Sticks and Stones

Today, Venezuela ramped up the size of the military force on the Colombian border in an effort to show President Uribe of Colombia that President Chavez is tough, and means business. What Chavez didn’t realize is that the world now thinks of him as a posturing, menacing bully who is throwing a tantrum over an issue that is irrelevant to his country.

Chavez claims he acted in the interest of defending Venezuela from potential Colombian incursions, even though the entire episode was conducted in a jungle along the Colombian and Ecuadorian border, a jungle which does not have a line cutting through it and is totally lacking in border security, much to the chagrin of Colombia because Ecuador harbours FARC terrorists who move freely across the Amazon into Colombia. The real reason for this audacious force deployment is sheer braggadocio. And it comes at a time when the famously socialist politics of South America lacks a clear, distinct leader.

CIA’s World Factbook reveals that Colombia’s armed forced are technologically and numerically superior to Venezuela’s military, which makes Chavez’s posturing breathtakingly stupid. Not only is he endangering the lives of his soldiers, he is ruffling up South American politics needlessly. At a time when the continent needs to build on its successes and work out several current issues, including deforestation in Brazil, Argentina’s energy problems, and growing political tensions, Chavez’s foolhardy actions distract the the leaders of South America from addressing the real issues they face.

With Fidel Castro gone as the figurehead of South American politics, Hugo Chavez is attempting to step up into the now vacated position. To do this he needs a scapegoat, preferably one easily denounced for differing from the socialist norm popular across the continent. He needs a scapegoat that is successful despite choosing not to act in accordance with Fidel Castro. He needs a scapegoat with friendly relations with his enemies.

He needs Colombia, a nation struggling to combat vicious and illegal terrorism from FARC, a nation expertly steered by an internationally lauded Harvard-educated President towards successful democracy and capitalism. He needs to vilify Colombia, to threaten it with unfeasible military action, so as to cement his role as the figurehead of socialist South America. To do so, he will trample all over Colombia, he will denounce it as an American ally (which in South America appears to be a bad thing, as it is for Israel in the eyes of nearly all of the Middle East), and he will work to undermine its successes.

Reyes was a vicious terrorist whose actions within FARC threatened the safety of Colombians. It seems entirely irrelevant to Chavez that the assassination of Reyes was a very good thing. But for Chavez, who illegally supported FARC in its efforts to overthrow the legitimate government of Colombia, the assassination of Reyes was not a good thing, because the operation led to the discovery of a laptop linking Chavez directly to FARC.

As Fidel Castro exits, a new demon enters: Hugo Chavez. Venezuela’s rejection of his constitutional alterations is one hopeful sign. All of us at Sticks and Stones want to see more hopeful signs from democratic Venezuela, before Chavez eradicates democracy itself.

2 Comments

How often do we hear from know-nothing Christian pundits that the United States of America is founded on “Judaeo-Christian ethics” or “Christian morals”? In short, that the US is “a Christian country”? (I would supply a link, but I don’t really fancy trawling through Bill O’Reilly clips to come across one, thank you very much.)

Very well then. Let us explore some of the tenets of Christianity, as prescribed in that bible thingy they keep going on about, and see how familiar it is:

…that ye resist not evil… (Matthew 5:39)

The phrase “War on Terror” leaps immediately to mind. There are evil people in the world and, quite rightly, the United States has committed itself to doing everything within its power to combat them. What is more, under such a moral teaching the USA could do without a police force or even any justice system whatsoever.

…whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also (ibid.)

If the US followed this moral teaching, after 9/11 it would have invited al-Qaeda to take their pick of targets on the West Coast.

I was a stranger, and ye took me in (Matthew 25:35)

I was an immigrant, and I was deported.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9)

Seems a small point, but the freedom to divorce from a spouse is integral to the concept of personal freedom, and the secular USA rejects any notion of a “religious contract” that cannot be undone by us mere mortals.

sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor (Mark 10:21)

I’m no expert, but I’m fairly sure that the US infrastructure is based on a rather different economic model.

Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more (John 8:11)

This again, along with many other such verses, would leave many current judges without a means of income, and many chuckling criminals free on the streets.

At the name of Jesus every knee should bow (Phillipians 2:10)

One of a number of such exclusive verses, this has no resonance in the United States, where there is no coercion of religious belief, no religious test for public office, etc.

Feel free to add your own.

No Comments

This week, following the convictions of two high profile murderers using DNA evidence, senior police officials have called for the introduction of a national DNA database in the UK. The mandatory database would include the genetic code of all residents and visitors to the UK, regardless of innocence or guilt. The Government was quick to dismiss the suggestion, and I am inclined to support their decision.

It is revealing that the Home Office raised mostly practical concerns with the proposed scheme. Aside from the huge potential cost, they seemed to have realised that the public is becoming distinctly displeased with their losing of data on a truly impressive scale. Storing the DNA information of everyone in the country (even tourists) would, needless to say, pose serious problems were the information to get into criminally-minded hands. Aside from the (not improbable) possibility of the data accidentally being mislaid, we ought to be wary of who would have apparently legitimate access to the data. In early 2007, five civil servants who operated the database were arrested on charges of trying to steal information. The prospect of information loss, then, is not wholly unimaginable.

Even if the Government have learnt from their mistakes in data security, the so-called ethical issues are worrying nonetheless. It is all too easy to cry ‘civil liberties’ as an all-purpose, throwaway remark. Nevertheless, we are not unjustified in maintaining an inexorable opposition to being forced to give our details to such a database. It would erode both our privacy and our position as free individuals in a nation which has always prided itself in peoples’ right to be free from the prying eyes of the state.

Yet there is more to fear than an instinctive dislike. With a government which already seems bent on imprisoning innocent people who somehow have a predisposition to crime, we should be very worried about potential ‘genetic profiling’, even if it is only a distant worry. That it is becoming increasingly possible to uncover the predispositions and characteristics of a person from their DNA alone could make it a devastating weapon for anyone who wanted to weed out potential villains. These would not be thought crimes; worse, they would be genetic crimes: one could be guilty merely of having a genetic propensity to be evil. Once information is collected, it seems, there is no turning back.

Finally, the alarming chance for anomalies with the technology the database would use (Low Copy Number testing) is too great to detail here, but means that it will not stand as evidence in a US court. Reliance on such an unreliable system by the police could in practice hinder the chances of successful prosecutions in important cases.

It is not often that this Government decides in favour of our civil liberties. We should be mighty thankful therefore, that on this lonely occasion, it has.

No Comments

We were delighted with the recent declaration of independence by the fledgling nation of Kosovo, and glad that the major European countries and the US lost little time in recognising it. The reactionary reaction from the Serbs was as predictable as it is contemptible (strange how all of a sudden Serbia is so interested in international law, isn’t it?), especially with recent announcements that display a certain childishness inappropriate to international discourse. The idea of a democratic pro-Western moderate Islamic European (says their declaration: “we believe our future lies with the European family”) country is a promising one to say the least.

One country, however, that has conspicuously failed to recognise Kosovo is another young state, whose declaration of independence was met with even worse threats and acts of violence: Israel. It is not hard to see why this might be from a political angle. Supporting Kosovo would alienate Russia, whom Israel has been trying to court as part of their bid to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, though I personally don’t see that bearing fruit. Nor does it want to create a precedent whereby disputed peoples declare independence unilaterally, as the Palestinians have thought of doing in the past, while in the middle of peace negotiations - indeed, the comparison has been made.

This is the wrong attitude to take, for several reasons. For one thing, the above reasons are deeply flawed: Russia has never been a friend to Israel, and certainly isn’t on their side when it comes to Iran; and Abbas knows better than to declare independence not only when major powers will not recognise it, but when he has a willing partner in negotiations, which was not the case with Serbia. Rather, Israel should display camaraderie with its true friends, which includes Kosovo.

Hashim Thaçi, Kosovar prime minister, recently revealed the following to JTA: “I love Israel. What a great country. Kosovo is a friend of Israel. I met so many great leaders when I was there—Netanyahu, Sharon — I really admire them.” If nothing else, it seems exceedingly churlish and cynical for Israel to act in the way that it has.

But even from a political standpoint, a friendly Muslim state in SE Europe can hardly be a bad thing. Israel should not only be rushing to support such an effusive admirer, but should, along with Jews all over the world, be pouring investment into Kosovo to capitalise on this unique opportunity to improve Islamo-Jewish international relations. Kosovo has not forgotten Israel’s generosity, both in terms of aid and support during the crisis at the end of the last millennium, and nor should Jerusalem.

Israel would do well, as it approaches its 60th anniversary, to think back to the days of its own newly-declared independence. If Jews needed a Jewish state back then, how much more do they need a friendly Muslim one today?

3 Comments

They aren’t just his views. They are views espoused by millions of people across Europe. Young and old, man and woman, - and every shade in between. There are people of every race, colour, and creed who believe in the all-accommodating views of Rowan Williams. These views plague not just the Archbishop of Canterbury, but people from all walks of life. Across this great old continent, the birthplace of Enlightenment liberalism, a wave of this philosophy is growing in popularity.

This philosophy purports to be a pluralistic, multicultural creation. One that allows all people to live as they wish, practice their religion as they choose, and adhere to their societal beliefs in any country. If you do not know what this actually means, it can sound appealing.

An example from Slate illustrating why we must not subscribe to this philosophy:

Picture the life of a young Urdu-speaking woman brought to Yorkshire from Pakistan to marry a man—quite possibly a close cousin—whom she has never met. He takes her dowry, beats her, and abuses the children he forces her to bear. She is not allowed to leave the house unless in the company of a male relative and unless she is submissively covered from head to toe.

When your culture allows this to happen, when your customs, rites, and traditions infringe on the rights of any other human being (including those who claim to be of your religion, race, or country) they should not be permitted, in a free and just society. Which is exactly what we live in, and exactly what Rowan Williams threatens.

Rowan Williams’ all-embracing, non-judgemental philosophy is so dangerous not because we should place our civilisation on a pedestal as Fukuyama does. We must see the value in other civilisations, because many countries, including some in President Bush’s Axis of Evil, have glorious histories and inspiring traditions. It is so dangerous because all civilisations have deep flaws, and to indiscriminately embrace everyones’ flaws is calamitous, cruel to the subjugated, and an abandonment of real liberalism.

No Comments