Clarifying My Pacifist Views on the Collective Events in the Middle East

I am inclined to add "Pacifist" to my tag line. Yet, if you had asked me before this week, I would have been inclined to say I had no opinion.

Watching Civil War

The "domino effect" we have seen this year, a running commentary making 24hr news more like a dystopic thriller, has become both hyper real and surreal.

However, my refining of my own opinion has been shaped by this occurrence. It is an abomination to a utilitarian, to consider mass pain and suffering in countries, it appears to negate the greatest good, but that is simply me being risk averse when looking at society.

I disagree with the arms trade in principle, it is too great a risk. But arms is a global economy, and speculation has been made about how many arms the UK supplied to Gadaffi, and to Mubarack and to any other "regimes" that may fall in the next year.

But even though there is severe human rights abuse being reported, I am uncomfortable with the idea of invasion, conquering, putting right or which ever spin the army who does so chooses to use.

The danger to me is firstly, the political elements of war. We saw in Iraq, which the majority of people opposed, the political motivation superseding a social welfare need. The politicians may have claimed people's rights were a motivation, they may have sort justification in Sadam's oppression of the people, but the reality is our politicians were motivated by Oil. Or capitalism, as an overarching premise.

We now see horrendous abuses of human rights, far worse than Iraq, but not quite on a Polpot level, and information reveals that Libya is the largest exporter of crude oil in the world.

And, all of a sudden, the people who waxed lyrical philosophies of democracy about Egypt, but did very little, are travelling around the middle east, meeting with the UN and flying troops to Malta.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's pure cynicism.

I abhor human rights violations, but ultimately, the idea of breaching morals with invasion and conquering, almost appals me more.

Ministry of Truth

There has been a subtle shifting in the nuance of the term "protest".

The word is defined as

1. To express strong objection.
2. To make an earnest avowal or affirmation.

However, the colloquial interpretation has shifted.

When students protested, older (and wiser) people compared them to those who protested over human rights in the 1960's. Pejoratively.

Now we see the true levels of protest in the Middle East, in this so called domino effect, as a ripple of democracy spreads and people challenge their autocratic leaders.

The changing of a word's meaning is frightening, and can create a pattern of emulation. Words take on new meanings in dialect, but those words then inspire actions, motivate and inspire people to embrace and utilise the new meanings of the words. If protest no longer means civil, if protest now means challenging oppression, what does that mean for protest in countries without oppression on such a grand scale?

Setting Up Custom and Practice

The person who set themselves on fire in Tunisia established the same act to commence the Egyptian revolution, and then in Libya, and Yemen and a handful more. While it is not a rule, it is logical to preclude all demonstrations with self harm to establish a point. Harm to myself is less important, is less severe, than a democracy for the nation.

By such a grandiose stance, there is an established baseline for any protest to be considered "seriously" in the future.

Now the TUC protests in March, what is the likely outcome?

We have already seen an escalation of activity by students and by #ukuncut; and an escalation of police tactics in response. A spate of arrests and civil cases.

What precedent does this set for UK protests in 2011? Especially with the Middle East providing a structure to follow.

Selling Arms

There are several things that strike me about Cameron selling arms in the Middle East at the moment. First, the inappropriateness of the act, second, his strategic intention and third, his sheer temerity.

When someone told me Cameron was touring the Middle East with arms dealers, I thought it was a joke. Of all the insensitive actions..!

It translates to protesters as "UK is supplying dictators with arms" and to alleged dictators "UK is supplying protesters with arms".

To countries not experiencing protests on this scale, the UK becomes a potential avenue of support. To countries outside of the middle east, they see the UK as a major player in a potential globalised war.

This is Cameron's motivation. And, quite simply, identifies exactly where he stands politically in the uprisings. Cameron appears to consider that if he shows part of his hand, he can buddy up with who ever invades and gets the oil returns once the country has been regimentalised to a format of democracy he preaches.

That makes him no better than Blair. An Amoral Opportunist.

Worse, is his attitude. He is not apologising. He is not defending his actions. He is sauntering out to the Middle East and saying, hey, look at the UK. This is, admittedly, a common Tory Trait.

In the coalition, we see the Lib Dems apologising, justifying and working to make up ground, while the Conservatives march ahead without so much as an apology for their actions.

This attitude implies a lack of responsibility. The Lib Dems identify with democracy, utilitarianism and the consequences of their actions. The Tories do not, and, especially in relation to the Middle East, is a concerning trait.

Moss on a Rolling Stone

People have asked for my opinion. When I read Libya was the largest exporter of crude oil, I predicted other countries would be sniffing around this like dogs around a bitch in heat. I was right.

However, I'm not Edgar Cacaye, but I would anticipate historians will not be able to see the start of what happens clearly. Rather like the cold war, we are in the midst of events of grave proportions, where things are escalating at such a rate and this is just a the beginning stage. Where it will end, I can't say, but I fear war and unfair treatment, and I would anticipate, reluctantly, we will see both in the next few years as a result of the protests in Tunisia.

Apparent Victories Are Simply Short Changing the Public

I am fascinated by the Coercive techniques we are seeing used by the Tory-led coalition government.

Initially, I have been aggravated by kneejerk political reactions by David Cameron. His "Knife crime" policy reversal in light of tabloid pressure is a typical example.

Pre election predications on Knife Crime had the Tories arguing for custodial sentences. Yet these were abandoned under the coalition agreement (and, as one tweeter acknowledged, there were no demonstrations in London over this pledge breaking).

However, in a week of reactive responses to political situations, it is interesting to see coercian tactics subtly implemented accross the UK.

Bankers Bonuses

The Mirror headline "Cameron Caves in Over Bankers Bonuses" is epitome of a u turn in political terms.

While the Murdoch press were keenly promoting this positive spin, there is a clear message being presented to the people. They have been awarded a victory. A win, a success.

But what exactly have they won? As the more eloquent and articulate members of journalism and blogosphere are identifying, the system on Bankers Bonuses proposed this week is

Lord Oakshott presented a coherent argument, identifying the flaws in the plan. Yet he was quietly removed from the front lines by the Coalition, and while Vince Cable continues to admonish a war on bankers, faith in grass roots is very low and his comments have gone unmentioned in most mainstream press.

You see, if you threaten to do nothing, and then offer a little something, most people will take the little something as a win, not realising they had the power to negotiate the full deal.

Duped over Forrests

Bankers Bonuses, which caused vitriolic rows on BBC Question TIme last night is not the only apparent U Turn that has used this method. We see today an apparent change of heart over forrests.

Cameron proposed selling forrests off to private companies to raise funds. The greener populus exploded in venom, hashtags and questions at Prime Minister's Question Time.

As many politicians commented, the procedure was open to "consultation". A word which is more about fait accompli than anything else.

Consultation, which may have shown 100% of people against the sales, is now quietly being run after announcements today Some Forrest Sales will be Halted.

The key word there is "some". The public will quietly roll over and stop their moaning, and 85% of forrests will still be sold. Without the public outcry, the consultation will be barely responded to and there will be no legal basis for challenging the sale on these grounds.

So the public get a little bit of cake, when they could have had the whole thing.

What will we see in the next four years? A half hearted reform of the schools system? How about a quiet overturn on petrol prices?

Distraction

Not only do these coercive techniques quieten public noise, but they allow large scale reform to go ahead practically unchallenged.

While people were celebrating Osbourne's apparent change of mind on Bankers Bonuses, they missed the small announcement petrol prices would go up by 5p per litre in April.

While we celebrate over saving minimal forrests, we may be missing out on shocking proposals to leave the COnvention of Human Rights, or on Gove's disasterous court defeat over Building for Schools cancellations.

Of course, Mubarak's resignation is a significant event most people will be watching. But be aware that you may also be missing out on democratic opportunity to overturn unfair policy and legislation, and, ultimately, you should never settle for half servings in the name of victory.

The Perfect Advert and a Scathing Attack on Sally Bercow

It seems that Bill Hicks was something of a Nostradamus. Or a Cacye.

My husband introduced me to the joys of the humourous sociologist, Hicks, the man who said "The Human Race is a virus with boots". I think Hicks should be taught in Schools alongside Dirkheim, Giddens and Fauste.

Feminists all over the world have probably made this post already, but it was the link that caught my attention today.

Hicks said that the perfect advert would be acheived one day. This advert would be a naked woman, spreadeagled, with the slogan "drink coke".

The argument is clear, that pornography (any media that has no artistic credit and causes sexual thought) will ultimately drive the advertising industry, that people will subscribe endemically to one dimensional portrayal of the post modern pornography and therefore be coerced into purchasing any product thinkable.

And a huge exmaple of this in recent months is: Alicia Silverstone.



And so we have it. The perfect advert. By stripping a woman, you can sell anything.

Sex and Politics

Although, I am delighted to see that Sally Bercow, she who embodies the political Geri Halliwell (no talent, no skills and a grasping effort at celebrity), seems to have failed to sell the political world to the country in the main.

Hearing she was posing in a sheet for the Evening Standard, I was struck by her continuous, frenzied attempts to stay in media limelight.

To a politico, and to a feminist, she is saying to me she has completely subscribed to the structural ideologies of the modern world and demonstrating the perceived ability of a woman to be nothing more than an attention seeking, one dimensional, feckless lesser species.

The very pursuit of staying in the news, which she manages with the appaulingly obvious PR of a very fair weather politician, using sex, where, one can only deduce, she has no other talents to sell.

She may like to think she is the UK's answer to Carla Bruni, but in reality, she is simply politic's answer to Jordan.

Yet, to misrepresent Hicks's comments, she has failed to sell anything at all.

Perhaps, Sally, you may wish to try adding "drink coke" to your next news article.

Which I have no doubt will be about a car-key party, lesbianism or some similar attempt to recapture the public's shallow imagination.

Egypt and Euphemisms for Western Invasion

One can hardly avoid the uprising in Egypt in the last week.

However, I have serious objections to the strategic and motivated comments by the West.

Tony Blair, the most ironically titled man in the world as Middle East Peace Envoy, has been rendered to the back shelves of Radio 5 Live "taxi driver opinion" debates on the matter, which is more than he deserves.

However, Obama has been waxing lyrical in an attempt to win another Nobel for speculation, which, in my opinion, is simply preparing strategic and dangerous posturing.

Naturally, Europe cannot help but get their diplomats involved. And with this meeting comes a dangerous step.

Perhaps I am cynical. But we have seen too many invasions into other countries by the West with a hidden agenda, based on spurious justification of Human Rights, or some other politically motivated plan, which ultimately results in aggressive, nonsensical and aggressive wars.

Ultimately, the West has no place in designing another country's sociopolitical scope. We have no mandate to waltz in and enforce rules we live by. In this case, we are no better than the Europeans invading Easter Island, or the British enforcing Christianity on the Chinese.

I appreciate the need for diplomacy and fingers on the pulse. But I live in fear that we will stick our noses in, like NIMBYs, to ensure we reap any benefit that is to be had.

Liberalism v Democracy

To digress, this is the great conundrum of Liberal Democracy.

I believe in people power, I believe people will decide. If people are imposed upon with a overtly strict regime, people uprise. As we have seen in Tunisia, in Iran, in many other countries in the Middle East.

But I am too liberal to enforce democracy on people.

As the saying goes, Democracy may not be the best political system, but it is better than the alternatives.

Once upon a time, the West felt Christianity was the way to live, and implemented accordingly, dangerously ploughing through culture and societies accross the world. The surreptious aim, of course, was a Roman style obliteration of descent from the norm. Empire building. Fundementalism, if you like.

Is democracy the 21st Century's "fundementalism" in the West?

Euphemisms,

Getting back on track, individual countries should have no mandate for interfering in social regimes, unless those regimes are great oppressions of human rights.

And even then, it is the UN that should tackle and address the issue.

If human rights were realy the motivation in "diplomatic talks" (today's new euphenism), then US would have had such over Polpot, over Mugabe and over many, many other crises accross the globe.

Which brings me to believe that such talks are motivated by an entirely different mandate, and threaten to bring more harm to the middle east as it seeks to shape it's self, than they could acheive on their own.

A Final Note

I completely support the uprising in Egypt, where it is peaceful. However, while I watch, I do not interfere.