Axis of disbelief

Axis of Evil - Iran, Iraq, North Korea
Axis of Terror - Iran, Syria
Axis of Hypocrisy - United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Israel
Axis of Disbelief - Me, and, I hope, others...

In 1969, the United States government put two men on the moon and got them back to Earth safely. It had never been done before. It was hard and it was dangerous. Hopes were high and generations were inspired to make the world a better place. Now they don't have either the willingness or the ability to condemn the killing of civilians by a 'friendly' nation. It wouldn't be hard to do. Hopes aren't high any more. New generations are being inspired to hate and kill and destroy.

Either International Law means something, or it doesn't. If a country is not willing to stand up and support the Geneva Conventions, then they should publicly announce they don't require their citizens to be protected by them in the future. In the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, the reluctance of the US government to enforce International Law, and the continued disproportionate condemnation of the parties involved, both the US and the UK have proven themselves to be entirely unqualified to mediate a full and just settlement. Only nations that can show themselves to be even-handed when it comes to condemning violations of International Law on both sides of the conflict (such as France, much as it pains me to say that as an Englishman...) have any hope of instilling trust enough to negotiate a lasting solution. Nations that refuse to publicly condemn one side's killing of civilians while vocally condemning the other side have no place in the peace process, and should withdraw completely.

It's no wonder that the conflict continues when the Western world continues to pursue foreign policy that implies the life of an Arab or a Persian is not of a significant enough value to attempt to intervene, but stating those same Arab or Persian populations are the only ones holding up the peace process. The implication that the lives of two soldiers could ever justify, in the eyes of the international community, a nation killing over 300 civilians of a neighbouring nation (so far) has wide-ranging ramifications for global terrorism and warfare.

Perhaps there has been pressure behind the scenes, but politics is not just about what happens, but what is seen to happen in the public domain. If the West continues to condemn unreservedly groups that see themselves, and are seen by large numbers of the Arab and Persian civilian populations, as resistance fighters against the occupation of Palestinian land, but refuses to condemn Israeli actions that violate International Law then they cannot complain when they are not trusted in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. The world is not blind, and contrary to popular belief (and the actions of governments) does have a conscience. The West also risks destabilizing nations that may be considered friendly now, when their inaction is seen as a weakness by their populations.

As I said before, either International Law means something, or it doesn't. I find it hypocritical that Israel's ambassador to the UN calls for the full implementation of Resolution 1559 (disarmament of Hezbollah and other militant groups in Lebanon) when the world has been waiting 40 years for Israel to implement Resolution 242 (withdrawal to Israel's 1967 borders), especially when it can be argued that some of these militant groups (or terrorist groups if you prefer) have only come into existence because Israel has continued to occupy Palestinian land in violation of a unanimously-passed UN Security Council Resolution.

I am disgusted that the number of civilian casualties on both sides of this conflict has yet to spur the international community to act beyond putting out facile statements urging restraint. Restraint that has so far failed to materialize. I feel sick seeing that my government has failed to even mention that what both sides are doing violates International Law and the perpetrators will be held to account. I feel pessimistic about the likelihood of a lasting and just peace in the Middle East when the world's most powerful nation sits by and lets any nation or group (friend or foe) make a mockery of human rights, International Law and the Geneva Conventions without so much as a warning that there will be consequences. I am angry that the theoretical power of the UN has been continually stifled by the permanent members of the Security Council using the veto for the sake of their own best interests (or in the case of the UK it seems for the interests of the US).

I hope the world turns it around. I truly do. If not only because no power lasts forever, and if the power shifts before I die, I don't want to be punished by the new power for the avoidable mistakes and the inexcusable inaction and posturing of most Western governments today. The hegemony of the US is in decline. It may not be a Western power that picks up the slack. There's a saying in business. Be nice to the people on the way up - you may meet them again on the way down. Perhaps someone should write that on a piece of paper and slip it under one of the doors of the Oval Office.

Democracy - a cruel joke, or our only chance?

Hitler was elected. George W Bush was elected (well, sort of). Tony Blair was elected. It maybe unfair to lump those three together, but then life’s not fair is it? Even in a democracy. If Democracy is such a good leadership philosophy why are there so many important institutions not run democratically? Autocratic institutions abound in democracies. Institutions where quick and decisive action is required are usually autocratic as it takes too long to have a vote. Institutions where considered and qualified debate or expertise are required can be autocratic as not everyone can be an expert in everything. Both extremes of the spectrum.

Think of it another way. You need brain surgery. Shall we vote for who gets to do it, or would you prefer a qualified surgeon? You need to be protected from an invader. Shall we vote how is best to do that, or shall we get the Army in? Yet rather than vote in someone qualified to run, say, the Department for Education, the Prime Minister gets to appoint an elected Member of Parliament. Some would say that those in the Civil Service are the qualified ones, and they can guide policy. But they don’t get to choose policy, only work out how to make it work. Taking advice is one thing, but how many politicians get expert advice before they choose their platforms, let alone before they are put in charge of departments? The Civil Service goes in the direction where Ministers point.

Even organizations set up along democratic lines have built in autocratic tendencies. Take for example the United Nations Security Council. It has five permanent members. When a vote is taken in the Security Council, each of these five members has the power of veto. The veto is not a tool of democracy, it is a tool against it – so why was this measure included in the UN charter? Because it allows these five members (the winners of the Second World War) to make sure that they can’t be forced to do something they don’t want to by the majority. It doesn’t sound like a resounding endorsement of Democracy to me. It is a fight between the recognition of the ‘fairness’ of Democracy against the idea that these five nations won’t be dictated to. But Democracy means that the majority can and should be allowed to dictate to the minority. And I’ve not even mentioned that ambassadors to the UN are appointed, not elected.

So is Democracy really anything more than institutionalized mob rule? Doesn’t Democracy just give the majority authority to make the minority obey? The problem being that once the elections are over, the electorate become the minority, while the elected become the majority, until the next election. We like to fool ourselves that the elected were voted for after an enlightened debate on the issues, not the personalities or personal histories, and actually work for us. Is that really true? After all we don’t vote to decide what happens, we vote for the people who decide what happens, usually based on general allegiances, not specific actions promised by the candidates. In effect, we vote for the least worst option, as it’s unlikely that we support every policy of any party. Is that the best way to run a country? The check is supposed to be that if they don’t do what the electorate wants, they get voted out. But after they’ve had the opportunity to do the damage…and who do we vote for instead of them?

Democracy is seen as the best option as the majority does not trust the minority (whether qualified or not) to make decisions on their behalf. The majority are simply not willing to risk relinquishing the authority. The image of the majority treated as children who need to be told what they can and can’t do is akin to modern day accusations of the nanny state destroying civil liberties in debates about the rights and wrongs of public smoking. Where do you draw the line? If you ban smoking on health grounds, should you not ban unhealthy foods? Then other unhealthy activities, starting with extreme sports, perhaps? “It’s for your own good” only allows you to go so far. Democracy as an ideal requires the involvement of all, at a level of understanding that simply does not exist in today’s world, based on an understanding of the ‘common good’. Many chose not to be involved, by not voting, or by not looking deeper than general party lines. Can Democracy be effective in a world where not everyone is even willing to take part? Is it the desire to retain power but relinquish responsibility? To be taken care of up to a certain point and then left alone? Democracy, however, does not cater for the individual unless they form a part of the majority. Individual ideas of where the line is drawn become an average, as abstract as the idea of the average person, of average height, weight and hair colour.

Power corrupts, they say. Does it corrupt elected officials any less than anyone else? Was Britain any better or worse under the rule of a powerful monarchy? Or do we just like democracy so we can say “well, he was bad, but next time we’ll vote in someone better.” Or is democracy just a way of limiting the amount of time someone has to do damage before we can get rid of them and vote for someone else? Is Democracy in fact just a damage limitation exercise?

And how exactly do you square Democracy with Capitalism? Capitalism is all about the pursuit and accumulation of wealth, and by necessity taking it or withholding it from others. Capitalism is necessarily selfish and about the betterment of individuals. Democracy is about inclusion – one person, one vote, everybody having their say. When it comes down to it, which is a priority – Democracy or Capitalism? Looking at the world today where the most powerful countries struggle, not to spread Democracy, but to work in their own best interests (interests mostly measured in terms of Capitalism and it’s apparatus) sometimes at the expense of Democracy (how many democratically elected governments are there that powerful nations refuse to even acknowledge?) it seems Capitalism comes first. Is it like the rich man who says money isn’t everything? Do you need to be a successful Capitalist society before Democracy can really take hold? Is it unreasonable to expect the less powerful nations to be successful in terms of Democracy, when they aren’t successful Capitalists? Does a Capitalist society encourage or discourage, support or erode Democracy?

Someone famous said that Democracy is the worst political system in the world – except for all the others. Perhaps that’s right. Perhaps it’s as close as we can get to a perfectly fair system. I’m not so sure. I look at the world around me and it doesn’t shout out “DEMOCRACY IS BEST!” It shouts “MONEY IS BEST!” Maybe it’s a problem of self-promotion. Shouldn’t we strive to find a better way? Maybe what could be better is a benign dictatorship. Someone who is qualified to do the job rather than some smug, soulless popularity contest winning politician in bed with powerful lobby groups or religious factions. The problem is that no-one who would be good at the job could ever get it. Even if they wanted it. In a Groucho Marx sort of way, anyone who did want the job by definition shouldn’t get it (along the lines of “I wouldn’t join a club that would have me as a member”). So how do you even attempt to get someone who is qualified? You can’t just take out an ad in the paper. Who decides what qualifications are required? Would I trust someone installed as an absolute ruler? Not unless it’s me, frankly. And if I wouldn’t, I can’t expect anyone else to. Would I trust them any less than I trust some of our current batch of elected representatives?

Now that’s a tougher one to answer. But will I vote? You’re damn right I will.