It’s a plot!

Soon after the sense of disconcertment felt at the recent news of the unfolding of a large-scale terror plot, came the outrage at some of the ‘security’ measures imposed. Aside from the fact that I think they are simply panicking and not applying the right technology, using intelligence and so on, what’s this thing about books? Imagine my panic when I read that the only books and papers one could take on board of a plane were those purchased just before boarding, such as the Da Vinci code or whatever Jeremy Clarkson has come up with. Is this a plot against our freedom of thought? What can we hide in books except ideas? Another pointless and preposterous measure. When will they take security seriously?

Wish you were here… love, Tony

A serious crisis in the Middle East, 150 MPs requesting a recall of Parliament, the unfolding of a possible large-scale terrorist plot in Britain, but no, Blair stays put on holiday. Not even John Prescott set loose seems enough to get him back. Although I must admit I always enjoy Prescott’s exploits, entertainment is needed at times like this.
There is also no doubt that in time of crisis it is always better to have politicians out of the way; however it is politicians who need to take responsibility for any response or lack of it.
I can’t help wondering why Blair is stubbornly still on holiday. One has every right to rest from a very stressful job, but it really looks like he is not taking recent events seriously. Is he escaping from a too harsh reality? Is he hoping that quiet diplomacy will do the trick? Maybe he just doesn’t fancy three hours wait to go through security at the airport. Whatever his motives, it seems to me that as a Prime Minister he is not taking Britain seriously.

In search of peace in Lebanon

I feel a strong sense of deja-vu; no, not 1982, but 1967. Back then, at the height of the cold war, the US and the USSR were sworn enemies fighting the war by proxy. Today, the US has managed to recreate a situation where the West fights the East by proxy or sometimes directly (Iraq). After destabilising Iraq (didn’t we say so?), the Middle East is rapidly changing shape. In the first few weeks of this latest conflict between Israel and Hizbollah, the US seemed to dawdle, or did they? They were keen to go on with their ‘war on terror’ and democratisation by bombs, this time by proxy.

At first I thought Israel was being rather incompetent from a military strategic point of view. You cannot go to war with terrorists, it’s a contradiction in terms. Vietnam springs to mind where terrorists were hiding among the farmers. How do you fight a war like that? You don’t. Ariel Sharon wouldn’t have, but he could, he was an ex-general, ex-Likud, and above everything else, he was Sharon. Olmert, by contrast, is fighting to gain a strong enough position that would allow him to negotiate. He’s fighting the wrong war, a war he cannot win or be seen to win. That’s why the EU and the UN need to step in and impose a truce. Of course the latest UN resolution is flawed, but it’s open enough for the parties to fill the gaps once the hostilities have come to a halt.

I believe the parties should agree to the resolution, a UN contingent with Chapter VII mandate should be set up as soon as possible and should be sufficiently big to uphold the ceasefire. This should be followed by multi-party talks on a peace process agreement which should include an agreement on Israel and Palestine but also Syria, Iran and Lebanon and their responsibilities in backing Hizbollah and Hamas. Hizbollah’s objection to the resolution on the grounds that it would allow Israel to maintain its occupation while a UN force is put in place is utterly preposterous considering that Hizbollah is not and does not represent a state. Hizbollah has, therefore, no sovereignty over the territory now occupied by Israeli forces. The big loser is Lebanon, a state without control over itself. But perhaps it is not sovereignty we should worry about, but security and peace. If one is always under threat (be it rockets or missiles), there can be no peace. Similarly, if there’s no peace process, there is no security. It is time to kiss goodbye to unilateralism and terror (from all sides). It’s time to talk and talk and then talk some more, because it’ll take years to reshape a secure and peaceful Middle East. We have a great opportunity now to sit at the table and tackle head on nuclear ambitious and disarmament, energy, occupied territories and cross-border co-operation, disbandment of militias and economic development. It is down to the EU to steer the world in this direction and go for the long term view. This is the only path to democracy.

Conspiratory certainties

I have come across a few semi-conspiracy theories on the web from ‘either’ side. Conspiracy theories are jolly good fun and are very useful from a psychological and sometimes political point of view too. They ask the right questions but fail on the answers, because like everybody else they want 'easy answers', it's always a plot. Politics is a series of cock-ups, so there's NEVER a plot. As war is the continuation of politics by other means, it follows that war is a series of violent cock-ups. What is striking of the current ‘semi-conspiracies’ is that they are based on narratives: an oppressed people (Palestinians) or a people who fight against the odds for survival and affirmation (Israel), an imperialist superpower (US) or a fundamentalist rogue state (Iran). These narratives have nothing to do with reality but they fit our TV screens perfectly. Wars and news post-CNN have a different grammar. TV tells an uncomplicated story, does not report news, it feeds us shocking drama not analysis. Any conflict is understood only as blood and tears and children, and always a perpetrator and a victim. Within this framework, only a Manichean logic can be applied, you are either in favour or against. Of course, there’s plenty of embellished off-the-shelf explanations such as the colonial or post-colonial (if you’re really smug) narrative which has passed its sell-by-date long ago and it really shouldn’t have been thought of in the first place!

That’s why I don’t sign petitions although I think a ceasefire (and more) is needed. A section of the Left has decided that imperialist Israel is invading Lebanon, bringing only destruction and creating hatred. However, this is not a conflict between Israel and Lebanon, nor one between Israel and Hizbollah. A section of the right thinks Israel is fighting against terrorism and anti-Western fundamentalism. However, the Iranian population (and many members of the government), as it used to be the case in Iraq, is not anti-American. Hizbollah is not on the same side as al-Quaida. There are many divisions in the Middle East and the only way forward is to grasp their meaning. By contrast, a narrative gives you certainty, tidies up an absurd world, but we live in this absurd world.