Previous
editorials
Current editorial
February 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016 (supplement)
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December supplement
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
December 2012
November 2012
|
 |
 |
 |

These are regular editorials
produced alongside the corresponding issues on Nonviolent
News. |
Georgia, and Russia, on my mind
The reconfiguration of political realities within the former
boundaries of
Georgia
raises
a considerable number of issues, not necessarily those that have been taken up
by the
USA
,
Britain
, the EU
and others. As almost always in such circumstances, the realities are messy,
perhaps inconvenient for many, and subject to long term judgement as to whether
Russia
treats
South Ossetia
and Abkhazia as puppet states, fully
incorporates them, and/or allows them genuine freedom or freedom of choice – if
such is politically possible for such small entities.The first point to be made is that political boundaries in
the former
Soviet Union
, and in the countries
which emerged from it a couple of decades ago, were not necessarily
rational. Thus there were, and are, unwilling bedfellows who could grow
to tolerate each other or end up in the divorce courts. Secondly, there are the related questions of territorial
integrity and self determination.
Territorial integrity should mean that
outsiders do not intervene to change the political map but it is quite clear,
from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, that ‘the West’ only spouts on about
territorial integrity when it suits them; when it suits them to intervene in
regime change then other issues are brought in which are considered more
important. ‘Territorial integrity’ is therefore not of the utmost concern as a
value, and, from a moral point of view, increasing emphasis on human rights
should put limits on the power of a nation state to treat people badly within
its boundaries.‘Self determination’ is a value which countries tend to
support, or not, according to what side they are on.
If Kosovo/a has the
right to ‘self determination’ then, by the same, and sane, measuring stick, so
must Abkhazia and South Ossetia but ‘the West’, in the context of increasing
divisions between Western Europe and Russia, emphasises territorial integrity
over self determination in these last two cases. It is quite clear that both
Abkhazia and South Ossetia wanted freedom from
Georgia
and, small as they are,
should be entitled to it considering political and cultural factors.
Georgia
was determined to bomb
South Ossetia
into
submission, and may have killed upwards of a couple of thousand people by
bombardment in the events which led up to Russian intervention.
Georgia
badly misjudged
Russia
in this
instance, thinking there would be no Russian military action. In this
case,
Russia
could claim
defence of the human rights of the people of South Ossetia, as well, obviously,
in acting against what it considered an uppity neighbour to the south (
Georgia
) and in
its own perceived national interest. It was
Georgia
which precipitated the
immediate crisis.
Russia
may have driven Georgian forces out of
South Ossetia
,
and there has been ethnic cleansing by South Ossetian forces of Georgians, but there was no military intervention in Abkhazia –
Georgian forces withdrew without Russian support to Abkhazian forces.
Russia
is flexing its muscles as a regional superpower and its neighbours are
concerned and scared – this is only natural.
However taking NATO membership
right to the borders of
Russia
is not the way to defuse new Cold War fears and make
Russia
believe that ‘the West’
wants peaceful relations. Certainly there are major fears about Russian
nationalism and militarism, and about the extent and nature of Russian
democracy and human rights – which have severe limitations - but, concerning
present conflicts, it is not Russia that invaded Afghanistan (at least not in
the current war) and Iraq. There are thus a number of pots around calling the
Russian kettle black. NATO is an ‘anti-communist’ Cold War relic which
should have been relegated to the dustbin with the end of that ‘Old’ Cold War,
if not before (the September 2008 issue of the War Resisters International
newsletter, ‘The Broken Rifle’, analyses further the current situation with
NATO. See http://www.wri-irg.org/pubs/br79-en.htm ).
What we need in such a situation in the state of
Georgia
, as
hinted at above, is a clear set of guidelines about where self determination
and freedom for peoples outweighs considerations of territorial integrity. We
need a neutral set of values which can be utilised in such circumstances, not a
set of values pulled out of the closet to suit a particular interest at a particular
time, one set of rules for ‘us’ and another set of rules for
‘them’. Such dualities and false thinking neither promote
peace nor freedom and are simply used to bolster perceived national and
regional interests.It has yet to be seen how
Russia
will treat Abkhazia and
South Ossetia
.
While
Russia
is still a
diverse country, it is not the
Soviet Union
empire that it was, either in intent or reality. There
are many militarists and nationalists at work in
Russia
but it is far from being alone in this, and, on a
global scale, it is the
USA
with its own disdain for human rights and willingness to promote its interests,
by hook or by crook, which is a greater danger to world peace. However, any number of wrongs on any side do not make one right, Russian
attempts to control its neighbours are not welcome, and we will view with
continued concern human rights and democracy issues within
Russia
itself
and on its borders, as well as expressing our dismay at the evolution of a
‘New’ Cold War.
Doing and not doing are not opposites
To take a particular action is not necessarily the opposite
of not to take that action. The example that comes to mind is the decision made
by Belfast City Council to have a ‘homecoming parade and civic reception’ on
2nd November for British armed forces returning from
Iraq
and
Afghanistan
.
Unionist councillors (including the non-sectarian unionist Alliance Party)
supported the move and nationalists (Sinn Féin and
SDLP) opposed the civic approval of local involvement in these wars. That
much is, perhaps, predictable. The ‘Ministry of Defence’ “said it would boost
the morale of troops thousands of miles away” (‘News Letter’ 2nd September
2008).We oppose such a parade and reception on several grounds. It
is clearly, as indicated by who voted how, a largely sectarian decision. Had
there been a decision not to have such a welcome it might have been seen as a
victory for people on the nationalist side of the house but not doing something
(which if done would cause offence to others) would not have been the same as
doing something where there is no automatic expectation that it would be done.
Since a large slice of
Belfast
, from across many
boards, voted with their feet against the
Iraq
war it also seems a strange
decision.
Alliance
’s
Naomi Long and the DUP’s David Rodway both spoke about how they opposed the Iraq War but felt the soldiers’ bravery
should be recognised; this is politically naïve. The British Army is a
volunteer army and, while many may have chosen it as a career in the absence of
other opportunities, by joining up they agree to be the military muscle of the
government of the day.
To separate out soldiers’ ‘bravery’ as deserving
of praise is splitting hairs. We do not praise burglars who do not leave
a mess or do ‘a good job’ in burgling; you cannot separate how something is
done from what the task happens to be. Of course we have to recognise
individual soldiers as human beings with the respect that this deserves, and
they should certainly not be seen as automatons, but civic receptions - as the
Ministry of Defence clearly recognised - are seen as support for the whole
military enterprise.Posthumously (sic) approving these wars and boosting
military morale is a regressive move from the point of view of building peace
and international relations. The UK is one of the European countries most prone
to go to war in the modern era and any achievements, in either of these
countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), is far outweighed by the deaths and
destruction caused, the damage done to international relations, and the
promotion of military-type militancy (‘terrorism’), aside from the financial
cost (which may be significant in the level of recession currently affecting
the UK) .
The British armed forces are the tool
of British government foreign policy and this has been disastrous. The attempt
to ‘normalise’ the position of the British armed forces in
Northern Ireland
should be resisted as it seeks to ingratiate itself into post-Troubles society,
and becomes more blatant in its recruiting practices.But then the attempt to ‘normalise’ the position of the
British armed forces in the whole of
Ireland
should be resisted. This
has come up recently in relation to reports written by an Irish man serving
with the British Army in
Iraq
whose reports have been carried by the Irish Times. While different views were
expressed in the letters page on this, some correspondents to that paper
expected that
Ireland
should ‘grow up’ and tolerate this.
What is there to tolerate? Militarism? Mercenary soldiers? Illegal and immoral wars based on false premises? It is noted that
letters written by the coordinator of INNATE, pointing out that some of us have
difficulty with anyone being in military uniform let alone fighting in other
country’s wars, were not published by the paper in question. There is an
antimilitarist tradition or traditions which, while small, are nevertheless
significant but can be invisible when the powers that be, whether in
government, local government or the media, choose to ignore them.We are here, we will not be going away, and we believe our
views will increasingly gain more support as people realise the foolishness of
militarism and the dangers of European and NATO military hegemony. At a time when the Independent Monitoring Commission in
Northern Ireland has judged the IRA Army Council to have fallen into abeyance
(by choice within the military republican structures to discontinue meeting),
we would be pleased to see the British Army command structures collapsing in
Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the UK. Why should the IRA be alone in
disbanding? What gives the state the right to armed force? ‘Remember the golden
rule – whoever has the gold makes the rules’. That, however, is all another
day’s work.
Eco-Awareness Eco-Awareness
Larry Speight brings us his monthly column:
Elected ministers, prime ministers and presidents revel in
their leadership status and the accompanying perks. Yet there are urgent issues
in which they show no leadership at all, most notable is climate change.
Climate change, as scientists continually remind us, is an
ongoing event caused by the emission of global warming gasses, which may,
within the life-span of most people alive today, bring an end to civilization.
This is hard to imagine without the realization that the
global economy is gratis of a healthy biosphere. If this collapses, which it is
presently doing under the onslaught of massive deforestation, the death of the
seas, and climate change, then the world economy, which provides us with life’s
essentials, collapses as well.
It is because of what is at stake with climate change that
the failure of our leaders to do what they were elected and are paid a handsome
sum to do, is so apparent. An example of this lack of leadership was
illustrated at the G8 summit held in
Japan
earlier this year.
At the summit the G8 leaders issued a statement on climate
change in which they vowed to “consider and adopt” a target of at least a 50%
reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Critics say that without a baseline, a
date against which this 50% cut would be measured, the target is meaningless.
As reported in The Guardian, 9th July 2008, Tom Picken of Friends of the Earth said: “Setting a vague
target for 42 years’ time is utterly ineffectual in the fact of the global
catastrophe we all face.” Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the South African minister of environmental
affairs and tourism stated that: “As it is expressed in the G8 statement, the
long term goal is an empty slogan.”
Oxfam described the deal as tepid and little more than a stalling
tactic.
Even if the G8 leaders were sincere, the UN development
programme estimates that 50% reduction by 2050 would lead to a 4C increase in
temperature, and catastrophe. What is needed is an 80 to 95 % reduction of
global warming emissions against 1990 levels, starting today. To set this in
motion requires leadership.
Leadership is more than attending lavish dinners, wearing
sharp suits and being driven about in petrol-guzzling cars escorted by police
outriders. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1983) informs us that
leadership means: “To guide by persuasion; to conduct by argument, to induce;
to engage; to direct by one’s example; to form a channel into; a connecting
link to something.”
The G8 leaders, and those of other countries influential on
the world stage, show none of these qualities, most especially “to direct by
one’s example”. None would dare suggest that the idea of endless growth is an
illusion, that it is the cause of climate change, the loss of biodiversity and
mass poverty, not the solution.
The lack of vision and compassion by our so-called leaders
reveals them to be a part of the herd.
This fact means a rethink by all of us.
|