I really appreciate your reply. I don't get the BBC television here though I do visit their web-page daily and see a lot critical of the war and the Bush administration and the humanitarian crisis there. I'm pretty sure the Japanese media is also critical (thought they outsource for journalists often). CNN on the whole wasn't and also isn't and I see this as a problem, as they can probably get tax-breaks or something from the Bush administration, as do Murdock's enterprises. I am aware that there is a lot of freedom of expression. From what you say, there is a lot more attention paid to individuals’ views than I realised. But I wonder if articulate intellectuals (Iraqi or Western) are given sufficient airtime. The reason I say this is that articulate criticisms resonate far more deeply and may contain more analysis. This analysis is the key, as it unveils underlying causes and perhaps intentions, in a way that an individual's views, however poignant, may not. It can present an alternative source of authority and understanding.
As for the BBC, it is their partisan emotionality that bothers me. From what I have seen of them, I get the sense that they are towing a 'pro-Arab' line rather than being impartial, and they do not seem to favour progressive elements in those regions. So, in a sense, they seem to prop up a dichotomy of the status-quo and those resisting it by force, which the BBC seems to have great affection for. This leaves progressive, rational elements without much support (trusting that they exist, though are drowned out by the radical elements). In my time of watching the BBC in the past I saw very little of interviews with Arabs and Jews who wanted to live in peace, which I expect isn't as 'sexy' or 'shocking' for viewers as outrages are. They actually give the impression of seeing terrorists who attack civilians as legitimate and seem to have little time for peacemakers.
I blame historical politics and policies for the situation, not religions or fiery temperaments, and believe that the failure to correct them has resulted in the present 'post-colonial' or even 'late-colonial' chaos. Many well-meaning Israelis I met blame the post-colonial borders for the trouble in the Middle-East. By pointing out humanitarian problems without delving into the source of them, the liberal media may win praise and viewers, but it won't help to help solve problems, in fact it may just numb viewers with horror. Such images certainly emanate a sense of hopelessness and despair. There are indeed no easy answers, though I believe stable and reasonable national borders are the real answer. Without this, civil wars may be unavoidable. Why are thousands willing to die in civil wars? Because they believe that their families or tribes will benefit in the long run. Why do they feel the need? Because it is preferable to being oppressed by another ethnic group, with a seemingly infinite antagonism towards them. The only answer to this, as far as I can see, is a federal system that grants the right of territory, yet also balances this with a co-operative system with other tribes or 'nations'. A rational solution that calms emotions by providing what they truly seek.
It seems quite clear to me that the media has failed us thus far to effectively challenge the 'right' of whoever is strongest to impose a 'winner-takes-all' answer to problems. By implicitly supporting groups like Hamas and calling them merely 'militants' they fail to recognise Israel's right to exist. By focusing on the 'Right' in Israel, they weaken those there who want to find a negotiated solution. By quoting Bush and Blair without presenting experts in international law in the same presentation they confer legitimacy on what would be considered the actions of 'Rogue States' were they 'foreigners'. They fail in that they don’t present viable alternatives.
International law, rather than seeming expediency, is the only benchmark for international relations. It is to everyone's detriment that this has been ignored by Britain and America, who pride themselves on being its chief enforcers. How could this have happened in such a spectacular and terrible way? Well, my analysis is as follows-
Realising they were incapable of otherwise gaining office, and unable to get enough of the mainstream media to support their more 'progressive' policies, the Labour and Democratic parties came to support the interests of big-business elites, at the expense of their traditional liberal values. These values were perhaps never real vote-winners as their immediate benefits are hard to see. Having done this, they watered down the available channel of opposition to big-business interests, which allowed the latter to consolidate, until we have the 'fat cats' and conglomerates of today. The gap between rich and poor widened and so did the sense of accountability held by the rich. So when a decision was made to blatantly breach international law, in the case of the Iraq invasion, there was no longer the traditional opposition to stop them. I don't count the general public or public opinion as opposition- I count a counterbalance in government, i.e. with power to effectively vote. Back-benchers could vote, but only as 'rebels' and thus even less effectively than when they could create a larger block vote with the rest of the opposition- much of it now pressed into a pragmatic silence to support their leader. It is a kind of Faustian Pact, in which the natural opposition supports what would be unthinkable for them otherwise, so as to have a taste of power. This breakdown actually didn't start with the Iraq war- it started with the war in Kosovo. This proceeded without security-council authorisation, yet with massive co-operation from the media, who seemed to believe that it was being done for 'liberal' reasons rather than to expand the reach of NATO. From my understanding, it's main result has been a kind of 'ethnic-cleansing' of Serb Christians from the region, for whom it is now unsafe.
It may seem legalistic, but for me the legal angle is the key- all governments by their nature seek national interest and their own survival. They can say whatever they like, but as leaders are great actors, we cannot know whether their intentions are hypocritical or not. We may not even be able to analyse their chosen courses of action easily on their own merits. Thus, we need an authentic and trustworthy benchmark- international law, agreed upon by the nations. With little internal opposition (in a position of power, which for me includes the 'opposition party' that parliament depends upon) and a lack of respect for international checks and balances, this was an accident waiting to happen.
If the BBC et all quoted lawyers and intellectuals more, then they would be more convincing and able to propose intelligent alternatives to senseless belligerence. Their seeming legal ignorance and accepting of operations so long as they 'seem to be going okay' makes their protestations when things go wrong rather futile. Supposing things were going wrong and everything was legal and necessary, however unlikely this may be, seeing as the law is our protection as well as our deterrent. What would they say then? I see sensationalism in the media, not reasonable, calm analysis. I see an obsession with results to the exclusion of causes, with the belittling of those intelligent voices who actually could guide us rightly.
Opposition is a check and a balance. We are now seeing, I believe, what happens when it is sufficiently emasculated and driven underground. Hopefully people will learn more respect for it now- it may not have the power to make decisions, nut it is a necessary element to challenge and deter wrong ones. In terms of Britain, I would hope that the Conservatives fail to recover and the Liberal-Democrats become an effective and respected opposition, as what they have to say may seem a little less naive and foolish now. In terms of the US, there are great swaths of 'Blue states' who voted against Bush, and perhaps at least in those regions opposing views will find a home and a voice- again, this time a respected voice rather than a mocked one.
As for the issue of troops suddenly leaving, well I can see that this could produce chaos, yet the present time seems to be one of chaos too- some would say it verges on genocide. You do have a good point about the French and Portuguese colonies, (though of course people there had less to lose there in the sense that they don't have oil supplies to sell), and this almost makes me support the 'Coalition's' presence. Yet, the early refusal to hand control over to a responsible body such as the UN is really to blame here, not the ethnic divisions themselves, which need to be governed and their energy channeled in every existing state. Images of tanks defending oil-installations whilst looting and pillaging went on around them spoke volumes.
People cannot simply organise themselves, they need government to do so, whatever region of the world we are dealing with. Even now, my prescription would be to somehow hand control over to the UN and let them organise a new government on a Federal basis, working with educated Iraqis to do so, as is happening in Afghanistan and happened in South Africa and many other places. People have similar needs everywhere and they can be understood and accommodated by trained professionals. The present plan, though, seems to be to maintain a puppet police-state. We will have to see if there really are elections in the future. Whilst I am sure a lot of Iraqis would like to see a real democracy, this would need a lot of nurturing, and I can't see anyone other than the 'good' UN having the time, patience, neutrality, or resources for that. I am aware of course that corrupt elements exist in the UN, but then again so also does a unique source of 'nation-building' resources and professionals. If the foreign troops are seen as a necessary evil, then surely more so the UN, who are actually competent at nation-building processes and respected by most people in the world today?
The only answer I can see to preventing this from happening again is a body powerful enough to be a fair and reasonable, yet powerful, 'world policeman' that can arbitrate and deter. An evolution of the role the US has taken upon itself, though with her recent swing to the right is less able to perform in a humanitarian manner. If the UN is now especially corrupt (i.e. the scandal of the oil-for food stamps) and controlled by dictators then we'll need a new institution, but letting superpowers run rampant is a terrible atavism. One that, I would think, the world will not accept.
No comments:
Post a Comment