The Golden Strawberry

There has been much talk in the media about how George Bush will be judged by “history”. Andrew Roberts, for instance, has a piece in the Telegraph about how history will show that George Bush was right, and a piece in Commentary Magazine says something similar. The latter piece is worth reading if you fancy a giggle.

This seems to get our priorities wrong. We don’t know what the judgement of “History” will be, What is important, if anything, is how we see Bush’s Presidency now.

The assumption seems to be that “History” is an impartial, unbending, unequivocal final judgement. It has quasi-religious undertones. If you substitute “History” and put the word “God” in its place, the statement sounds ridiculous. In this context, history has become a secular “day of judgement”. This isn’t correct at all. “History” in this case just means a body of work by academic historians. Even in Birmingham’s history department, where I am studying at the moment, there is a whole range of nationalities, classes, political views. historica approaches and methods. Extend that to history departments all over the world and you have lots of different historians from a myriad of different backgrounds. The only thing they have in common is that they study the past; the views and approaches they bring to that vary from historian to historian.

In the future, as now, those historians who defend Bush, and those who attack his record, will do so on the basis of their ideological views and assumptions. Neo-con, Republican, “right-wing” historians (such as Roberts) will defend Bush’s record. Tim Montgomerie at Conservative Home has been putting together reasons to defend Bush’s presidency. True, it is a bit like saying that ‘the Titanic might have sunk, but my, weren’t the curtains excellent?’. But any historian concentrating on, say, US aid to Africa, or development history in general, may be more sympathetic to Bush than historians concentrating on Bush’s military and domestic record.

By the same token, leftist historians are likely to see Bush as a disaster.  It all depends what priorities historians have. Even King John, commonly thought to have been one of England’s worst kings, received some sympathy with historians in the early twentieth century. John left many government records, and historians, who like having lots of records, praised his efficient royal goverment. The fact he seems to have murdered his nephew and was a military disaster was neither here nor there.

Even so, we cannot look to the future, where historians, with the benefit of hindsight, will “pronounce” and give their unwavering verdict. These will change over time - the repuation of most English monarchs has altered, and keeps altering, throughout history. We cannot and should not try and second-guess them. For now, all that matters is that Bush has helped leave the world in a giant train wreck, and now it falls to others to get us out of this mess.

Cory

In November I interviewed Norman Finkelstein, the infamous academic and writer. This is the interview I sent to Redbrick. It got slightly tweaked there, but here it is in full, unedited glory:

Norman Finkelstein was at the University of Birmingham giving a talk called “Israel and Palestine: Roots of Conflict, Prospects for Peace”, arranged by the University’s “Friends of Palestine” society. He is one of the most controversial academic writers on Middle Eastern politics. Finkelstein’s most famous works, and one of his most controversial, is The Holocaust Industry. Published in 2000, its central thesis is that Israel exploits the memory of the Holocaust to cover up its own human rights crimes. He no longer holds an academic position of his own. For six years he taught at DePaul University before being denied tenure there in 2007. Although never out the news, what we discussed in the interview seems more relevant than ever, after hostilities broke out once more in the Gaza strip.

 

How does Finkelstein think we can create “roots for peace”? “The UN General Council proposed a two-state settlement based on the June 1967 borders. All world votes and the same group abstain: Israel, America, Marshall Islands and Australia.  There is no debate on how to solve it – it’s the least controversial international dispute.”

 

Why does this not happen? “For the same reason the British didn’t leave India until after World War Two. For the same reason France didn’t leave Algeria. Power doesn’t concede without a demand. The Israelis have to be forced out.” Can it be done peacefully? “No.”

 

This seems a little extreme. Both Israelis and Palestinians are limited in their ability to compromise by their extremist elements. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a member of a far-right Orthodox Jewish group in 1995 for merely proposing that Israel should withdraw from the West Bank. Similarly, Hamas, who won the Palestinian Authority elections in 2006, do not even recognise Israel has a right to exist.

 

We talk about Barack Obama’s victory in the US Elections, which at the time of the interview was only four days old. Finkelstein sees the election as a significant moment. “It is a genuine credit to the American people. The early part of my life [Finkelstein was born in 1953] was not much past the era of black lynchings. Now they have elected an African-American as President. You would be blind to deny something fundamental has changed for the better. I am hardly a flag-waving patriot, but you have to look in honour and respect of what happened.”

 

Finkelstein, however, continues by saying: “Obama is a typical centre-right Democrat. I have no expectations. His Presidency will be similar to the Clinton era but without the economic prosperity, in a general and literal sense.” He gives the example of appointing Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, a former member of the Clinton administration. Finkelstein then goes one step further. “Barack Obama is a typical wretched opportunist conman”. He must have noticed my eyebrows raise at this comment, because he continues: “He is! I don’t see why we should be politically correct about these things.”

 

Finkelstein does not think Obama’s election will see a great change in America’s Middle-East policy. “It will probably get worse, because he has to prove to the world he is not a Muslim”. So what does he think of the comments of “Joe the Plumber”, who said that Obama’s election would lead to the death of Israel? “In America the political system is detached from reality. Some of the labels they were giving Obama – calling him a socialist and a communist – I wish they were true!”

 

On Finkelstein’s personal website is a link to a piece entitled “In Defence of Hezbollah”. In 2006 he met one of their top officials in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s military wing is considered a terrorist organisation by the British government. Why does Finkelstein think they should be defended? “Because of the same reason the Communist parties helped end the occupation of Axis forces during World War Two. Whatever you might say about Nasrallah, is he really more brutal than Stalin?” That would admittedly take some doing, but Nasrallah did say that it’s alright for all the world’s Jews to live in Israel, “because it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide”, which doesn’t sound like the talk of a reasonable man. In any case, is comparing ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine to the occupation of Europe by the Nazis a little unfair? “You can use any you like. It is still an occupation. The resistance in Afghanistan versus the Soviets were the same who would turn into Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Nobody minded when gave we them weapons to fight the Red Army.” I am not convinced that comparing Israel to Al-Qaeda is an altogether more flattering comparison.

 

Norman Finkelstein paints a picture of a world where the only wrongdoers are the United States and Israel. The reality is not that one-sided. The rockets that Hamas are firing into Israel do constitute war crimes. Israel is surrounded by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and countries like Iran, who wish it wiped off the map. Hamas is a vile group of Islamists who are suppressing dissent in Gaza and lead an increasingly authoritarian rule. But the international community’s shunning of Hamas since their election win in 2006 has only made the situation worse. To use a cricketing analogy, you can only bowl to whoever the opposition send in to bat. The only way to make peace is to somehow negotiate with Hamas.

 

At the time of writing, a ceasefire has been declared in Gaza. Over 1000 Palestinians have been killed, including 350 children. Israel and its supporters maintain that the firing of rockets into Gaza is justified, after Hamas fired rockets into Israel, and that most of those killed are Hamas operatives. But you cannot fire rockets into an area the size of the Isle of Wight with a population of 1.5 million and then be surprised that the your killing of innocent civilians is condemned worldwide. Peace in the Middle East is increasingly elusive, and I am sure that many will think I am a fruitcake for even thinking you can negotiate with Hamas. One thing is for certain: rockets are not the answer.

 
Cory

I’m too preoccupied with essays at the moment to do any lengthy blogging, I’m afraid. But here are a couple of things you should read. One is essential, the other is so you can have a giggle.

First up, read Lasantha Wickrematunga’s piece on CiF now. Don’t do anything else. Just read it. All. NOW.

It was good, wasn’t it? A great reminder that a) Britain is NOT, yet, in any way shape or form a police state; and b) That it’s worth fighting to keep it that way.

Of course, it’s also more than that. It’s the spookily prophetic voice from beyond the grave of a principled and courageous man. Hopefully the newspaper he helped found will live on.

Secondly, somebody writing on the Daily Telegraph advocates a return to the Gold Standard. Nope, seriously. It’s so funny it’s tragic….

Cory

It is incredible, in this era of 24-hour news coverage, that places like Guantánamo Bay and the goings-on there are not reported in the newspapers every single day. Instead, we hear stories like this in the Guardian:

“A British resident facing the death penalty at Guantánamo Bay has made a desperate plea for Gordon Brown to end his six-year ordeal and bring him home.

Binyam Mohammed, the only remaining Guantánamo inmate with the automatic right to British residency, has written to the prime minister pleading with him to use his influence with the US president, George Bush, to stop a US military court sending him to his death.”

Although this story made the front page of the Independent, according to Politics Home there are precisely no column inches dedicated to this story in the Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian (although only on their website) and the Daily Mail. No other tabloid saw fit to cover this story. Instead, the front page of the Sun website at the moment says that Naomi Campbell may face jail. Strewth.

I wonder if Gordon Brown will send Binyam a personal phone call, like he has to some of the other people who write to him:

“Dark days call for direct measures, which perhaps explains why Gordon Brown has taken to cold-calling members of the public who write him letters of complaint.

Although the majority of queries and complaints written to the prime minister get a polite, generic letter in reply, as many as two dozen people a week get a personal telephone call from Brown, according to sources close to Downing Street.”

I doubt it somehow.

It’s nice to end posts on a cheerful note, so here is an anecdote (which may or may not be true) from the latter article which I enjoyed:

“The prime minister apparently made one of his first calls at what was for him the start of his working day. ‘Brown made a phone call at 6am, without thinking,’ a Labour source told PR Week. ‘Luckily the person he called was a shift worker, so he was awake.’”

Cory

Whilst working late yesterday, I was watching BBC News 24’s coverage of the primary elections. There was footage of Hillary Clinton shaking hands with her supporters, and smiling that far-too-fake smile; the one that looks as though she’s a guppy fish that’s just been told that it’s won the lottery.

The reporter said something to the effect of, “Hillary Clinton looks very upbeat here. Maybe she thinks she can still win this nomination”.

Of course she does. Despite the fact that the numbers are against her. Anyone who thinks they can be named after Sir Edmund Hillary despite being born six years before anyone had heard of him, or who says she was shot at by snipers in Bosnia when she was actually greeted by small children is obviously self-delusioned. Despite it being virtually impossible for her to win the popular vote for the nomination, Hillary still obviously believes she can win. And it doesn’t matter if she drags her party down with her.

Cory

And I’m talking about February 29th rather than a few minutes ago:

1) Hilary Clinton is even more of a ruthless, pathological liar than was previously thought. Still, my position still stands that Clinton would be a better President than McCain, and Obama would be a better President than both of them.

2) Nick Clegg is a sex god. Having talked to friends in the Lib Dems about the shenanigans that happen at their party conferences, this does not surprise me in the slightest.

3) Diana was not murdered in a conspiracy perpetrated by the entire British establishment. I don’t want to dwell too much on this story; it’s boring and unless you’ve been on Mars there’s not much I can add for you anyway. The best thing to come out of all this might be the ruining of Paul Burrell’s reputation, who has made too much money from knowing Diana for too long.

4) Moons can have wings too, apparently. Just ask Rhea.

5) Vietnam have banned hamsters. They cause disease, apparently. Even more disturbing is the fact that hamsters have been “a hit with the young population of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, spawning a whole sub-culture of hamster forums and hamster clubs”. Hamster clubs?! Spooky.

6) Britain’s immigration system is disgusting and disgraceful. And not because they let too many people in, but because the powers that be seem intent on sending people back to their deaths.

7) Robert Mugabe might be Zimbabwean President. Or he might not be. It would help if we had the results, but fingers crossed - he may be gone by the end of the year.

The England cricket team are slightly inconsistent. But did at least win a Test series overseas for the first time in yonks, which is pleasing.

9) Oldham Athletic are similarly inconsistent. Manager John Sheridan said after losing 3-0 to Swindon (Swindon! of all teams. Words fail me): “I have to bring in players who are consistent — the magic word — and who will play week in, week out. If we are to go anywhere we cannot have players who only perform once a fortnight.” The solution, obviously, is to bring in 22 players, and rotate the teams every fortnight. You get a perfect performance every time.

10) And finally….don’t let fat rats into electric power stations. Chaos ensues.

Cory

“Cricket civilizes people and creates good gentlemen. I want everyone to play cricket in Zimbabwe; I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen”. Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe said this in 1984. These words now sound hollow – Zimbabwe both as a nation and a cricket team is in dire straits. Since 1999 Mugabe’s “land reforms” involved seizing land owned by white farmers without paying any compensation. This caused food production to plummet, thought to be the chief cause of hyperinflation. Inflation in Zimbabwe is estimated at 5000%. Men’s life expectancy has declined from 60 in 1990 to just 37 years in 2006. Women’s life expectancy is even lower, at 34 years. What was Mugabe’s reaction to this? To build a £2 million museum, the size of a football pitch, dedicated to his life and achievements.

 

Zimbabwe’s best cricketers have left the country, and many now play in the English domestic league. Their replacements are youngsters, only about the standard of average club cricketers. They are due to tour England next in 2009, and the British government may ban the team from touring because of hostility to Mugabe’s regime. This is not the first time this has happened. In the 2003 World Cup England refused to play in Zimbabwe because of “safety fears”, after much dithering from the Labour government and the England and Wales Cricket Board.

 

Zimbabwe have not played Test cricket since 2005, but still play in international one-day tournaments. Some feel that their involvement in international cricket legitimises Mugabe’s rule. It is to be hoped that Brown takes a more forceful role on the Zimbabwe question than his predecessor. For all Tony Blair’s talk of “liberal interventionism”, his government’s spineless attitude to Zimbabwe was another foreign policy disaster. Firm action is needed to help a nation in crisis, and that requires far more than merely banning its cricket team.

Cory

Hullo all,

I believe this is my first post this year, so first of all I hope your 2008 is going smoothly. I hope to be posting more soon (don’t I always say that?). Here’s something I wrote for Redbrick about the American elections. It’s not that long, but they only gave me 550 words to play with. And cut most of that out in the paper. Hey ho, here it is:

The most important event of 2008 is happening thousands of miles away, and we can’t do anything about it. Republicans and Democrats are currently choosing their American Presidential candidate, while the world looks on impotently.

 

Trying to choose a favourite Republican nominee is like trying to choose which debilitating skin disease you’d rather have. John McCain seems the only (relatively) sane one. Rudy Giuliani has been described as “George Bush with brains”. If he’s only half as dangerous as that implies, we should still be very worried.

Mitt Romney is trying to be everyone’s friend and failing spectacularly. He is both for and against abortion, for instance. Romney is also a Mormon, and anyone who thinks that the Garden of Eden is located in Missouri should be ridiculed at length. He has, however, been criticised by some for not being Mormon enough. Only in America…

The final frontrunner is Mike Huckerbee, whose contribution to the religion debate was: “Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn’t, so I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict”. So stupid it’s hard to know where to start. Its only possible merit is that on reading it Richard Dawkins might spontaneously combust.

It seems very likely that a Democratic candidate will be in the White House come 2009. John Edwards’s grass-roots campaign is stalling, because America doesn’t have a trade union movement worth basing a campaign around. The two main contenders are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

How can Clinton portray herself as the force for change? You wouldn’t see Norma Major or Cherie Blair campaign for Prime Minister on a similar platform. Hillary unexpectedly won the New Hampshire nomination, seemingly because she shed a tear at a question and answer session. It proved she was human, with proper emotions and things. But surely weeping isn’t a basis for a long-term political strategy? If it is, Hillary should just replace herself with a crying statue of the Virgin Mary. It would save her a lot of effort. The statue would at least pull less ridiculous faces.

She is leading a negative campaign against her fellow Democratic nominees, forgetting they are all on the same side. Supporting the Iraq war is one thing. The problem is the fact that she didn’t actually read the CIA’s document on Iraq’s WMD before she voted for war. In all fairness, Clinton would probably be a competent President, maybe even reaching half-decent on a good day.

However, the only credible change candidate is Barack Obama. He may not be the new Messiah, but he makes people feel good about themselves. None of Hillary’s negative campaigning for him. We haven’t seen much substance yet, but Obama’s policies will be tested now he has emerged as a serious front-runner. On foreign affairs he seems sound, at least. He advocates talking to the leaders of Iran rather than blowing it up. And unlike Mitt Romney, Obama believes in ending Guantanamo Bay rather than extending it.

It’s still early days. February 5^th, or ‘Super Tuesday’, is a date for your diary. On that day twenty states vote at once for their nominations. By then we may be in a clearer position to know who will compete for the job of US election. One thing’s for sure: whoever wins has to be better than George Bush. Hopefully.

Cory

I don’t know enough to comment, but this at the Daily Maybe looks like a good place to start for the confused and ignorant, like myself.

Cory

Oliver Kamm is getting desperate. He is a good blogger. He has a tendency to sound like the most pompous bloke in the room, but his posts are always elegantly written and packed full of interesting facts. But he really needs to give up on the neo-conservatism. His latest post, which is an attempt to call into question Johann Hari’s spot on reading of neo-conservatism here, is the work of a man who is trying to cover up his horrendous misjudgement by nit-picking and needless pedantry. The elephant in Kamm’s room is a huge number of dead Iraqis and a failed state swamped with terrorist nutters.

Kamm was wrong, about the whole thing. I think he needs to get of his high horse and admit that, before he digs himself any deeper into a hole. Maybe its harder to do that when you are as obviously amazingly intelligent (he speaks German! and French!) as Kamm is, I wouldn’t know. But what I do know is that the invasion he (and I, at the time) backed has killed 500,000+ people.

He can quote as many books about the debates in US foreign policy as he likes, but it doesn’t change the facts about Iraq, and about the stupid, stupid bunch of callous psychopaths who launched it. Their incompetence really is breathtaking - I should know, for some reason I’ve decided to write my dissertation on the whole bloody mess.

-posted by Adam