Air Strikes and Politics

Last week saw a flurry of activity, discussion and comment in the run up to the UK government vote on whether we should bomb ISIL in Syria. Once the vote had been announced we saw several days of intense media coverage of the goings on at Parliament and predictions which MP was going to vote which way and what that significance might be for the various party leaders. Outside of the Whitehall circus, everyday folk were talking and forming opinions on which way the vote should go.

In the end, on Wednesday 3rd December, the House of Commons overwhelmingly decided to proceed with an air strikes campaign and the UK rode to war once more.

The situation in and around Syria is ridiculously complex with numerous different groups fighting against each other while sponsored by countries who are working with each other to end the conflict (in theory). Without access to detailed intelligence and awareness of our military capability I just don't know where I stand on the question of should or shouldn't the UK be bombing ISIL. My heart tells me war is never a good thing but my head tells me sometimes war is necessary. Islamically speaking the killing of non-combatants (civilians) is forbidden in war which would make the decision seem easy but it's not quite so simple - bombing an oil field or a road or other piece infrastructure may be a reasonable target that isn't likely to cause any direct death and will degrade the enemy's capability and if you can find . I'm glad I don't have to make the decision.

What I do know though is that Parliament decided that on the back of whatever information they were given the best course for the UK was to begin air strikes. Immediately after the vote there were all kinds of reaction, ranging from celebration to outrage and from sorrow to shock.

I don't think going to war should ever be a cause of celebration and those who would celebrate should read Wilfred Owen's World War One poem Dulce Et Decorum Est (pasted at the bottom of the page in case you don't want to click).

Sorrow is an understandable response - reading the last stanza of the poem will induce sorrow in anyone (and if it doesn't then read it again carefully). The horror of war, especially in its modern form, means the decision to send men to kill and to die should not be taken lightly.

Shock and outrage I can also understand though I think in this case these reactions could be due to a misunderstanding of what the UK government is meant to do. The UK government's (or any other government's) first responsibility is to protect and promote the UK citizens' short and long term interests.
When close allies (in this case France) have been directly attacked and there is a high likelihood the UK is also going to be attacked, that first responsibility means the government has little choice but to join whatever bandwagon has been started to destroy/debilitate the attacker.
Not joining in with the anti-ISIL campaign would leave the UK wilfully damaging its relations with its allies and key trading partners. And if ISIL were then to mount a Paris style attack on the UK the fallout against whoever was in government and "had done nothing" would be the end of that government's credibility with the people and to whom would they look for solidarity when they showed none with their allies when their allies wanted it?

In simple terms - my friend is having a fight with that kid nobody likes - I should help him and join the fight so he stays my friend. It sounds very playground-ish but, except for the obviously far greater stakes when dealing with international geopolitics, I really don't think it's all that far from the truth.


Dulce Et Decorum Est (Wilfred Owen)

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, –
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Refugees and a crisis of compassion

This was written before the horrific Paris and Beirut terror attacks - for my thoughts on those events please read my post From Paris, With Terror.

An edited version of this post was also published on The Elenchus.

A topic of alarming regularity and long-running history, the refugee crisis has only just begun to dominate the headlines of a lot of  news outlets. This sudden tidal-wave of press activity has taken form of shocking stories of traffickers dangerously overloading rickety boats with human cargo; accompanied by disturbing images of the consequent drowned bodies. The desperate, vicious and dangerous ordeals of people attempting to make the journey from the most war-torn regions of the world to the ‘safe haven’ of Europe has been endlessly reported on. However, can we really brand this attempt to raise awareness of the refugee crisis as successful? Are we, the British public, now truly aware of the refugee situation, or are we all just a little too late to the party?

Between 2012 and 2014, the number of refugees of concern to UNCHR increased from 10million to 14million - a rising trend which has sadly continued into 2015 (note that this figure does not include the 5million Palestinian refugees who are looked after by UNRWA). A large portion of the increase is due to the vast numbers of people fleeing Syria: a figure of over 4million refugees since the conflicts in that region started. It is more often than not that, when prompted with the thought of the ‘refugee crisis’, we immediately conflate all that we know about it with the current Syrian refugees. However, what we forget in this narrow scope is that there are a huge number of refugees from other parts of the world, including a close-to-3million from Afghanistan and another million from Somalia.

The natural consequence of such a massive outflow of people from these countries is that there will be an equally massive inflow of people into other countries, in particular: neighbouring countries. From Syria, large numbers of refugees have fled to Turkey (1.6million), Lebanon (1.2million) and Jordan (0.6million) to name a few. Displaced Afghans have tended to go to Pakistan (1.5million) and Iran (1million). For some of these countries, the inflow is beyond anything they could possibly prepare for: take Lebanon for example, with its Lebanese population reaching 4.5million and its refugee population contributing a whopping extra 1.7million. Yet, despite this extreme human crowding, Lebanon has taken the refugees in: a commendable act of morality.

Little is heard in Europe of the quantitative figures of the ‘desperately displaced’. I myself had not been so knowledgeable on the topic until I attended a City Circle talk with speakers from Amnesty International, the Refugee Council and the National Zakat Foundation. All of the speakers went to considerable amounts of trouble to deliver eye-opening detail about the depth of the global refugee crisis and the European and UK governmental response.

Sadly, a lot of what was said made for quite depressing comprehension. The refugee numbers just keep on rising: 220,000 people attempted to cross the Mediterranean in 2014 – an increase from 60,000 two years earlier. The estimate for 2015 is 800,000.

To give Europe some credit, however, they acknowledged the need for the establishment of safe routes to Europe way back in 2013 after the Lampedusa shipwreck which saw 500 refugees crammed onto a 20m boat. The boat sank close to the Italian island resulting in over 300 drownings with the survivors saved by Italian search and rescue teams. Immediately after this event, the EU Commission called for increasing the level of sea patrols to make sure this level of tragedy is avoided in the future.

Italy took a leading role in the European contribution by duly increasing its level of patrols. This continued until the EU finally took over after it had decided that the influx of refugees was not just an Italian problem, but a European problem. However, this soon became controversial as the EU began to think that, although running extensive patrols made the crossing safer, it might also be encouraging more refugees to attempt the crossing. Accordingly, it cut back the extent of the patrols but, after a few months, was surprised to find that regardless of the dangers, people were still attempting to cross.

The major barrier towards a progressive solution for the refugee crisis is the problem of NIMBYism. Everyone agrees that something must be done but everyone wants someone else to take the hit. Taking in refugees comes with costs: both financial and political. The UK, for example, has been generous with sending aid to the affected countries but not so generous with taking in refugees. It pledged to take 500 Syrian refugees over 3 years until images of Aylan Kurdi – the toddler who had washed up on a beach in Turkey – went viral and struck a charitable chord with the UK public. This caused an outcry which prompted the government to raise this figure to a further 20,000, which is certainly an improvement but, given the sheer numbers of refugees, it is clear that there is still a long way to go.

Other European countries have done similar: some taking their lead from the UK. At first, Hungary was letting refugees into and through the country but has since moved to close its border and erect a 4m-high fence to keep people out. This has, somewhat perversely, resulted in improved opinion ratings for its prime minister. Nevertheless, even in this shambolic and embarrassing time for Europe, it is not all doom and gloom as a few countries have made an effort to help the refugees in their darkest hours. Germany and Sweden have been taking in around 190,000 refugees this year alone. This is expected to rise to an acceptance of close to 1million refugees in the coming year.

As with most governmental decisions, the varying responses from European countries are largely driven by politics. Issues of NIMBYism, trade, legality and finance all play their part. Some have said taking refugees in is in national interest: a statement based on our need for an influx of younger people in order to maintain society and industry amongst an ever-aging population. However, others reject this stance and simply state that our strained national finances cannot bear the additional cost of housing additional persons. Nonetheless, a restorative mode of thought belittles this by dousing partial responsibility onto the British for the maintenance of wars via the UK’s participation in the manufacturing and supplying of arms.

Moreover, some countries are prioritising help given towards Christian refugees over that of Muslim refugees in a bid to ‘keep the country Christian’ though even these are small in numbers – Poland has taken in only 50 families. And of course, there is always the old “the foreigners will take our jobs” argument which more or less acts as a final resort for want of a better reason. What this is all conclusive of, however, is that politics is a complex beast. Those in positions of responsibility have to make some difficult decisions and sadly, very few political leaders will ever prioritise showing some humanity to those in desperate need to their public opinion ratings..

 It has become all too easy to separate ourselves from the refugee crisis and brand it a regional problem rather than a global problem. To this, I simply state: when a situation in another country is desperate enough that a mother places her child into the hands of a stranger with the intention of smuggling it over the sea in a rickety boat, it becomes clear that levels of desperation have escalated to that which no human being should have to endure.

Given the sudden policy change following Aylan's photo, it is clear that politicians do listen. The UK leadership was lightening-quick to respond and ramp up what could be described as – at the time – its pitiful efforts. Power is still with the people. ‘There, but for the grace of God, go I’ is not a phrase that comes easily to political leaders but it can come easily to us as the individuals in their electorate and we should require our leaders to bend to our charitable will. ‘Change’ requires enough of the right pressure in the right places. It requires sufficient number of people writing to their MPs. It requires our involvement with organisations and actively seeking to help. In short, it requires us to do our bit. Together, we can push political mountains to their disappearance. There is so much that we can do to help: we just need to want it enough.

Next post: Air Strikes and International Politics
Previous post: From Paris, with Terror

Like my Facebook page