War on Iran
The crazies are still in charge
Donald Trump is just one of many US presidents to start wars that made little or no sense to anyone thinking rationally, let alone about peace or political progress. There is the old maxim that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (attributed to Lord Acton late in the 19th century) – however Donald Trump was already highly corrupt before he got one form of absolute power in becoming commander in chief of the USA armed forces when president. But think back to the Iraq war, the Afghan war, the Vietnam war (among others), all wars within living memory which US presidents have started and backed to the hilt – and all completely disastrous. There was no basis in international law for any of them but US presidents tend to think in terms of ‘US law’ – what they can so as the world’s No.1 superpower – rather than international law.
And clearly Trump is Bored of Peace as well as being, literally, the Board of Peace – and as a result around 150 children died in one school in Iran. Pax Christi International’s statement on the ‘Board of Peace’ is at https://paxchristi.net/pax-christi-international-updated-declaration-on-the-so-called-board-of-peace/
Joining with Israel to attack Iran is a nonsense and destabilising for the whole Middle East. Given that it is highly unlikely US boots will be committed to walk the ground in Iran, aerial attacks are extremely hit and miss. Military targetting may be much better than in the past, as shown by the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but trying to achieve regime change in Iran – if that is Trump’s aim – by aerial bombing is so blunt an instrument that it is likely to be useless. In the mean time many thousands will die, the plight of the Iranian people as a whole will become even more intolerable, and the regime may simply regroup and rebuild its power which had become much shakier after recent events and brutal repression within the country. For how long does the USA keep bombing?
We use the term ‘crazies’ in the title of this editorial in a very loose sense, not literally, but of people doing ‘crazy’, counterproductive things. Donald Trump may be a capricious, narcissistic, megalomaniac egotist but he is not insane. He does what he can get away with to assuage his ego and hunger for power, results and instant gratification. The political system in the USA, along with its culture of greed, brought him to the top; we are not saying the people who voted him in were necessarily voting out of greed, undoubtedly some were, but many more were voting for Trump because they suffered from the greed at the heart of the US system.
Bringing about change and some measure of democracy and human rights in an autocracy like Iran is not easy. Donald Trump is seeking easy and simplistic answers insofar as he might be thought to be seeking any kind of answers. Military power can destroy, it can sometimes force results, but it is difficult for it to build long lasting change. And defections from the military are much more likely to happen in a nonviolent campaign for change than in a war situation; this makes regime change unlikely under attack. And even totally destroying somewhere is not a guarantee of regime change – Israel’s annihilation of the infrastructure in Gaza and many of its people did not dint Hamas control there.
Cowardly European leaders have tended to call on Iran to stop its attacks while not saying ‘boo’ to the USA for instigating the war. Meanwhile, will we see the Irish government acting to end US military use of Shannon Airport? No. Micheál Martin has expressed “deep concern” about the attacks and said that “Ireland has always believed that conflict should be resolved through diplomacy and negotiation, in line with the principles of the UN Charter and international law.” If that is the case he has a strange way of showing it and should immediately put a stop to US military use of Shannon. He has neither the inclination nor the courage to do so. Thus the crazies and their violence are continuing to be supported by the Irish government.
Northern Ireland
United we stand?
– But in a United Kingdom with Northern Ireland as a member or in a united Ireland?
‘The facts speak for themselves’ is sometimes used when people are looking at a well defined issue and someone judges that ‘the facts’ clearly indicate one definite conclusion. But it is also true that even in a simple case, ‘the facts’ may mean something different to a person looking at the matter from a different perspective. And when it comes to a complex and contested issue like United Kingdom/United Ireland the facts can be interpreted in wildly different ways and through totally different tinted spectacles.
Let us take the simple fact that life expectancy in the Republic has outpaced the North over the last couple of decades to stand at up to two years higher. Fact. But what does this mean? Does this mean people in the Republic are overall healthier? Is it because they are wealthier? And then what is wealth in a high-wage, high-cost economy like the Republic? Who can actually afford what and where? What about the long shadow of the Troubles, in various effects, and its impact on life expectancy in the North? Is the health system working better for people in the Republic while the NHS in the North struggles, or are both struggling differently? Or are people south and west of the border choosing a healthier lifestyle which then makes them live longer – and people in the North could do the same? Would people in the North be happy to swap what they have, free at point of delivery for everyone (that is, if it delivers) for the system in the Republic?
Thus there can be no one firm conclusion drawn from a simple fact like the above when so many other issues are at play. Yes, we can make some limited conclusions and surmises but that is it. And when it comes to all the other issues in the two jurisdictions in Ireland, things get mighty complicated, and ethnic and national allegiances come to the fore. One recent fascinating attempt at demystifying issues and looking impartially at United Kingdom/United Ireland possibilities is the ARINS (Analysing and Researching Ireland, North and South) book by journalists Fintan O’Toole and Sam McBride, “For and against a united Ireland” where they both summon up their best arguments – for both sides. It is a brilliant concept and one which we can learn from. We all have a lot to learn and walking – or talking – in someone else’s shoes is a good way to do it.
INNATE works on an all-Ireland basis. While individual members would have their own views, the INNATE policy is to let people, both North and in the Republic, decide in an informed way – and that, given the prejudices and shibboleths which exist on all sides is a difficult task. The Good Friday Agreement is far from ideal in that it allows for a referendum to decide the issue on a simple 50% + 1 basis, that referendum to be called by the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should they think there might be a simple majority for change.
It is unlikely that there will be agreement across the board to change this stipulation in the Good Friday Agreement and it is a simple, majoritarian decision. If the lead up to such a decision was inadequate, and the aftermath botched, the result could be disastrous whether it was a narrow majority for a united Ireland or a larger one. And if the decision was for the status quo, a close decision could also be problematic. It would have been much better if there had been a multi-option referendum but we are where we are.
And given that, there are processes which are needed at different stages – now, during the run up to any referendum, and afterwards. Society would need work like that done by Community Dialogue writ large; discussing the important issues in a supportive manner with clarity on issues and options. And in relation to that the Irish government should be now initiating discussions in the Republic about what proper engagement with this might entail rather than having some of the somewhat simplistic and blanketed reactions that exist currently among the citizenry.
Of course nothing is decided until everything is decided but the Irish government should be engaging with issues for a united Ireland such as welfare and pensions, flags and emblems, and devolved government (including but not exclusively whether there would still be a regional assembly at Stormont) as well of course human rights and cultural guarantees. This may not be done currently partly in deference to unionist susceptibilities but the thing is we know what the North looks like in a United Kingdom but very little about what a United Ireland would entail.
Part of prior decision making in regard to a referendum on a united Ireland should be a policy for the process afterwards, should there be a vote to change. A transition period of seven to ten years, a decade, seems a reasonable time frame for a transition. The vast majority of unionists and loyalists are currently unwilling to discuss issues to do with a united Ireland, even what guarantees they would want, because they regard that as antithetical to their cause, but if the writing is on the wall then that vast majority would certainly engage.
The Republic has been getting closer and closer to NATO and EU militarism over the last few decades so the assumption might be, or seems to be for many people, that a united Ireland would join NATO. However neutrality is popular with citizenry in the Republic and with nationalists in the North so it should not be assumed that there would be a further sell out to international militarism in a united Ireland. Of course citizens in a united Ireland should be free to go off and join the British armed forces if that was their choice – much as we would like to discourage it – but for the new state to fully join NATO – even as opposed to the fellow traveller nature of the relationship currently – would be a highly retrograde step. Currently the principles of neutrality are ignored and avoided by many in the Irish establishment and sometimes, as with US military use of Shannon Airport, there is a total failure of courage to stand up to the world’s No.1 economic and military power. But perhaps change can come and, once more, Ireland will be properly engaged with peacemaking on the international stage.
– – – – –