Category Archives: Foreign Affairs

OJ Revisited?

Posted on by

The Oscar Pistorius story has all the ingredients of a Shakespearean tragedy, complete with sub-plots. The lead actor, a man struck down by a terrible handicap, yet blessed with the courage, determination and skill of a Greek hero, picks himself up, challenges the world and wins. His reward is universal fame and adoration, untold wealth and power and a beautiful girlfriend to match. Then, it all goes horribly wrong. His girlfriend is murdered, seemingly by his own hand. He is hauled before the courts like a common criminal, his reputation in tatters, his world turned inside out.

The initial facts of the case, as presented in newspapers across the world,  seem totally convincing and damning. Pistorius, the owner of a hand gun, fires that gun four times at his girlfriend who had apparently locked herself in the bathroom in the early hours of St Valentine’s Day. Neighbours report hearing the sounds of a violent argument prior to the shooting. Nobody else was present even though Pistorious maintains that he thought he was shooting at an intruder – through a locked door. On those facts you’d be forgiven for thinking that a conviction is a mere formality. I wonder.
Oscar Pistorious has money, lots of it and he will use it all should it be required to keep him out of prison. Already (and we are only in the preliminary stages of this case)his expensively hired lawyers, the best that money can buy, have made significant progress on behalf of their client and have secured for him an unlikely bail. Even so, surely  justice will be done and a conviction will follow? I wouldn’t bet on it, money talks and the more you have the louder it talks.
 Remember that famous, wealthy American sportsman, who a few years back, seemed to have been caught  bang to rights for the murder of his wife? Well, he was acquitted after a brilliant performance by his lawyers, who managed to convince a, no doubt, star-struck and impressionable jury of his innocence. The Oscar Pistorious case could well turn out to be O.J. Simpson revisited.

A Sense of Perspective

Posted on by
There are many things that irritate us during our mainly hum-drum lives, the car won’t start, the combi  boiler has packed in yet again and somebody’s just spilt a glass of red wine on our brand new beige lounge carpet. We grimace, we curse and we rage against the cruel injustice of it all. For a short while we really do feel that sometimes life is just a wicked conspiracy against us. Then something puts it all into perspective.

Last night, BBC television screened a programme about a Jewish lady called Henia Bryer who lived through the Holocaust.  This lady, now well into her 80s and living with her family in South Africa, told the incredible and harrowing story of how she survived internment in four concentration camps, lost her father, her brother and her sister and witnessed the cruel torture and extermination of countless victims of Nazi oppression in the 1940s. She endured a time of such horror that few can imagine in spite of the now familiar black and white film footage of death camps like Auschwitz and Belsen.

The pain must live with the poor lady every waking moment yet, throughout the interview, her courage, strength, humility and dignity shone through like a beacon. No viewer could fail to have been deeply moved by what they saw. To say that it was humbling would be a gross understatement. Maybe sometimes we need to see something like this to make us realise just how unbelievably lucky most of us really are.

Islamic Extremism

Posted on by
The recent slaughter, in Algeria, of twenty three international workers (including six Britons) by Islamic Militants at a BP owned gas plant was a sickening reminder that the problems of terrorism are still with us and a reminder too that the evil tentacles of these fanatics are able to reach out to virtually any part of the world. Our Prime Minister said that the war against terrorism could take decades to win, if indeed it is winnable, and his warnings are not to be taken lightly.

Closer to home, yesterday’s Sunday Times (a paper not known for gratuitous sensationalism) contained a report that white people in the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest are being apprehended by Islamic vigilantes, seeking to impose Sharia law, the law of Islam. Evidently these vigilantes, calling themselves the Muslim Patrol, have forced whites to pour away cans of alcohol and have told white women wearing short skirts to cover themselves up because they are in Muslim districts where Sharia law applies. Further, it is common in these areas for advertisements deemed offensive to Muslims, such as adverts for ladies’ underwear, to be defaced and homophobic graffiti to be sprayed on buildings.

How do we react to this in a balanced, rational manner without fear of being branded intolerant and reactionary and without upsetting the liberal sensibilities and politically correct thinking of those who rule us? Well, let’s start by saying that there is one law in this land for all of us, the law of statute and common law. Secondly, there is no place for vigilantes since we have a police force to patrol the streets and enforce that law. Thirdly, if people do not like the law then they can seek to change it by democratic means.

This is the United Kingdom and that is how it works. We respect the rights of the individual, we respect and defend the freedoms of speech, movement and association, we are a free country and a democracy. Men and women are equal in the eyes of our law.

It is outrageous that any group should illegally and arbitrarily seek to impose their views, religious or otherwise, on their fellow citizens and such behaviour should be dealt with quickly. We can only hope that the authorities have the political will to act because if they don’t the road ahead is dangerous indeed.

Gun Control

Posted on by

It may be three thousand miles away but what happens in the USA inevitably resonates in this country . Thus, the recent murders of 20 school children and six adults in a Connecticut school evoked the same feelings of outrage and horror n this country as they undoubtedly did  over there. It may not be our problem, but who could fail to be moved by the slaughter of so many innocents and why do such atrocities seem to occur with such alarming regularity in the USA?

For all the fact that Americans speak the same language as us they are a foreign nation and many of their customs and habits are radically different to ours. The right to bear arms is one such custom, enshrined as it is, in the Constitution dating back to 1776 when the newly proclaimed nation was fighting for its very existence. The carrying of guns made sense in those dangerous and lawless days but does it still? The USA is now the world’s most powerful nation and is, ostensibly at least, a leading light for freedom and liberty. In the 21st century isn’t the carrying of guns something of an anachronism?
The gun lobby in the USA is immensely strong and influential in American politics and any attempts by the more enlightened members of society to curb gun ownership have always been comfortably defeated by those in favour of guns. Even the President has shied away from conflict with the gun lobby but this latest atrocity, plus the Christmas killings of fire fighters in New York State by another psychopath have brought the problem to the fore yet again.
From this side of the pond the problem seems almost beyond our comprehension. The growing opposition to gun ownership is perfectly understandable but I can also understand the views of the traditionalists eager to hang on to their constitutional rights. However, surely there has to be some middle ground? If a person is a deer hunter in the wilds of Wyoming or Colorado then he or she should be allowed to own a rifle but that ownership should be firmly regulated and licensed. I can also see why somebody living in the wilds might want to keep a gun for personal protection. Moving into the cities and suburbs however I cannot see any need or justification for keeping or carrying guns for personal protection provided the police do their job properly.
As for the ownership of assault rifles capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute, a type used increasingly in these mass murders, there can be no justification whatever. These horrific weapons by their very nature are designed purely and simply for killing people and the only place for them is the battlefield and never in the home of the ordinary citizen. Surely that must be obvious to all but the most unbalanced members of the gun lobby, though those particular members seem to be rather significant in number.
It’s incredible that, in the two weeks since the school murders, national sales of guns have actually gone up and the protestations from the gun lobby have grown louder. President Obama faces a difficult task indeed in dealing with an issue that is clearly firmly entrenched in the American psyche. In the long term he may well achieve his aims but how many more innocents will be slaughtered before his opponents finally see sense and allow the law to be changed?

Pawns in a Deadly Game

Posted on by

Another exchange of rocket fire, another flattening of a frontier town, another period of killing and, finally (following the usual voicing of concern by the UN) another ceasefire. To be followed in a short while, no doubt, by a repeat performance. Such is the reality of life in the Middle East.

The latest ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas ruling party of Gaza, announced a couple of days ago, is yet another in a near constant struggle following the creation of the new state of Israel, and subsequent displacement of Palestinians, back in 1948. No matter who is to blame, and whatever the views of many western politicians, the problem is deep-rooted, extremely complicated and is unlikely to be solved without a great deal of compromise and sacrifice from all concerned.

The tragedy of Israel and Palestine is that, as always in struggles for power and control, the victims are the same. Those who suffer most are never the politicians, the religious leaders, the generals and the men of power. No, the people who shed their blood and who lose their homes and meagre possessions are the poor, the weak , the vulnerable and (such an irony) those who want peace the most, the women, the children and the fathers and husbands working hard to support them.

Jew, Arab or Christian, it makes no difference. Most people in the world wish only to be left alone to get on with making the best of what, for many, is a short and often difficult time on this planet. The tragedy is that, for many, it is a wish that will never come true. They remain pawns locked in a deadly power game over which they have no control.

Nuclear Catastrophe

Posted on by
                                                               
Fifty years ago this weekend the world stood on the brink of nuclear oblivion as the USA and USSR squared up to one another over what is now referred to as the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is no exaggeration to say that had the crisis of October 1962 ended differently the world’s history would have terminated on October 27th, 1962. Our planet really was that close to Armageddon.

After the end of World War II an “Iron Curtain” (as Sir Winston Churchill put it) came down between the forces of the West, led by the USA and the forces of Communism led by the USSR. Those two nations became engaged in a nuclear arms race and by the turn of the 1960s had accumulated enough weaponry to destroy each other (and the rest of the world) several times over. The period, known as the Cold War, was a time of great tension and the whole world watched nervously as these hugely powerful nations squared up to one another.

The crisis occurred when the USSR, in retaliation against the USA’s placing of nuclear weapons on the territory of their near neighbours Turkey, accepted an invitation by the American’s sworn enemy Fidel Castro, leader of Cuba, to place nuclear missiles on Cuban soil. This was a step too far for the Americans who hitherto had not been exposed to the same sort of direct threat of nuclear attack that they had imposed upon their enemies. The crisis escalated when the American President, John F. Kennedy, demanded the removal of the missiles and placed US forces on the highest possible alert for war. Negotiations proved fruitless and when an American spy plane was shot down in Cuban airspace the world held its breath and nervously awaited the descent into oblivion.

Fortunately, it never occurred because the Soviet leader, Nikita Kruschev no more wanted war than Kennedy and the USSR agreed to the removal of the weapons in return for a secret agreement by the Americans to remove their weapons from Turkey. The crisis was over and twenty seven years later , in November 1989, the Cold War was over for good with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the break up of the Soviet Union.

The question is have we learned from this and, perhaps more importantly, is the world now a safer place? The answers are not too encouraging because although the USSR is no more and Russia and America along with China have a reasonable dialogue and mutual respect and understanding their nuclear weapons remain. Worse still, there has been a proliferation of world wide nuclear capability with nations such as India and Israel joining the club and the very real possibility or probability of rogue states like Iran joining them. Add to this the relentless spread of world terrorism and the threat of Al-Qaeda then it is difficult to say that the world is a safer place than it was fifty years ago.

All we can hope is that those former combatants, Russia and America, and the rest of the civilized world, for that matter, remain committed to peace. We must hope too that they remain vigilant and do all they can to prevent the type of weapons that so nearly destroyed the world all those years ago from falling into the wrong hands now.

Protecting Children

Posted on by

Sky News featured a story over the weekend on the alarming rise of gang-related child abduction in India, one of the world’s so-called emerging nations and one of the fastest growing economies.  Evidently the abduction of young Indian children has reached epidemic proportions with an estimated one child being taken every eight minutes. That works out at just under two hundred a day or a staggering fourteen hundred a week. Investigations have revealed that, once enslaved, the children are used as either cheap labour in one of the country’s thriving factories or as prostitutes.

The Indian government, not surprisingly, are extremely concerned by the situation and questions are being asked as to whether or not the police are doing all that they can to safeguard the welfare of their children. A national register has been set up with the idea of posting on it a photograph of every child in the country to assist in tracing anyone unfortunate enough to be abducted. It seems a good idea but how effective will it be in a country of over one billion people and with wide scale poverty among the lower classes, many of whom undoubtedly slip under the State’s radar?
Abuse of children has always seemed to me to be the worst type of human abuse since children are naturally so vulnerable, trusting, innocent and weak. Any State that cannot look after its most vulnerable members can barely refer to itself as civilised and I’m not singling out India here. Closer to home we have been faced with a barrage of tales concerning the late Sir Jimmy Savile and whilst, initially, there may have been doubt at the allegations made against him one year after his death their sheer volume can only lead one to the conclusion that here was a man of at least questionable behaviour but more likely, as many have claimed, a paedophile. I just hope that the investigation, and there will undoubtedly be a national enquiry, is calm and well balanced, concerning itself only with truth and fact and does not degenerate into a witch hunt.
In the meantime, all any of us can do is to educate and alert our children to the dangers of the world, to warn them against the wiles of some adults, not just strangers, and to encourage in them the use of common sense. We mustn’t overdo it though because there is still a lot of good in the world and a sizeable majority of people are undoubtedly thoughtful, decent and kind. It would not be right to bring up a new generation of untrusting, hard-faced, bitter, cynics. No, that’ll come soon enough with middle-age!
.

Screaming Infants

Posted on by
Air Asia announced yesterday that, as from February next year, adult passengers will be provided with a “quiet zone” on their planes free of charge. This, of course, is due to the epidemic of noisy babies and/or badly behaved children who disrupt the flights of others. Anybody, who has been awoken from their in-flight slumbers by the banshee-like howl of a distressed infant or been bashed on the back of the head by an out-of-control brat in the seat behind you will welcome this news.

After a couple of weeks working away, I, like many travellers, crave the rest that a long haul flight can bring and am delighted that, at last, something is being done about this problem. I don’t take issue with anybody who takes their infants on long journeys (but why anybody would take a 6 month old baby half way across the world on holiday is beyond me) and I accept that people have the right to travel where and with whom they like. That right does not extend however to making the lives of the people around them a complete misery. It happens a lot and I once endured a transatlantic flight (and believe me, that’s the right word) where a baby, who was evidently not ill, but who simply required some attention, cried the whole time.

Much of the problem is down to bad parenting and a lack of common sense. If an infant is distressed then the poor child should be comforted and not left alone to scream to the heavens. If the child still requires comfort then surely it should be given a bottle or a dummy. Some parents don’t believe in giving their children dummies and clearly don’t give a monkey’s about the concerns of their fellow travellers.

This move by Air Asia is a good one and long overdue. On every flight, worldwide, there should either be a baby and child-free zone or a separate area, like a crèche, purely for occupation by parents with babies and children. For busy routes maybe they could even have their own plane where they can exercise their right to scream and run around to their hearts content. The rest of us can then exercise our right to some peace and quiet – if only.

Abuse of the System

Posted on by

US Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney put his foot in it this week – for speaking the truth. He stated that a sizeable proportion of the American electorate can be written off or discounted as possible Republican voters because they rely on government handouts. He was referring to those Americans who, he said, do not pay income tax, who believe that the state’s job is to redistribute wealth and who believe that they are victims. It sounds familiar doesn’t it?
In the USA the Republican Party like the Conservative Party in this country (well traditional Conservatives at any rate) believe that people should be encouraged to stand on their own two feet and should be rewarded for their honest endeavours free of unnecessary interference from the state. Conversely the Democrats like the Labour Party in the UK believe in big government and state control and thus are the favoured parties of those (among others of course) who prefer to claim benefits rather than work for a living.
Perhaps it was a truth that was best unspoken except in the privacy of his own home or at Republican Party HQ but it was still the truth. As long as Romney’s Republicans, and the Conservatives  here,  remember that there are those who genuinely cannot work and who need and deserve our support – people such as the infirm, disabled, elderly and those who through no fault of their own are genuinely  unable to find work then what he said is fine.

A Strong America

Posted on by

The recent attacks on American Embassies in Libya and Yemen are a worrying development in the continuing struggle against Islamic Extremism. Whether the attacks were as a result of the recent release of a low-budget film allegedly mocking the prophet Mohammed or a protest against American foreign policy nobody can say for sure but if the attacks continue to spread then the whole of the Western World has a problem.

Embassies, situated as they are in foreign lands,  are regarded by international law as sovereign territory and any attack on that territory is regarded as an attack on the Embassy’s country itself and thus technically an act of war. It is the duty of country in which the embassy is situated, the host country, to protect the embassy from acts of violence by its own people and so in this respect the governments of Libya and Yemen, such as they are, have failed in that duty.
In the USA, argument now rages between Republicans and Democrats as to whether or not the Democrat President Obama (and therefore America as a nation) is perceived as weak, giving encouragement to Islamic extremists to carry out their atrocities. If that is the case then we should all be greatly concerned.
There are those, of course,  who are fearful of America and fearful of any American misuse of power, particularly under a Republican Government (which may well come to power later this year). Be that as it may, there is no doubt whatsoever that in these increasingly dangerous times the world needs a strong America, with a strong president to protect us all from those who would destroy us.