Y Safle

“An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

Thomas Paine

Religion and politics seem to be highly polarised in America. Anyone who has spoken at length with American Christians will be familiar with the way that all too often political thought seems to seep into the Christian dialogue, and from the perspective of an outsider, it seems that these notions are frequently unchallenged, and often at odds with the message of the gospel.

This book is then a timely call to Christians to re-evaluate their unchallenged assumptions, and to realise that so much of politics is anti Christian, that they do the church a dis-service in not taking a stand against it. The book has practical ideas of how to make a stand, and is a wake up call for anyone who thinks God would vote for a certain political party!

There is less here for non Americans. The context of the book is clearly America and its politics, and an outsider would be wrong to read this book to feel smug about their own politics. In the UK religion is much less polarised, but the policies of the parties are no more moral for this. Non US readers should read the book with humility, wondering how the lessons and ideas here can be applied in their own context.

Plaid Cymru pushed a leaflet through my door today. The front page showed a picture of the party’s prospective candidate for the next general election – someone I know and respect, so I took the time to read the rest of the leaflet.

On the back page there was an article that quoted the Daily Mail (always a bad start!) saying that Mark Williams was all but invisible at Westminster.

Well in the information age it is easy enough to check these things. I went to the wonderful They Work for you website to look at my MP’s statistics.

Far from being invisible, the record shows he has spoken in more debates than average, has received written answers to more questions than average and has answered a high number of constituent questions quickly online. All this on reasonable expenses that are only slightly above average, and that because of travel costs, which considering the remoteness of teh constituency, is altogether reasonable.

One area that Mark Williams falls below average on is his parliamentary attendance. At 66% attendance at votes, he is a little below average here. But how much of that is related to the issues of distance, geography and relevance? So the immediate question – as Plaid Cymru is putting this information out – is how would he compare to Plaid Cymru MPs? Well again, a quick search of the Public Whip site turns up the information we need.

• Mark Williams MP, Ceredigion (LibDem) – 66.2%
• Hywel Williams MP, Caernarfon (PC) – 64.2%
• Adam Price MP, Carmarthen East & Dinefwr (PC) – 60.5%
• Elfyn Llwyd MP, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (PC) – 63.5%

So to be clear, Mark Williams has a better voting record than any Plaid Cymru MP. A case of the pot calling the kettle black?

I don’t have a problem with Plaid Cymru. I often vote for them. But I do have a problem with misleading statements, and this surely qualifies.

The new challenge is something that I think was completely unexpected a few years ago and that is that at one time when I was chancellor the oil price per barrel was $11. It’s now $125

Gordon Brown, interviewed on the Today Programme, 15/5/08.

Let’s focus on this word “completely unexpected”, Gordon. Because that tells us a lot about your lack of foresight, and the limited reading you are doing.

Anyone who did *not* expect sharp rises in the price of oil, 10 years or more ago, really was not paying attention. North sea oil production is past its peak, and global supply of oil has clearly been outstripped by demand. The result was predictable – relentlessly rising oil prices which will show frequent spikes at periods of highest demand.

I was writing about this in the 1990s, as were many others. The figures were all available, the trends quite clear.

With this low level of foresight, what hope do we have? Just once I would like to see a politician with a real grasp on the reality beyond what he is being fed by his short sighted peers.

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

Noah Webster (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language)

Photo by
Jonathon D Colman

Selahv mentioned in a comment the disdain of the world for America – but there are in fact two distinct types of anti-Americanism. There is one kind which is just prejudice. There are people who disdain Americans simply because they are in a different “in group”, and it is fallen human nature to disdain out groups. Therefore every bad thing from America (fast food and sugary drinks for instance) is held against them. Every good thing (Clam chowder for instance) is ignored.

Such prejudice is hard to battle against, but it really is not Americans that need worry about this. The same people that hate Americans because of this prejudice probably have similar prejudices about any out group they care to consider.

However, there is another kind of anti-Americanism which is really anti-American policy, rather than the nation or its people. This is the feeling expressed in surveys that suggest people across the world believe that America is the biggest threat to world peace. This feeling comes around because of the gun boat diplomacy of one or other American administrations.

The Opium Wars

Note that America is no different from other nations here. In the 19th Century, the UK fought two wars against China to force them to accept the trade in opium. The drug was legal in the UK at the time – used as a seditive – particularly for gripey babies! But China banned the drug, citing public morals as the reason. After an incident when Chinese authorities boarded British ships and confiscated smuggled opium, a contingent of the British navy, including the new “iron clads” steamed into China. The fleet was larger than anything the Chinese had expected, and the first opium war was quickly lost. The peace treaty opened up a number of Chinese ports and ceded a lease on Hong Kong island to the British.

If you asked at that time who was the biggest threat to world piece, the answer in Shanghai would no doubt have been “the British”.

All countries act out of self interest most of the time. The thing that people dislike about American policy is its willingness to flout international law and order to pursue its self interest. Failure to become signatories to the ICC, arming of Israel as they kill people in Lebanon, The invasion of Iraq, support of regimes that persecute their own people, the arms trade, sidelining the UN and excessive use of the veto when the issue concerns client states, failure to ratify the Kyoto protocol – the list goes on (and these are just the recent examples).

But whilst I personally have a problem with all of these policies, I am not personally against Americans. (Indeed I am opposed to much UK policy for very similar reasons, but I am not anti-British).

Iraq

Selahv was speaking about Iraq, so the question is: how does this help Iraq?

We are where we are, and Iraq is suffering. What can we do? Cut and run? That would cause the disintegration of the nation. Stay the course? There is no sign that this strategy will ever succeed.

We pray for peace in Iraq – and we pray for wisdom and humility in our leaders. Particularly the humility to go to the United Nations and ask for help. If the occupying force could be replaced with a peace keeping force, and if we gave up our claims to Iraqi assets, just as we forced Russia and France to give up their claims, then there may yet be a hope for this country.

It would take a miracle for the US to willingly humble themselves and pursue this problem through the UN. It would take another miracle to see the policy succeed, and peace finally come to the nation of Iraq.

But fortunately, I believe in miracles.

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

“We have no interest in oppressing other people. We are not moved by hatred against any other nation. We bear no grudge. I know how grave a thing war is. I wanted to spare our people such an evil. It is not so much the country; it is rather its leader. He has led a reign of terror. He has hurled countless people into the profoundest misery. Through his continuous terrorism, he has succeeded in reducing millions of his people to silence. The maintenance of a tremendous military arsenal can only be regarded as a focus of danger. We have displayed a truly unexampled patience, but I am no longer willing to remain inactive while this madman ill-treats millions of human beings.”

In hindsight we may argue that some of these threats regarding the military arsenal were over-estimated. But who can deny that the case for war was adequately made in this speach?

I will leave it as an exercise for someone to work out which great world leader said it, but in the same vein, he also said the following:

“By the most brutal methods of terrorism, a regime sought to maintain an existence that was condemned by the overwhelming majority of its people…I have tried to persuade the responsible authorities that it is impossible for a great nation, because it is unworthy of it, to stand by and watch millions belonging to a great, an ancient civilized people be denied rights by their government

Juan Cole gives some perspective on the recent Virginia Tech tragedy.

I keep hearing from US politicians and the US mass media that the “situation is improving” in Iraq. The profound sorrow and alarm produced in the American public by the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech should give us a baseline for what the Iraqis are actually living through. They have two Virginia Tech-style attacks every single day. Virginia Tech will be gone from the headlines and the air waves by next week this time in the US, though the families of the victims will grieve for a lifetime. But next Tuesday I will come out here and report to you that 64 Iraqis have been killed in political violence. And those will mainly be the ones killed by bombs and mortars. They are only 13% of the total; most Iraqis killed violently, perhaps 500 a day throughout the country if you count criminal and tribal violence, are just shot down. Shot down, like the college students and professors at Blacksburg. We Americans can so easily, with a shudder, imagine the college student trying to barricade himself behind a door against the armed madman without. But can we put ourselves in the place of Iraqi students?

We must not downplay the very real tragedy that happened on Monday in Blacksburg. We do not excuse it, or ignore it. But how much more should we not excuse or ignore the daily tragedy of Iraq? We pray for the people of Blacksburg, and those touched by the tragedy. But let us not forget the people of Iraq, who are daily and routinely touched by tragedy.

Paul Wolfowitz, one of the puppeteers who used the spectre of terrorism to get George Bush to invade Iraq, was always a controversial appointment to the head of the World Bank. A man with nothing apparently to offer the role, this was patronage pure and simple.

You see, whilst European shares outweigh American shares in the World Bank, there is a cosy little arrangement whereby the IMF head is in the gift of the Europeans, and the World Bank head in the gift of the Americans. Not surprisingly, the result is political patronage and a lack of accountability in these positions.

Knowing this, Wolfowitz recently announced that he would crack down on corruption by government and officials in developing world nations (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4688022.stm).

So it is somewhat ironic that he did not crack down on his own corruption, by doing the honourable thing and resigning forthwith. Instead he argues he should stay to cintinue the work he is doing. It is arrogant of the man to suppose that he is the best man (even that he is an acceptable man) to root out corruption and lead the institution in such circumstances.

How is the World Bank supposed to be taken seriously in a drive to root out corruption and mismanagement when its head is there by virtue of patronage, and involved in just the kind of corruption that is the bane of developing countries.

It is not only time Wolfowitz was given his marchiong orders – it is time that this corrupt institution, and the IMF too, had a more democratically accountable means of selecting a competent head.

This is the classic video of John Redwood, the English MP that John Major put in charge of the Welsh Office in the 1990s, not realising that Redwood would use the post to launch his bid to become the next prime minister.

Redwood can be widely credited for creating the discontent that led to devolution in Wales. As he handed back millions of pounds to England, wrecked the health service and destroyed public services with a political vision diametrically opposed to that of the Welsh people, he proved once and for all that Wales would be better off handling its own affairs.

And not just because we *do* know the words to the national anthem.