As our MPs tonight debate whether we should begin bombing Syria the situation seems to me to have an awful feeling of inevitability. We have heard passionate views expressed on both sides – and in reality there is no single simple answer. If there were then I have absolutely, no doubts any politician would take it. But, in my view, given the virtual insolubility of the problem – whether or not to go to war – it seems totally wrong to take the most extreme option and "go for broke" - bomb and to hell with the consequences seems to be the message here. All logic and ethical standpoints would seem to me to point to caution, to holding back, not to take the worst case scenario. But there......what do I know?
Within this darkening scenario, however, there are one or two distinct pointers which for me confirm my position.
Firstly all I have heard today, and in the days leading up to this debate, is what amounts to the argument of the playground bully. The government is justifying much of the proposed military action on the basis of pre-emptive self-defence – the use of military force to prevent a perceived threat. In short, if we bomb Isis in Syria then it will deter or prevent them committing acts of terrorism in our own country. To say the least, this is a dubious rationale and on past experience unlikely to succeed. It certainly didn’t help in Paris three weeks ago. This rationale and justification has been used increasingly in recent years by the USA in various parts of the world – it has, in fact, almost become the sole justification for action. And yet when the Japanese used exactly the same logic and reasoning when they attacked the US navy at Pearl Harbour in 1941 they were vilified and declared to be “war criminals” by the USA. But whatever the historical context, for me this logic is the reasoning and the whining excuse of the playground bully – “I hit him first because I thought he was going to get me” – I’ve heard that many, many times over the years as I did playground duty. It never impressed me then and it still doesn’t today.
And secondly I am increasingly concerned about the language of the supporters of military action. It is nothing less than the language of the mob – “If you are not with us then you are against us”. There is no place for considered thought or nuance in their cries. This was made clear last night when David Cameron accused all those like Jeremy Corbyn and who hold anti-bombing views of being "terrorist sympathisers". As I heard this I thought “Well, that's me categorised then I await the knock on the door from the security services!”
As I thought of what he said I wondered did he mean it or did he (as many commentators infer) make this statement in the heat of the moment or in a fit of anger. Whichever, it raises in my mind the question as to how fit Cameron is to be PM. If he said it intentionally then he is making an accusation that he must substantiate. It is a serious accusation that not only the leader of HM Opposition but many thousands of loyal subjects who have serious reservations about the wisdom or the morals of bombing another country are now to be labelled "terrorist sympathisers". And, this accusation is made by the country’s leader too. It is the sort of pronouncement that a mad dictator might make of those who oppose him. If, however, carried away by his own rhetoric and anger Cameron made this comment in the heat of the moment then it seems to me that he appears slightly unstable – a worrying quality for someone who might one day have to press the red button of nuclear war. If he did say this in a fit of anger then he is simply shooting from the hip and if that is the case then I would question whether he is a fit and proper person to lead this country in these delicate and dangerous times. It seems to me that there can be no greater qualification for a national leader than that he shows measured and thoughtful wisdom, does not jump to conclusions or does not make hasty comments and decisions; given Cameron's outburst (and this is not the first example that we have had of it during his time as PM) it seems to me that he fails on more or less every point.
There is, too, another issue. A major reason (as I understand it) for considering bombing Syria is to bring some form of stable democracy to that troubled part of the world. My naive understanding of democracy is that all people in a democracy may hold varied views on matters of government, religion, life choices etc. It is, I would suggest, the very basic “freedom” promised by democracy: that we will not be vilified, abused or injured by those in power for the sincere beliefs that we hold. It is the very essence of Magna Charta which David Cameron was espousing only a few months ago on the 800th anniversary of its “signing”. I wonder, therefore, how David Cameron justifies his “terrorist sympathisers” outburst against another senior politician and many thousands of us subjects in what I thought, until today, was a democracy. As I understand it that is one of the very things that Isis supporters are doing in Syria and elsewhere – abusing and injuring Syrians and others who disagree with their view of the world. When one listens to Syrian refugees explaining their flight to northern Europe the one consistent thread is that they want to escape the terrible and dictatorial Isis regime in their homeland. They seek not only a better life but a life based on the sort of freedoms that democracy is perceived to offer. And, yet, they are making for a place where increasingly all reason and dialogue is being lost as extreme views begin to surface in our politics and societies; a place where our own leader seems happy to vent his spleen at those who would disagree with him. In situations like this there is increasingly less room for nuance and understanding and as we tumble into a war situation I have a distinct feeling that the mob and its political rabble rousers are in the ascendancy.
Oh for some quiet and calm reflection and thought. Read and listen to Jeremy Corbyn and he is clearly no less horrified, critical and damning of Isis than Cameron but he is more measured and thoughtful. Corbyn is no Shakespearian Henry V who will inspire his troops to great valour in battle; he is not a rabble rouser wishing or even desiring to lead the mob. But he is a sage who will tease out the real issues and try to resolve them. And I suspect, too, that the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, may be of the same persuasion. Williams famously said: “When I enter into a dialogue with a person from another religion, tradition, culture or belief I am not out to secure agreement, but to secure understanding" Amen to that. But dialogue, discussion and understanding are, it seems, not now on the table – Cameron is keen to let loose the dogs of war.
No comments:
Post a Comment