I
pledge to respect the importance of refugee protection, including in
wide-ranging debates about immigration, and, if elected, to uphold the
proud tradition throughout
the UK of welcoming people forced to flee war and persecution and
helping them rebuild their lives.
The UK has not always been kind to refugees but it should be. Particularly since our wars in the Middle East has created so much of the refugee flow!
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Monday, 22 May 2017
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
Syria: No rush to war
Joan Ryan has asked for her constituents views on today's Commons vote on military action against Islamic State in Syria. Here is the substance of my response to her:
1. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iraq again, Syria. The recent Western track-record does not encourage confidence in the judgement, or even truthfulness, of our MoD-intellgence-military complex. The situation is visibly worse than pre-911 and much (not all) of the worsening is due to Western military action.
2. No military action is defensible except in pursuit of a clear and defensible STRATEGY. I see no sign of such a strategy and it may be that no such strategy is possible. Intervention without a strategy is no more than revenge or macho posturing and is more likely to cost lives than save them.
3. There is one partial exception to this analysis. The Kurdish forces are disciplined and effective and the Kurds are trying to build communities based on mutual tolerance and democracy. Their attempts may fail but they seem to be the only communities even trying to go in the right direction. I think we should support their efforts and this may require limited military action in Syria as it has in Northern Iraq.
It would be good to have a solution to the region's problems which are both serious and contagious. But I have yet to hear one. To kill civilians without a reasonable hope of a good outcome is simply outrageous.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Since I wrote this Joan Ryan has announced her support for airstrikes against ISIL in Syria.
1. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iraq again, Syria. The recent Western track-record does not encourage confidence in the judgement, or even truthfulness, of our MoD-intellgence-military complex. The situation is visibly worse than pre-911 and much (not all) of the worsening is due to Western military action.
2. No military action is defensible except in pursuit of a clear and defensible STRATEGY. I see no sign of such a strategy and it may be that no such strategy is possible. Intervention without a strategy is no more than revenge or macho posturing and is more likely to cost lives than save them.
3. There is one partial exception to this analysis. The Kurdish forces are disciplined and effective and the Kurds are trying to build communities based on mutual tolerance and democracy. Their attempts may fail but they seem to be the only communities even trying to go in the right direction. I think we should support their efforts and this may require limited military action in Syria as it has in Northern Iraq.
It would be good to have a solution to the region's problems which are both serious and contagious. But I have yet to hear one. To kill civilians without a reasonable hope of a good outcome is simply outrageous.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Since I wrote this Joan Ryan has announced her support for airstrikes against ISIL in Syria.
Monday, 19 October 2015
Climate schizophrenia
The USA is a mighty strange place. It produces some of the world's best scientists and most effective technology entrepreneurs. It also produces a political culture dominated by money and fiercely hostile to anything that challenges the power of the ruling elite.
Only in the USA do we see so many powerful politicians in simple denial of the facts that world temperatures are rising and will continue to rise unless we active decisively. It's not because the USA is magically exempt from the consequences of climate change. Quite the contrary:
Sea-level rise: A recent study by Princeton scientists has confirmed predictions that sea-level will rise 1 metre by 2100 and continue to rise thereafter. The land on which 30 million Americans live will ultimately be lost to the sea. Threatened cities include Boston, New York, Miami, New Orleans Long Beach and even Sacramento.
But all that's decades, even centuries, in the future. Is the problem a kind of short-sightedness? Well not really. Here's what's under their noses.
Drought. California is in the fourth year of a severe drought, the worst in its history. This has produced forest fires that have killed six people and destroyed 1,000 homes (New Scientist, 26/9/15, p5). The effect of climate change is easy to understand here. Apart from just drying out the vegetation it makes precipitation fall as rain, which runs off, not snow, which would replenish the underground aquifers.
Or is the USA still so obsessed with the Middle East that nothing else registers? Again no.
War. Syria's civil war began with protests in cities like Homs and Hama in 2011. Conditions in these cities had been exacerbated by Syrians seeking refuge from the 2007-11 drought, the most severe on record. And the severity of that drought was due to - have you guessed? - climate change. Actually Syria's rainfall has been declining for about fifty years whilst its population has risen four or five fold in that same period.
Of course, it's never just climate change. Population growth, rising consumer demand, religious extremism, government policies - or the lack of them - and just bad luck are all part of the causal chain.
It's just that so many US leaders refuse to see the obvious for fear that they'd be obliged to support policies of restraint that would threaten their comfort and the profits of their corporate sponsors.
But you knew that, didn't you?
Only in the USA do we see so many powerful politicians in simple denial of the facts that world temperatures are rising and will continue to rise unless we active decisively. It's not because the USA is magically exempt from the consequences of climate change. Quite the contrary:
Sea-level rise: A recent study by Princeton scientists has confirmed predictions that sea-level will rise 1 metre by 2100 and continue to rise thereafter. The land on which 30 million Americans live will ultimately be lost to the sea. Threatened cities include Boston, New York, Miami, New Orleans Long Beach and even Sacramento.
But all that's decades, even centuries, in the future. Is the problem a kind of short-sightedness? Well not really. Here's what's under their noses.
Drought. California is in the fourth year of a severe drought, the worst in its history. This has produced forest fires that have killed six people and destroyed 1,000 homes (New Scientist, 26/9/15, p5). The effect of climate change is easy to understand here. Apart from just drying out the vegetation it makes precipitation fall as rain, which runs off, not snow, which would replenish the underground aquifers.
Or is the USA still so obsessed with the Middle East that nothing else registers? Again no.
War. Syria's civil war began with protests in cities like Homs and Hama in 2011. Conditions in these cities had been exacerbated by Syrians seeking refuge from the 2007-11 drought, the most severe on record. And the severity of that drought was due to - have you guessed? - climate change. Actually Syria's rainfall has been declining for about fifty years whilst its population has risen four or five fold in that same period.
Of course, it's never just climate change. Population growth, rising consumer demand, religious extremism, government policies - or the lack of them - and just bad luck are all part of the causal chain.
It's just that so many US leaders refuse to see the obvious for fear that they'd be obliged to support policies of restraint that would threaten their comfort and the profits of their corporate sponsors.
But you knew that, didn't you?
Wednesday, 15 July 2015
The real reason to welcome the US-Iran nuclear deal
The deal announced yesterday does more than end a specific dispute about Uranium enrichment. That's welcome of course; almost anything that reduces tension between states is welcome.
What it really does is signal the end - well, the beginning of the end - of the mutual hostility between the US and Iran. Much could be said about the causes of this hostility, which goes back at least 70 years, but I want to look forward.
The deal will undermine the hostility of Iran's backwoodsmen to the US. I hope it will reduce the hostility of the US's backwoodsmen to Iran though given Israel's reaction that seems less certain. It will increase the opportunities for trade and other exchanges between Iran and the rest of the world.
It's clear that most Iranians will welcome this. They want better contacts with the rest of the world and many will take the opportunities that will follow.
Will it, as Netinyahu claims, increase Iran's opportunities for military meddling in its neighbours' affairs? Well yes, it probably will. But it will reduce its motivation to do so. Increased meddling might bring back the sanctions that this deal will remove. And as Iran celebrates this diplomatic success it will be more likely to favour diplomacy on other issues.
The Middle East cannot be understood as Goodies versus Baddies. Iran and Saudi Arabia are rivals but both pretty hostile to human rights. In Iraq-Syria we have a least a six-way conflict (Iraqi and Syrian governments, USA, shia militias, secular militias and the Kurds). Iran can be a useful ally in the region (which is not to deny that there will also be conflicts) if we are open to those possibilities.
But the big prize here is increased engagement with Iran. With its unlovely government, certainly, but more with its people. Let's have cultural exchanges and translations to and from Farsi. Let's have international seminars about science, history, arts and politics. Let's have scholarships for Iranians at UK universities and some courses in Persian poetry for UK students.
In short, let's seize the opportunities to learn more about them and to open their eyes to us. Our best argument against fanaticism is our success in creating a prosperous, tolerant and sustainable society.
What it really does is signal the end - well, the beginning of the end - of the mutual hostility between the US and Iran. Much could be said about the causes of this hostility, which goes back at least 70 years, but I want to look forward.
The deal will undermine the hostility of Iran's backwoodsmen to the US. I hope it will reduce the hostility of the US's backwoodsmen to Iran though given Israel's reaction that seems less certain. It will increase the opportunities for trade and other exchanges between Iran and the rest of the world.
It's clear that most Iranians will welcome this. They want better contacts with the rest of the world and many will take the opportunities that will follow.
Will it, as Netinyahu claims, increase Iran's opportunities for military meddling in its neighbours' affairs? Well yes, it probably will. But it will reduce its motivation to do so. Increased meddling might bring back the sanctions that this deal will remove. And as Iran celebrates this diplomatic success it will be more likely to favour diplomacy on other issues.
The Middle East cannot be understood as Goodies versus Baddies. Iran and Saudi Arabia are rivals but both pretty hostile to human rights. In Iraq-Syria we have a least a six-way conflict (Iraqi and Syrian governments, USA, shia militias, secular militias and the Kurds). Iran can be a useful ally in the region (which is not to deny that there will also be conflicts) if we are open to those possibilities.
But the big prize here is increased engagement with Iran. With its unlovely government, certainly, but more with its people. Let's have cultural exchanges and translations to and from Farsi. Let's have international seminars about science, history, arts and politics. Let's have scholarships for Iranians at UK universities and some courses in Persian poetry for UK students.
In short, let's seize the opportunities to learn more about them and to open their eyes to us. Our best argument against fanaticism is our success in creating a prosperous, tolerant and sustainable society.
Saturday, 4 July 2015
Syria: Let those people go!
For weeks the news has been full of stories of people leaving the UK to live in the "Islamic State". Each time there's great anguish and calls for the government to stop them. Apparently every such departure is a failure by our police and security service.
But why?
Most are adults. They've decided that they don't like our liberal, tolerant, democratic society. They think they'd prefer a theocratic tyranny where they'll be free to follow their Caliph's interpretation of the Koran, to hate Jews, Christians, atheists, gays and cartoonists and, if male, to buy slaves - but not, if female, to choose their style of dress. It's choice I don't understand and never will. But why do we want them to stay?
They don't fit in here and we and they know it. So they should go.
Just one thing. They should renounce their UK citizenship and rights of residence on the way out and surrender their UK passports. They want to be citizens - or do I mean subjects? - of Islamic State. Then let them. They won't need their UK passports will they? And they won't be coming back.
We're not threatened by the departure of a few hundred intolerant hotheads for Syria. We might be threatened by the return of a few score battle-hardened militants with military training. So this is should be a one-way street.
This policy is honest, it respects fundamental rights and it protects us. And maybe some of those offered a one-way route to Syria will think a bit harder about their choice if they know its irrevocable.
PS. On July 7th the Guardian carried a report that Robert Quick, former head of counter-terror at the Met, had advocated the same policy. He said:
But why?
Most are adults. They've decided that they don't like our liberal, tolerant, democratic society. They think they'd prefer a theocratic tyranny where they'll be free to follow their Caliph's interpretation of the Koran, to hate Jews, Christians, atheists, gays and cartoonists and, if male, to buy slaves - but not, if female, to choose their style of dress. It's choice I don't understand and never will. But why do we want them to stay?
They don't fit in here and we and they know it. So they should go.
Just one thing. They should renounce their UK citizenship and rights of residence on the way out and surrender their UK passports. They want to be citizens - or do I mean subjects? - of Islamic State. Then let them. They won't need their UK passports will they? And they won't be coming back.
We're not threatened by the departure of a few hundred intolerant hotheads for Syria. We might be threatened by the return of a few score battle-hardened militants with military training. So this is should be a one-way street.
This policy is honest, it respects fundamental rights and it protects us. And maybe some of those offered a one-way route to Syria will think a bit harder about their choice if they know its irrevocable.
PS. On July 7th the Guardian carried a report that Robert Quick, former head of counter-terror at the Met, had advocated the same policy. He said:
“You have to think how do you confront it, if you have hundreds or thousands who want to go [to Islamic State] and live that life? We should try and convince them not to go. If they want to go, you have to ask the question, are we better off, if they surrender their passports and go? It’s better than them festering away here. “Should we say we’ll lay on charter flights to Syria; turn up with your passport and if you are over 18, if this is the life you want, then go?”
Tuesday, 2 June 2015
Supporting the Kurds
Two months ago a questioner in a Kurdish audience asked a panel of Greens whether we would want the UK to offer military support to the Kurdish forces defending their homelands in northern Iraq and Syria. He made it clear that this was more important to them than our views on the Living Wage or Trident. It's not an easy question - which is why all us local candidates asked Jean Lambert to answer first!
On the one hand it's easy to sympathise with anyone who's resisting Islamic State. There can be few fates worse than falling into the hands of IS - especially if you are gay or a freethinker or a woman - or just like music! The Kurds are holding the line despite inferior equipment and funding.
On the other hand Greens are sceptical of military 'solutions'. We prefer negotiation and we remember how the 'heroic' anti-Soviet mujaheddin evolved into Al Quaeda. Not to mention the role of the Blair-Bush invasion in creating the very forces the Kurds now face.
As historian Tom Holland put it at the Hay Festival we tried intervening and that was disastrous so we tried not intervening and so was that!
Yet the Kurds are not another military sect but a settled community resisting attacks. The leaders of Rojava - the Syrian enclave - are trying to develop a tolerant and democratic society. Independent observers take their attempts seriously whilst criticising shortfalls. And this is important. There are few Middle East states which even share these humane and civilised aspirations. It would be wrong and stupid of us not to make real efforts encourage a development that could, eventually, be a beacon for the region.
There are risks in every course of action but I believe that we should support the Kurds' defence of their territory. That means military supplies and, probably, training and intelligence sharing. It does not mean military action by British forces.
As I argued in a recent post the Muslim world is going through an extended period of warfare akin to the Protestant Reformation in Europe. It's unpredictable but it must be right to support those who share our values.
So here are some non-military things the UK government should do:
On the one hand it's easy to sympathise with anyone who's resisting Islamic State. There can be few fates worse than falling into the hands of IS - especially if you are gay or a freethinker or a woman - or just like music! The Kurds are holding the line despite inferior equipment and funding.
On the other hand Greens are sceptical of military 'solutions'. We prefer negotiation and we remember how the 'heroic' anti-Soviet mujaheddin evolved into Al Quaeda. Not to mention the role of the Blair-Bush invasion in creating the very forces the Kurds now face.
As historian Tom Holland put it at the Hay Festival we tried intervening and that was disastrous so we tried not intervening and so was that!
Yet the Kurds are not another military sect but a settled community resisting attacks. The leaders of Rojava - the Syrian enclave - are trying to develop a tolerant and democratic society. Independent observers take their attempts seriously whilst criticising shortfalls. And this is important. There are few Middle East states which even share these humane and civilised aspirations. It would be wrong and stupid of us not to make real efforts encourage a development that could, eventually, be a beacon for the region.
There are risks in every course of action but I believe that we should support the Kurds' defence of their territory. That means military supplies and, probably, training and intelligence sharing. It does not mean military action by British forces.
As I argued in a recent post the Muslim world is going through an extended period of warfare akin to the Protestant Reformation in Europe. It's unpredictable but it must be right to support those who share our values.
So here are some non-military things the UK government should do:
- Increase humanitarian aid to the Kurdish enclaves in Syria and Iraq.
- Cease to treat the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) as a terrorist organisation
- Ask Turkey to end the ban on the PKK and open negotiations.
- Release its leader Abdullah Ocalam from solitary confinement.
The
pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) can secure representation
in a new parliament, marking a significant shift in Turkish politics by
moving away from the era of AKP single-party governments.
Commenting on the elections, Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP said:
‘The HDP are a party with an ecological, pro-democracy, equality driven agenda. They are also clear about wanting autonomy and peace for the Kurds. Their representation is important.’
International coordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales, Derek Wall concluded:
'They are an inspiration. Success for the HDP would be a win for the Kurds, the LGBT community and the Turkish Greens who are part of the HDP. More should be done to promote their message. Turkish voters who want to influence their country's future can vote in the General Election this weekend at Olympia.'
Turkey has the world’s highest electoral threshold, requiring a 10% vote share to achieve representation. The general election takes place on the 7th of June.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/29/greens-support-hdp-ahead-of-upcoming-turkish-election/#sthash.iZ2B5Iin.dpuf
Commenting on the elections, Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP said:
‘The HDP are a party with an ecological, pro-democracy, equality driven agenda. They are also clear about wanting autonomy and peace for the Kurds. Their representation is important.’
International coordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales, Derek Wall concluded:
'They are an inspiration. Success for the HDP would be a win for the Kurds, the LGBT community and the Turkish Greens who are part of the HDP. More should be done to promote their message. Turkish voters who want to influence their country's future can vote in the General Election this weekend at Olympia.'
Turkey has the world’s highest electoral threshold, requiring a 10% vote share to achieve representation. The general election takes place on the 7th of June.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/29/greens-support-hdp-ahead-of-upcoming-turkish-election/#sthash.iZ2B5Iin.dpuf
The
pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) can secure representation
in a new parliament, marking a significant shift in Turkish politics by
moving away from the era of AKP single-party governments.
Commenting on the elections, Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP said:
‘The HDP are a party with an ecological, pro-democracy, equality driven agenda. They are also clear about wanting autonomy and peace for the Kurds. Their representation is important.’
International coordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales, Derek Wall concluded:
'They are an inspiration. Success for the HDP would be a win for the Kurds, the LGBT community and the Turkish Greens who are part of the HDP. More should be done to promote their message. Turkish voters who want to influence their country's future can vote in the General Election this weekend at Olympia.'
Turkey has the world’s highest electoral threshold, requiring a 10% vote share to achieve representation. The general election takes place on the 7th of June.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/29/greens-support-hdp-ahead-of-upcoming-turkish-election/#sthash.iZ2B5Iin.dpuf
Commenting on the elections, Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP said:
‘The HDP are a party with an ecological, pro-democracy, equality driven agenda. They are also clear about wanting autonomy and peace for the Kurds. Their representation is important.’
International coordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales, Derek Wall concluded:
'They are an inspiration. Success for the HDP would be a win for the Kurds, the LGBT community and the Turkish Greens who are part of the HDP. More should be done to promote their message. Turkish voters who want to influence their country's future can vote in the General Election this weekend at Olympia.'
Turkey has the world’s highest electoral threshold, requiring a 10% vote share to achieve representation. The general election takes place on the 7th of June.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/29/greens-support-hdp-ahead-of-upcoming-turkish-election/#sthash.iZ2B5Iin.dpuf
The
pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) can secure representation
in a new parliament, marking a significant shift in Turkish politics by
moving away from the era of AKP single-party governments.
Commenting on the elections, Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP said:
‘The HDP are a party with an ecological, pro-democracy, equality driven agenda. They are also clear about wanting autonomy and peace for the Kurds. Their representation is important.’
International coordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales, Derek Wall concluded:
'They are an inspiration. Success for the HDP would be a win for the Kurds, the LGBT community and the Turkish Greens who are part of the HDP. More should be done to promote their message. Turkish voters who want to influence their country's future can vote in the General Election this weekend at Olympia.'
Turkey has the world’s highest electoral threshold, requiring a 10% vote share to achieve representation. The general election takes place on the 7th of June.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/29/greens-support-hdp-ahead-of-upcoming-turkish-election/#sthash.iZ2B5Iin.dpuf
Commenting on the elections, Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP said:
‘The HDP are a party with an ecological, pro-democracy, equality driven agenda. They are also clear about wanting autonomy and peace for the Kurds. Their representation is important.’
International coordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales, Derek Wall concluded:
'They are an inspiration. Success for the HDP would be a win for the Kurds, the LGBT community and the Turkish Greens who are part of the HDP. More should be done to promote their message. Turkish voters who want to influence their country's future can vote in the General Election this weekend at Olympia.'
Turkey has the world’s highest electoral threshold, requiring a 10% vote share to achieve representation. The general election takes place on the 7th of June.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/29/greens-support-hdp-ahead-of-upcoming-turkish-election/#sthash.iZ2B5Iin.dpuf
The
pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) can secure representation
in a new parliament, marking a significant shift in Turkish politics by
moving away from the era of AKP single-party governments.
Commenting on the elections, Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP said:
‘The HDP are a party with an ecological, pro-democracy, equality driven agenda. They are also clear about wanting autonomy and peace for the Kurds. Their representation is important.’
International coordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales, Derek Wall concluded:
'They are an inspiration. Success for the HDP would be a win for the Kurds, the LGBT community and the Turkish Greens who are part of the HDP. More should be done to promote their message. Turkish voters who want to influence their country's future can vote in the General Election this weekend at Olympia.'
Turkey has the world’s highest electoral threshold, requiring a 10% vote share to achieve representation. The general election takes place on the 7th of June.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/29/greens-support-hdp-ahead-of-upcoming-turkish-election/#sthash.iZ2B5Iin.dpuf
Commenting on the elections, Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP said:
‘The HDP are a party with an ecological, pro-democracy, equality driven agenda. They are also clear about wanting autonomy and peace for the Kurds. Their representation is important.’
International coordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales, Derek Wall concluded:
'They are an inspiration. Success for the HDP would be a win for the Kurds, the LGBT community and the Turkish Greens who are part of the HDP. More should be done to promote their message. Turkish voters who want to influence their country's future can vote in the General Election this weekend at Olympia.'
Turkey has the world’s highest electoral threshold, requiring a 10% vote share to achieve representation. The general election takes place on the 7th of June.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/29/greens-support-hdp-ahead-of-upcoming-turkish-election/#sthash.iZ2B5Iin.dpuf
Sunday, 24 May 2015
The Islamic reformation has begun!
Most Westerners look at the escalating violence across the Middle East, and in Africa, with horror. We compare the brutalities of Islamic State and Boko Haram with the largely peaceful and tolerant societies we live in. We note that whilst Islamic State has re-invented state-sanctioned sexual slavery and kills homosexuals the Irish people have conducted an energetic but civilised debate and will legalise gay marriage.
Why, we ask, can't they be like us? Why can't they agree to differ about sex, religion and politics?
Now this question ignores our own brutalities, such as Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition, and our roles in creating Muslim extremism and frustrating democracy in the region. These deserve our condemnation. But for now I want to recognise that the extremism and brutality we see have distinctively Islamic roots.
Some people have reflected on European history and decided that our tolerance is the result of the Protestant Reformation. They've called on Muslim leaders to create their own reformation - I've done so myself.
That, I now see, is wrong. That's not because Islam does not need reform but because the Islamic Reformation has been underway for the last century. For the Protestant Reformation is not what you may think.
Mehdi Hassan made this point in the Guardian recently:
The Reformation took 130 years to get to that point but many scholars put its end at 1750 - a full 230 years after Luther's decisive act.
But let's go back to Hasaan:
But the reform process is not over. A 'reformist' current has been active in Muslim lands since the time of Ibn Abdul Wahab, most obviously in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was politically ineffective for many years; I'll leave the historical explanations for others but I suspect that the Ottoman Empire, colonialism, military strongmen and secular politicians all played their parts.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 marked a key point in the evolution of the Reformation - a Shia response to Saudi Arabia's Sunni fundamentalism and the creation of the second Muslim Reformation state. Or, some may think, a Counter-Reformation state.
The appearance of Islamic State and Boko Haram should therefore come as no surprise. They, too, are puritanical and harsh and though Islamic State claims universal jurisdiction Sunni nationalism clearly plays a key part.
Another parallel concerns religious 'ethnic cleansing'. Reformations and Counter Reformations are inherently intolerant. They seek conversion, forced if necessary, to their peculiar truths and the banishment or death of those who will not convert. The Protestant Reformation (and the wars that followed) created hostility to Jews, the division of Europe into Catholic South and Protestant North and the emigration of the Huguenots (Protestants) from France. The latest phase of the Muslim Reformation in the Middle East has led to the expulsion of Arab Christians, the persecution of Yazidis and the segregation of Sunii, Shias and Kurds in Syria and Iraq.
I think three things are obvious:
This is a very unpleasant prospect but there is hope. For the Protestant Reformation led to the Enlightenment, to religious tolerance and ultimately to the less dogmatic and enthusiastic forms of Christianity that are now the Western norm. I believe that Islam will find these changes harder but, with luck, they will prove possible.
We must all hope so.
Why, we ask, can't they be like us? Why can't they agree to differ about sex, religion and politics?
Now this question ignores our own brutalities, such as Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition, and our roles in creating Muslim extremism and frustrating democracy in the region. These deserve our condemnation. But for now I want to recognise that the extremism and brutality we see have distinctively Islamic roots.
Some people have reflected on European history and decided that our tolerance is the result of the Protestant Reformation. They've called on Muslim leaders to create their own reformation - I've done so myself.
That, I now see, is wrong. That's not because Islam does not need reform but because the Islamic Reformation has been underway for the last century. For the Protestant Reformation is not what you may think.
Mehdi Hassan made this point in the Guardian recently:
Luther did not merely nail 95 theses to the door of [his church] ... He also demanded that German peasants revolting against their feudal overlords be “struck dead” ... and authored On the Jews and Their Lies ..., in which he referred to Jews as “the devil’s people” and called for the destruction of Jewish homes and synagogues. ... Luther helped establish antisemitism as “a key element of German culture and national identity”.All true. The Reformation and the nationalism that grew alongside it did release great violence and did divide Europe, roughly, into a Catholic South and Protestant North. One mark of its success is that the Peace of Westphalia,1648, ended the Pope's claim to rule Europe and guaranteed Christians the right to follow forms of Christianity not favoured by their kings.
The Protestant Reformation also opened the door to blood-letting on an unprecedented, continent-wide scale. .... Tens of millions of innocents died in Europe; up to 40% of Germany’s population is believed to have been killed in the thirty years’ war.
The Reformation took 130 years to get to that point but many scholars put its end at 1750 - a full 230 years after Luther's decisive act.
But let's go back to Hasaan:
The truth is that Islam has already had its own reformation ... Wasn’t reform exactly what was offered ... by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the mid-18th century itinerant preacher who allied with the House of Saud? He offered an austere Islam cleansed of what he believed to be innovations, which eschewed centuries of mainstream scholarship and commentary, and rejected the authority of the traditional ulema, or religious authorities.
Some might argue that if anyone deserves the title of a Muslim Luther, it is Ibn Abdul Wahhab who, in the eyes of his critics, combined Luther’s puritanism with the German monk’s antipathy towards the Jews.Just so. Lets also note that both men allied themselves with local rulers. Both reformations were puritanical and nationalistic. Ibn Abdul Wahab is the Muslim Luther for all those reasons. So we may date the Muslim Reformation from 1844, the date of his pact with Muhammad bin Saud.
But the reform process is not over. A 'reformist' current has been active in Muslim lands since the time of Ibn Abdul Wahab, most obviously in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was politically ineffective for many years; I'll leave the historical explanations for others but I suspect that the Ottoman Empire, colonialism, military strongmen and secular politicians all played their parts.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 marked a key point in the evolution of the Reformation - a Shia response to Saudi Arabia's Sunni fundamentalism and the creation of the second Muslim Reformation state. Or, some may think, a Counter-Reformation state.
The appearance of Islamic State and Boko Haram should therefore come as no surprise. They, too, are puritanical and harsh and though Islamic State claims universal jurisdiction Sunni nationalism clearly plays a key part.
Another parallel concerns religious 'ethnic cleansing'. Reformations and Counter Reformations are inherently intolerant. They seek conversion, forced if necessary, to their peculiar truths and the banishment or death of those who will not convert. The Protestant Reformation (and the wars that followed) created hostility to Jews, the division of Europe into Catholic South and Protestant North and the emigration of the Huguenots (Protestants) from France. The latest phase of the Muslim Reformation in the Middle East has led to the expulsion of Arab Christians, the persecution of Yazidis and the segregation of Sunii, Shias and Kurds in Syria and Iraq.
I think three things are obvious:
- The political processes of the Muslim Reformation are far from from complete. They may take much longer than the Protestant Reformation!
- Those processes are only incidentally concerned with the West.
- The Reformation will affect every mainly Muslim country to some degree; and many others. To a large degree it already has.
This is a very unpleasant prospect but there is hope. For the Protestant Reformation led to the Enlightenment, to religious tolerance and ultimately to the less dogmatic and enthusiastic forms of Christianity that are now the Western norm. I believe that Islam will find these changes harder but, with luck, they will prove possible.
We must all hope so.
Sunday, 26 April 2015
Joan Ryan: The New Labour years
Every vote is a vote for a person as well as their party so it's fair to look at a candidate's track record. Joan Ryan, my Labour opponent, was an MP for 13 years before Nick de Bois defeated her and you can now see her key parts of her voting record online.
It's not a pretty sight.
Let's start with the good news. She voted for gay rights, higher alcohol prices and to ban hunting with hounds.
Now the rest.
The Iraq War
First and worst she voted for the Iraq war. That was a war for an unjust cause, fought without UN sanction and that was sold to the UN and to the British Parliament and people with lies; most notably the "dodgy dossier". Perhaps she believed the lies - though many of us saw through them even then. But if she believed them why did she not demand a full inquiry? In fact she voted against inquiries in both 2003 and 2009.
Of course government MPs are expected to vote for the government line whilst ministers, Ryan was a Parliamentary Private Secretary and then a whip, are required to. But a decision to authorise killing is above all a moral decision and this decision had extraordinary consequences for Iraq, Syria and the flow of migrants to Europe. If she had disagreed with the leadership she could, and should, have resigned. So I believe that she believed the lies.
And what can we conclude from this? Surely that her political judgement is poor and that she's too ready to follow her party's leaders into folly.
Strengthening the state
Ryan has voted repeatedly for measures that increase the power of the state over its citizens. They include:
Climate change
Ryan voted against various measures against climate change. For instance:
Of course she voted for and against many other measures but these illuminate her politics.
It's not a pretty sight.
Let's start with the good news. She voted for gay rights, higher alcohol prices and to ban hunting with hounds.
Now the rest.
The Iraq War
First and worst she voted for the Iraq war. That was a war for an unjust cause, fought without UN sanction and that was sold to the UN and to the British Parliament and people with lies; most notably the "dodgy dossier". Perhaps she believed the lies - though many of us saw through them even then. But if she believed them why did she not demand a full inquiry? In fact she voted against inquiries in both 2003 and 2009.
Of course government MPs are expected to vote for the government line whilst ministers, Ryan was a Parliamentary Private Secretary and then a whip, are required to. But a decision to authorise killing is above all a moral decision and this decision had extraordinary consequences for Iraq, Syria and the flow of migrants to Europe. If she had disagreed with the leadership she could, and should, have resigned. So I believe that she believed the lies.
And what can we conclude from this? Surely that her political judgement is poor and that she's too ready to follow her party's leaders into folly.
Strengthening the state
Ryan has voted repeatedly for measures that increase the power of the state over its citizens. They include:
- Identity cards - which help the state to track us.
- To allow GCHQ to retain data about phone calls, e-mails, etc.
- To allow ministers to intervene in inquests - to avoid embarrassment to the government.
- Various 'anti-terrorism' measures which undermine the rule of law.
Climate change
Ryan voted against various measures against climate change. For instance:
- In 2008 she voted against including climate change policies in the National Policy Statement,
- and against government powers to set emissions targets for power stations.
- In 2009 she voted against the government's endorsing the 10:10 campaign.
Of course she voted for and against many other measures but these illuminate her politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)