been done to convict one of the most notorious and unrepentant modern leaders.
On 8th July 1982 Saddam Hussein responded to an attempted assassination by having 148 men killed in the town of Dujail, a crime for which he was eventually tried and hanged in December 2006.
On 11th July 1995 Radislav Krstic oversaw the killing of as many as 8000 men from Srebrenica, and in August 2001 he was sentenced to 46 years in prison (later reduced to 35).
On the 20th March 2003 Blair and then US President George Bush started the Iraq war based on lies about Iraqi weaponry – most conservative estimates are that 100,000 civilians died and nearly two million people were made refugees, and there are still numerous charges of torture and other war crimes outstanding against the invading forces.
And then there’s the matter of Doctor David Kelly.
So far Blair has been rewarded with the job of peace envoy to the Middle East – oh the irony – and choice posts at JPMorgan Chase, Yale University with the promise that he will be made President of Europe. He is also a millionaire.
The people of Iraq still have to contend with the presence of around 140,000 mainly US and British troops, a lack of utilities, and other life-threatening problems such as hunger and cholera.
It is time for the so-called international community to exert pressure on Britain to try Blair for his crimes, and if Britain refuses to clean up after its own then the ICC should take up the responsibility on behalf of the victims, otherwise a dangerous message will be sent to Western leaders – if you are rich and white, you can do whatever you want.
And one day, the victims will not be on the other side of the world.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
We choose our own heroes
(Glasgow, Scotland)
Early last month Chuck Norris wrote an article for conservative news website WorldNetDaily in which he mentioned the possibility of Texas seceding from the union and his readiness to be its first president in independence. How many votes would he obtain? The result would probably be a landslide, taking into account his popularity among extreme conservative, pro-Second Amendment, anti-abortionist and anti-gay marriage voters.
However, any other candidate with identical political views would be beaten not on policy but on the advantage of exposure and the influence of modern popular culture.
In 1981, former Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan was voted in as president in the US, and he kept his Alzheimer’s-ridden finger hovering over the nuclear button for two full terms. In 2003, another former Hollywood actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was voted in as Governor of California and the politically uncertain muscleman is currently serving his second full term in office.
These are two high-profile entertainment-politics crossovers, but there have been many more people in the history if the US who have used their popularity in film and television as a springboard into politics, from Helen Gahagan Douglas to Shirley Temple Black to Clint Eastwood. From the records it would appear as if screen exposure translated easily into votes, even if it does seem to be a little frivolous to vote in an entertainer residing in an ivory tower as a high-ranking public official.
This is one of the many interesting aspects of modern culture – the faces that entertain us are much more influential in our lives than the politicians who really do have a great deal of control over us, which of course makes it easier for people to cross the divide between the two supposedly separate fields. It is something not too dissimilar from preferring to watch soap operas than the news as an antidote to the working day.
On this side of the water we have seen another fascinating aspect of modern culture at work as the internet helped create another legend. The people voted with their clicks by making an anonymous Scottish woman more relevant to popular culture than Barack Obama’s inauguration speech. Obama was only voted in a few short months ago, but in this frantically-paced modern world we need and create heroes at a staggering rate, and Susan Boyle is our new hero.
Is it frivolous to prefer an audition from a talent show to the speech of a modern statesman? Perhaps, but it is also shows that popular culture is a manifestation of the freedom that the people feel is their inherent right – in spite of the politicians, we still choose who and what we want. And in this case, the people have their priorities exactly right – the little person in the flowery dress over the big person in the suit, the power of a beautiful voice over the banality of political rhetoric (however well-intentioned), the simplicity of the solo singer over the spin of the speech-writer.
I don’t care if Chuck Norris wins an election and becomes President, but I would love to see Susan Boyle win that talent show, not just because she deserves to but also in order to see the people exercise their right to choose their own heroes.
Early last month Chuck Norris wrote an article for conservative news website WorldNetDaily in which he mentioned the possibility of Texas seceding from the union and his readiness to be its first president in independence. How many votes would he obtain? The result would probably be a landslide, taking into account his popularity among extreme conservative, pro-Second Amendment, anti-abortionist and anti-gay marriage voters.
However, any other candidate with identical political views would be beaten not on policy but on the advantage of exposure and the influence of modern popular culture.
In 1981, former Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan was voted in as president in the US, and he kept his Alzheimer’s-ridden finger hovering over the nuclear button for two full terms. In 2003, another former Hollywood actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was voted in as Governor of California and the politically uncertain muscleman is currently serving his second full term in office.
These are two high-profile entertainment-politics crossovers, but there have been many more people in the history if the US who have used their popularity in film and television as a springboard into politics, from Helen Gahagan Douglas to Shirley Temple Black to Clint Eastwood. From the records it would appear as if screen exposure translated easily into votes, even if it does seem to be a little frivolous to vote in an entertainer residing in an ivory tower as a high-ranking public official.
This is one of the many interesting aspects of modern culture – the faces that entertain us are much more influential in our lives than the politicians who really do have a great deal of control over us, which of course makes it easier for people to cross the divide between the two supposedly separate fields. It is something not too dissimilar from preferring to watch soap operas than the news as an antidote to the working day.
On this side of the water we have seen another fascinating aspect of modern culture at work as the internet helped create another legend. The people voted with their clicks by making an anonymous Scottish woman more relevant to popular culture than Barack Obama’s inauguration speech. Obama was only voted in a few short months ago, but in this frantically-paced modern world we need and create heroes at a staggering rate, and Susan Boyle is our new hero.
Is it frivolous to prefer an audition from a talent show to the speech of a modern statesman? Perhaps, but it is also shows that popular culture is a manifestation of the freedom that the people feel is their inherent right – in spite of the politicians, we still choose who and what we want. And in this case, the people have their priorities exactly right – the little person in the flowery dress over the big person in the suit, the power of a beautiful voice over the banality of political rhetoric (however well-intentioned), the simplicity of the solo singer over the spin of the speech-writer.
I don’t care if Chuck Norris wins an election and becomes President, but I would love to see Susan Boyle win that talent show, not just because she deserves to but also in order to see the people exercise their right to choose their own heroes.
The camera never lies
(London, England)
Norfolk conjures up images of a traditional, rural lifestyle played out in small market towns, of a place unspoilt by the more pernicious aspects of the industrial revolution and certainly far removed from the post-industrial information holocaust. Here you can find Norwich, the greenest city in the UK and one of the most polite, or Sandringham, the beautiful royal estate set in 8,000 acres of stunning English countryside.
As it happens, Norwich has the highest number of internet users in the country, and shows itself to be a modern, cultured city. And nearby King’s Lynn also offers an ambiguous image, for this quiet rural haven was the first town in the country to have CCTV cameras installed, suggesting a population of thuggish ne’er-do-wells and an absence of law and order.
However, Norfolk is not alone in being tainted by the connotations of modern technology. Bournemouth, the sedate retirement town on the south coast and home to the Winter Gardens and The Royal Bath Hotel, suffered a similar fate in 1985 when it became the first town in the country to have these cameras installed on the streets, evoking images of wild lawlessness.
It is estimated that a generation later there are between four and five million public and private surveillance cameras (the government being by far the biggest operator), which in a population of approximately sixty million translates as one camera for every twelve to fifteen people. Not 12,000 to 15,000 or even 1,200 to 1,500 – one camera for every 12 to 15 people.
Norfolk is certainly a county which matches England’s view of itself and indeed for many years the view that the rest of the world had about the English – polite and calm, a fair-minded people with their emotions under control and a strong sense of right and wrong.
However, the visitor to the modern UK will surely be overwhelmed by a sense of panic on seeing the number of security cameras. And they are everywhere, on all forms of transport including taxis, all town centre buildings including shops and restaurants, and on every street corner be it city centre, urban outskirts or rural idyll. And now they are to be accompanied with Orwellian loudspeakers which utter anonymous, monotone instructions to the citizens as they go about their daily business.
How ironic, therefore, that those same cameras betrayed the forces of government oppression when they attempted to cover up their brutal murder of Jean Charles de Menezes. And how appropriate now that the people should use their camera-phones and video cameras to capture more examples of police brutality during the G20 protests, namely the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson and the assault on another young woman.
However, perhaps the greatest irony of all is the fact that the conservative population of middle England – whose representatives in blue have been found out in such an unequivocal way – will eventually suffer the consequences of ‘getting what they wished for’. An unsurprisingly high number of English people are in favour of the presence of constant surveillance to back up the popular ASBO court orders – it is part of the typically English desire to control every last movement of their neighbours and to be able to have that all-important last word by proving that their neighbours are indeed indulging in such anti-social behaviour as not putting their bins out in the correct way or parking on the kerb.
Having loudspeakers tell people what to do is the ultimate asexual fantasy of those who lurk behind net curtains and in the corner of bay windows, squinting at those awful people from across the road (or indeed across the seas). Barked orders and short, sharp shocks is what middle Englanders have always threatened to impose if they were ever made Prime Minister.
I have every sympathy for that young woman in London and for the family of Ian Tomlinson, people who tried to exercise the supposedly traditional English rights of free speech and freedom of movement but who became victims of the age-old English desire to oppress. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the conservative middle class who are hanging themselves with the electrical cables of their own CCTV.
Norfolk conjures up images of a traditional, rural lifestyle played out in small market towns, of a place unspoilt by the more pernicious aspects of the industrial revolution and certainly far removed from the post-industrial information holocaust. Here you can find Norwich, the greenest city in the UK and one of the most polite, or Sandringham, the beautiful royal estate set in 8,000 acres of stunning English countryside.
As it happens, Norwich has the highest number of internet users in the country, and shows itself to be a modern, cultured city. And nearby King’s Lynn also offers an ambiguous image, for this quiet rural haven was the first town in the country to have CCTV cameras installed, suggesting a population of thuggish ne’er-do-wells and an absence of law and order.
However, Norfolk is not alone in being tainted by the connotations of modern technology. Bournemouth, the sedate retirement town on the south coast and home to the Winter Gardens and The Royal Bath Hotel, suffered a similar fate in 1985 when it became the first town in the country to have these cameras installed on the streets, evoking images of wild lawlessness.
It is estimated that a generation later there are between four and five million public and private surveillance cameras (the government being by far the biggest operator), which in a population of approximately sixty million translates as one camera for every twelve to fifteen people. Not 12,000 to 15,000 or even 1,200 to 1,500 – one camera for every 12 to 15 people.
Norfolk is certainly a county which matches England’s view of itself and indeed for many years the view that the rest of the world had about the English – polite and calm, a fair-minded people with their emotions under control and a strong sense of right and wrong.
However, the visitor to the modern UK will surely be overwhelmed by a sense of panic on seeing the number of security cameras. And they are everywhere, on all forms of transport including taxis, all town centre buildings including shops and restaurants, and on every street corner be it city centre, urban outskirts or rural idyll. And now they are to be accompanied with Orwellian loudspeakers which utter anonymous, monotone instructions to the citizens as they go about their daily business.
How ironic, therefore, that those same cameras betrayed the forces of government oppression when they attempted to cover up their brutal murder of Jean Charles de Menezes. And how appropriate now that the people should use their camera-phones and video cameras to capture more examples of police brutality during the G20 protests, namely the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson and the assault on another young woman.
However, perhaps the greatest irony of all is the fact that the conservative population of middle England – whose representatives in blue have been found out in such an unequivocal way – will eventually suffer the consequences of ‘getting what they wished for’. An unsurprisingly high number of English people are in favour of the presence of constant surveillance to back up the popular ASBO court orders – it is part of the typically English desire to control every last movement of their neighbours and to be able to have that all-important last word by proving that their neighbours are indeed indulging in such anti-social behaviour as not putting their bins out in the correct way or parking on the kerb.
Having loudspeakers tell people what to do is the ultimate asexual fantasy of those who lurk behind net curtains and in the corner of bay windows, squinting at those awful people from across the road (or indeed across the seas). Barked orders and short, sharp shocks is what middle Englanders have always threatened to impose if they were ever made Prime Minister.
I have every sympathy for that young woman in London and for the family of Ian Tomlinson, people who tried to exercise the supposedly traditional English rights of free speech and freedom of movement but who became victims of the age-old English desire to oppress. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the conservative middle class who are hanging themselves with the electrical cables of their own CCTV.
Monday, March 16, 2009
When a weapon is attacked
(Lahore, Pakistan)
Lahore is a beautiful city boasting an exotic mix of impressive monuments, exquisite street food, modern media companies and traditional festivals. It would be a tourist paradise were it not for the problems that still beset this jewel. The city was torn apart during Partition, and soon afterwards riots between Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus further damaged both the physical infrastructure and everyday life. It was the objective of an attack by the Indian army in 1965, and its position close to the new border has never let it rest. Today Lahore figures prominently in the conflict against between the West and its enemies.
On March 3rd a group of gunmen opened fire on a bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team, killing six people (five policemen and a driver) and injuring nine more. Comparisons were quickly made to the violence at the Munich Olympics in 1972, when members of Palestinian group “Black September” kidnapped and later killed eleven member of the Israeli Olympic team.
However, the Olympics are widely regarded as an event which brings nations together in a sporting festival which still observes the accepted ethics of competition and morals of human co-existence. The irony of the Lahore attack is that it was committed against a team engaged in a “sporting” activity which was used as an unsubtle truncheon in the English class war and more importantly as a weapon in the colonial domination of a post-abolition British Empire.
Many people have likened sport to war – not least when the situation in question involves English football supporters – and there are obvious parallels between armies and teams, flags and team colours, trophies and conquests and primitive tribal belligerence and football crowds. Some would even point to a direct connection between the gentlemanly rules of engagement and the gentlemanly rules of a sport. Whatever the extent of the similarities, it was only a question of time before the already blurred boundaries between these two “sporting” activities were shot to pieces.
Lahore is a beautiful city boasting an exotic mix of impressive monuments, exquisite street food, modern media companies and traditional festivals. It would be a tourist paradise were it not for the problems that still beset this jewel. The city was torn apart during Partition, and soon afterwards riots between Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus further damaged both the physical infrastructure and everyday life. It was the objective of an attack by the Indian army in 1965, and its position close to the new border has never let it rest. Today Lahore figures prominently in the conflict against between the West and its enemies.
On March 3rd a group of gunmen opened fire on a bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team, killing six people (five policemen and a driver) and injuring nine more. Comparisons were quickly made to the violence at the Munich Olympics in 1972, when members of Palestinian group “Black September” kidnapped and later killed eleven member of the Israeli Olympic team.
However, the Olympics are widely regarded as an event which brings nations together in a sporting festival which still observes the accepted ethics of competition and morals of human co-existence. The irony of the Lahore attack is that it was committed against a team engaged in a “sporting” activity which was used as an unsubtle truncheon in the English class war and more importantly as a weapon in the colonial domination of a post-abolition British Empire.
Many people have likened sport to war – not least when the situation in question involves English football supporters – and there are obvious parallels between armies and teams, flags and team colours, trophies and conquests and primitive tribal belligerence and football crowds. Some would even point to a direct connection between the gentlemanly rules of engagement and the gentlemanly rules of a sport. Whatever the extent of the similarities, it was only a question of time before the already blurred boundaries between these two “sporting” activities were shot to pieces.
Marching out of time
(Helmand Province, Afghanistan)
The Helmand province of southern Afghanistan is mainly a desert, although the Helmand River provides extensive irrigation for agriculture. The main crop is poppies, and this region produces nearly half of all of the world’s supply of opium. It has also been the epicentre of intense fighting between first American, and then British occupying forces and the Taleban.
Last Saturday it was announced that another British soldier had died in Helmand, bringing the total British casualties in the eight-year war in Afghanistan to a round figure of 150. In Iraq the British army has lost closer to 200 soldiers. To those who share the petty-minded, flag-waving mentality prevalent in a tiny nation with a disproportionate ego, these people are heroes, and are always labelled as such by the British press.
This hero-worship reached its hysterical zenith last December when Sky 1 screened an awards ceremony which had apparently been dreamt up by Prince Charles and sponsored by The Sun newspaper. The ceremony was criticised by readers of others newspapers as being a cynical attempt on the part of The Sun to increase its circulation and by veterans’ associations as a glossing over of the real issues for survivors.
A DROP IN THE OCEAN
Despite the criticism, the programme was a success among that alarmingly large sector of the British population that still believes that if you take a gun and invade a foreign country and kill civilians in order to take control of natural resources you are a conquering hero. Prince Charles himself declared:
...as I speak many members of our Armed Forces are far away from their families, working in austere, challenging and often dangerous environments.
It appears to be as lost on him as it is on the rest of the warmongers that they would not have to be working in such conditions if they had not gone to a foreign country with a gun etc. To put it simply, people have a choice. The people who enlist in the army do so voluntarily and in full knowledge of the consequences – at some point they will have to kill somebody. And perhaps at some point they will have to die.
Let us not forget that this is not some humanitarian force which arms itself for self-protection while undertaking aid projects in areas in need of a more permanent infrastructure. Their losses are a drop in the ocean – or indeed a grain of sand in the desert – compared to the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths they have caused in Iraq and Afghanistan. The numbers vary wildly depending on the source, with some organisations quoting as many as one million civilian deaths, but everybody agrees that the figure is at the very least 100,000.
WHITE FEATHERS
Many countries have seen great empires rise and fall on the back of military conquest and plunder, but most modern people would accept that these are feats that have not only been consigned to the history books but should also never be repeated. The British army may be a collection of heroes to some British people, but – from Cromwell’s crimes in Ireland through the phosphorous fire-bombing of Dresden to the fuel-air bombing of Iraq – to the Argentines, Afghans, Germans, Irish, Indians and Iraqis they are no more than war criminals.
The British government will continue to use its army as an imperialist battering ram for as long as such actions continue to receive support from a large proportion of the British population, and awards ceremonies such as the “Millies” will only fuel that support. It is time for the silent millions who do not support British involvement in wars to stand up not only in the occasional – albeit impressive – street protest, but also on a daily basis.
There needs to be a recognised symbol for those who are brave enough to show their disdain for the army in public. Perhaps an appropriate gesture would be to serve a white feather with pints of beer to those who have enlisted or those who have encouraged others to do so, as a symbol of peace and of the cowardice of those who would seek to bully countries into submission using guns and bombs.
The Helmand province of southern Afghanistan is mainly a desert, although the Helmand River provides extensive irrigation for agriculture. The main crop is poppies, and this region produces nearly half of all of the world’s supply of opium. It has also been the epicentre of intense fighting between first American, and then British occupying forces and the Taleban.
Last Saturday it was announced that another British soldier had died in Helmand, bringing the total British casualties in the eight-year war in Afghanistan to a round figure of 150. In Iraq the British army has lost closer to 200 soldiers. To those who share the petty-minded, flag-waving mentality prevalent in a tiny nation with a disproportionate ego, these people are heroes, and are always labelled as such by the British press.
This hero-worship reached its hysterical zenith last December when Sky 1 screened an awards ceremony which had apparently been dreamt up by Prince Charles and sponsored by The Sun newspaper. The ceremony was criticised by readers of others newspapers as being a cynical attempt on the part of The Sun to increase its circulation and by veterans’ associations as a glossing over of the real issues for survivors.
A DROP IN THE OCEAN
Despite the criticism, the programme was a success among that alarmingly large sector of the British population that still believes that if you take a gun and invade a foreign country and kill civilians in order to take control of natural resources you are a conquering hero. Prince Charles himself declared:
...as I speak many members of our Armed Forces are far away from their families, working in austere, challenging and often dangerous environments.
It appears to be as lost on him as it is on the rest of the warmongers that they would not have to be working in such conditions if they had not gone to a foreign country with a gun etc. To put it simply, people have a choice. The people who enlist in the army do so voluntarily and in full knowledge of the consequences – at some point they will have to kill somebody. And perhaps at some point they will have to die.
Let us not forget that this is not some humanitarian force which arms itself for self-protection while undertaking aid projects in areas in need of a more permanent infrastructure. Their losses are a drop in the ocean – or indeed a grain of sand in the desert – compared to the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths they have caused in Iraq and Afghanistan. The numbers vary wildly depending on the source, with some organisations quoting as many as one million civilian deaths, but everybody agrees that the figure is at the very least 100,000.
WHITE FEATHERS
Many countries have seen great empires rise and fall on the back of military conquest and plunder, but most modern people would accept that these are feats that have not only been consigned to the history books but should also never be repeated. The British army may be a collection of heroes to some British people, but – from Cromwell’s crimes in Ireland through the phosphorous fire-bombing of Dresden to the fuel-air bombing of Iraq – to the Argentines, Afghans, Germans, Irish, Indians and Iraqis they are no more than war criminals.
The British government will continue to use its army as an imperialist battering ram for as long as such actions continue to receive support from a large proportion of the British population, and awards ceremonies such as the “Millies” will only fuel that support. It is time for the silent millions who do not support British involvement in wars to stand up not only in the occasional – albeit impressive – street protest, but also on a daily basis.
There needs to be a recognised symbol for those who are brave enough to show their disdain for the army in public. Perhaps an appropriate gesture would be to serve a white feather with pints of beer to those who have enlisted or those who have encouraged others to do so, as a symbol of peace and of the cowardice of those who would seek to bully countries into submission using guns and bombs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)