Next stop, Mugabe.

Lord Palmerston, one of Britain’s most influential Foreign Secretaries in the nineteenth century is often remembered for his famous dictum:

“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

This is true of any nation. The US delegation that visited Mao’s China in 1972 was treading on dangerous ground. History Professor David Reynolds from the University of Cambridge said at the time it is like comparing ‘America opening talks with Al Qaeda’. Every story has a context and President Richard Nixon was pursuing a policy of containment from Soviet influence with his mandarin Henry Kissinger. China, under the insular rule of Chairman Mao, were political pariahs. They had contributed in World War 2 to help defeat Imperial Japan, but several years later (after the Mao’s succession) sent forces against the West on the Korean peninsula. The US decision to open talks was made easier by the Ussuri River conflict agaisnt the USSR three years previously. Communist China and Soviet Russia were now sworn enemies. This not only allowed the US to start talks with China, particularly about containing the Vietnam War but it opened up a diplomacy that would transform the two nations economically.

It is the same within the Middle East. The peace treaty between Israel and Egypt was transformative, after decades of war, it showed the ability to negotiate over trade and ultimately co-exist. This asks the question of Britain and whether it is willing or able to move on and talk to the wasp’s nest in the loft, Zimbabwe and its belligerent and ailing leader Robert Mugabe.

British history in Africa is grey. Comparing it to other nations and their empires such as Belgium or Portugal then you could mistake the British for saints. The ‘Scramble for Africa’ saw land divided between other countries with the line of a ruler. Unlike places like India or Hong Kong where institutions were laid down, a loose form of indirect rule was placed with strong tribal leaders to control affairs on site, whilst decisions were made from the Colonial Office in Whitehall.

The 1960s and the ‘winds of change’ speech uttered by PM Harold MacMillan saw swathes of British Africa declare independence; The Gold Coast, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. All these nations elected their own governments and power was truly handed over from London. Yet the British exit from Rhodesia did not change much in terms of politics. Ian Smith, a white militant, took charge and retained the apartheid system that subjugated Black Rhodesians. The guerrilla war that ensued finally ended in 1979 through the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement in London that ended Smith’s unilateral declaration of independence. It also introduced to the world the wily and implacable Robert Gabriel Mugabe, a product of the British Colonial system.

Why does Mugabe in particular revile the British establishment? Zimbabwe has a shocking human rights record; but what of the genocide in Darfur or the habitual rape of women and children in DR Congo? Freedom of the press – it is hardly a model system but compared to Eritrea. The dispute over land distribution is probably worse in neighbouring South Africa. If Mugabe is going to win an Oscar then it will be for his economic mismanagement, but the picture is often presented more fiendish than it is in comparison. Yet Zimbabwe, behind Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, still features highly for UK press concentration. It ultimately boiled down to the fact that Mugabe, with his agile political skills and connivance, managed to defeat the British who left an Africa unfavourably for black Africans.

Yet despite his brazenness and ferocity, Mugabe still admires his ‘mother country’. He is known to enjoy afternoon tea and like Idi Amin, the Ugandan tyrant, wistfully respects the Queen and the Royal Family. Travel bans to the EU and US not only prevented his wife from trips to Harrods but separated him from the Establishment. This of course is entirely different to his revulsion towards the British Government, they only made things worse.

This is a man that oversaw an operation translated from Shona (the majority ethnic language) meaning ‘drive out the filth’ that saw bulldozers smash through homes of voters of the MDC (now in government with Mugabe’s Zanu PF) and Zimbabwe’s other ethnic group. This is a man that caused great instability across the whole of Southern Africa. A Black African killing black Africans, driving millions of refugees into neighbouring countries and overseeing the disastrous appropriation of white farm land to black natives that caused the whole region to suffer economically and without food.

We hear rumours that Mr Mugabe, now 87, is terminally ill with prostate cancer, yet still clutching to power. His latest economic policy is to see that all foreign owned enterprises must be have least 51 per cent ‘native’ Zimbabwean investors, a policy that is unsettling big firms such as Barclays Bank. The US and EU sanctions have also seen Mugabe flirt towards the Chinese, trading diamonds for military hardware. With a breakdown in relations between Mugabe and Prime Minster Morgan Tsvangirai the elections scheduled for next year could turn out as farcical and bloody as 2007.

Is this the opportunity for Britain, like Nixon all those years ago, to reach out an olive branch to Mugabe and reset relations? Not only could it possibly heal fractious wounds and generate a new relationship akin to somewhere like Sierra Leone; but it could prevent trouble in the short term. Who is to say that when Mugabe finally releases power (probably through death) that there will not be a power struggle from rapacious generals creating more unrest ; or alternatively a backlash against Mugabe’s ‘vets’ (war veterans who are in effect work as a paramilitary, yet they were probably not old enough to have participated in the independence war.) This would not be akin to an Arab Spring but another Rwanda, with consequences across the region.

Yet both parties are too stubborn to think along these lines. Mugabe will never give way and Britain would see this as submission. However; after its mismanagement since the 1890s and post independence, this could be the Empire’s medicine and redress after decades of mistakes, and ultimately an avenue for economic cooperation as Palmerston said.

Serbs you right?

The capture of the former Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic is perhaps more significant than many people estimate. Mladic, who was arrested yesterday in northern Serbia, has been arrested on 15 counts of crimes against humanity and is expected to be extradited to The Hague where he will be tried.

It is only three years since the first Serbian President Radovan Karadzic was arrested. Karadzic by all accounts was charming and garrulous, performing to the world’s media and statesmen when Yugoslavia was being savaged by war. Whilst Mladic (or the ‘Butcher of Bosnia’ as he became ordained) was inflicting the misery of war on millions. Small, yet tough, the indignant and ruthless general, was behind the massacre at Srebrenica where over 8,500 Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) were killed in mass graves whilst the UN stood by, this was genocide in Europe sixty years after the Holocaust. He also oversaw the bombardment of Sarajevo. A place that became a poetical term for misery, death and destruction. This was a war that spilt blood on a continent that had been ravaged by so many conflicts earlier in the century. It brought us the inaction and inertia of diplomats and introduced the chilling phrase ‘ethnic cleansing’ into the English language.

After twenty years of hostilities, this may finally end a chapter of toil and unrest in the South Eastern corner of Europe. Since the bombing of Belgrade by NATO and the indictment (but later death) of the former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, the region is transforming economically and politically. Many of the new republics that once formed Yugoslavia like Croatia are now attracting tourists and are close to agreeing European Union membership. Many of the world’s best sportsmen and women also come from the region with footballers like Serbia’s Nemanja Vidic and Croatia’s Luka Modric to the tennis players Novak Djokovic and Anna Ivanovic.

Many commentators have speculated that Mladic’s arrest may have been induced through diplomatic circles that would quicken up Serbia’s membership to the European Union. Yet many Serbs feel aggrieved by their national perception of those around Europe. And do they have a right to be? The Yugoslavian break up and subsequent war did not stem from a couple of years of uncertainty. There have been ethnic tensions between Yugoslavs for many centuries, a country composed of Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox. In World War 2 over 1.2 million Yugoslavs were killed, but not by Hitler’s war machine, but mainly through ethnic violence. The Communist dictatorship of Marshal Tito brought decades of stability; but his death only saw those underlying tensions come to a head at the beginning of the 1990s. The all-out war saw all men conscripted and all families suffer, yet the perception is that it was instigated by Serbs. Despite the bloodshed inflicted by the likes of militant criminals like Arkan and Mladic, it is wrong to simply pigeon hole the entire nation of Serbia as the only aggressors, many were murderous and acted with impunity; but like most wars it was subject to history. The Serb victimhood was used by politicians to fuel Serb nationalism. It ultimately inflamed Milosevic to attack Kosovo at the end of the century, bringing NATO and Russia to the verge of war.

History has unfolded in front of us with new nations with strong cultures, and Europe has yet again learnt to move on from its troubled past. The capture of Mladic may finally end an era of aggression and insularity for Serbia and now allow it to evolve politically, economically and socially.

What drives them?

I have written before about heroes and why people choose sporting icons as people they aspire to. Sportsmen and women command respect not only for their punishing training regimes and collection of silverware, but their determination and mental attitude. Their regimented and relentless struggle to push themselves not only inspires us, but also makes us question their resolve and will to compete. These people, from all backgrounds, have a purpose and drive that often shuns the normal plateaus of human endurance and takes them to the top of their profession and the podium.

The Olympic Games is nearly within a year and it is the sporting event that perhaps captures the public’s imagination the most. Though most of the athletes are now professional and sporting contracts have made athletic careers more lucrative, it is popular because there is something very organic and pure about the competition. Years of struggle, injury and scrutiny, culminate in the opportunity to reach the ultimate goal in sport. Why do they push themselves so far and often to the edge? And why do we admire these people so much? What is it that separates them from politicians or scientists?

Perhaps the first thing to reflect on is the result. Athletes yearn to the pinnacle of victory. Defeat is an obstacle that drives them further. A critic could suggest that in today’s wealth and sponsorship dominated market, athletes can comfortably survive, even if they do not always finish first. However, it would be naive to suggest that the top athletes enter competitions purely to fulfil branding and contractual obligations. They are there to win, there is no other alternative. The trials of Tim Henman at Wimbledon became of perennial interest to the British public because of the struggle and narrative. His story represented the ‘glorious loser’ as he struggled to contain Pete Sampras or failed to put down Goran Ivanisevic. Though fond in the British public’s eye, I’m certain Henman would prefer to be history’s victor rather than nearly man.

The determination of most sportspeople is something different that we cannot contemplate. For many it is the only life they have ever known. Boxing is an avenue for them to harness something out of life, away from the traumas of poverty and crime. There are of course plenty of rags to riches stories within the world of politics and business but they do not encapsulate the same setbacks as sportspeople. The candour can often be lost in Hollywood films but it represents a dogma that both children and adults aspire too.

Contrast that to the lives of politicians. They possess that drive and vigour to achieve something and create ‘change’ for the better. However, the fog and cloudy toxicity in politics is something that does not represent something pure or clean. We do not see the negotiations and compromises. We see politicians as shady and self-serving; determination is a thirst for power not success.

Compare and contrast two men of time: Steve Redgrave and Gordon Brown, both highly determined and motivated people. Brown, a custodian of power for the past 15 years is seen as spiteful and insolent, his insipid relationship with Tony Blair fragmented the heart of New Labour and tarnished the portrayal of government. Redgrave, the five-time Gold Olympian rower, was diagnosed with diabetes three years before the Sydney Games in 2000. The media wrote him off and said that someone with condition would not be able to compete. Redgrave, 35 at this point, used this as a thrust to win. Three years later he was picking up his fifth and final gold medal. Perhaps it is unfair to contrast the two but it represents the difference between drive and selfishness in these two fields.

Politicians’ legacies are often judged by history, politicians like President Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon had obvious personal flaws; cold, ignorant and opportunistic, but their history is written in legislation and its evolution in society. Whereas sport captures in real time the first person over the line, the goal in the final minute and the shot that beats the clock. We recognise the training and the punishment, but we remember ‘the moment’. That is what drives sports people over the edge. That is why we understand the rage and the adulation. The goal is to win and that is final.

It is often why people take extra measures to ensure success. The likes of Ben Johnson and Marion Jones were under pressure to perform and they knew drugs were an easy option to achieve that. Just like politics the necessity to smear and stain rivals is often an easier, yet dirty road to journey.

Politics and sport define eras, and define the way we organise our lives. It is just that sport conveys emotions in a much more visceral and raw manner. Being a part of that as a fan is an inspiration, but being the athlete that everyone wants to cheer and recognises is the spur that pushes them over the line. Sport answers easy questions, politics does not.

The Flashman papers.

The role of the media in politics and its use to construct and then ultimately destruct the careers of those in power is well known. For years sketch writers and cartoonists have lampooned the credibility and fallibility of politicians and in reverse speechwriters, spin doctors and political advisors have been hired to lionise their every move and utterance. The cult of personality in electoral politics can be grave or a procession to a Ministerial promotion.

It is particularly interesting to look at the relationship between the three major parties and their own ‘witticisms’ of each other. The age of coalition government has flipped the previous polarities and has increased the forensic detail on policy and partnership, particularly in the Liberal Democrat’s ailing leader Nick Clegg. Clegg, whose election debate performances spun the short-lived craze of ‘Cleggmania’ is now perceived as the manservant to the Bullingdon boy David Cameron. Clegg was previously deemed a fresh faced reformer on the outside, yet a year later his political reputation has been tarnished by his partnership in Government that supposedly quashed his principles. Clegg’s short lived ascendancy and decline, is through a cocktail of his political weakness and the media turning the screw on his every mistake.

Labour leader, Ed Miliband exclaimed that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was like Harry Paget ‘Flashman’, the ‘hero’ in the George Fraser MacDonald novels. Harry Flashman VC, KCB, KCIE, Legion d’Honneur and so on was a Victorian soldier who was chucked out of Rugby and whose father bought him a commission in the light dragoons. Some say he was a cavalier, cheat, thief and womanising cad – not exceptional talents for a politician to have. Though Flashman was heroic as well, he saved British India, confounded the French and defeated the Su Indians; he even took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade. It is not necessarily a bad portrait to take on. It was the Soviet’s who pejoratively called Mrs Thatcher the ‘Iron Lady’ yet she used this to enhance her personality.

Ed Miliband whose distinguishing features have seen him titled ‘Red Ed’ for his apparent Old Labour views. He has also been toyed because of his inferiority to his bigger brother, former Foreign Secretary, David. The issue with asserting a personality is that it can inevitably lead to parody and typecast. John Major, who came to power after ten years of Mrs Thatcher, was portrayed as the ‘grey man’ for his insipidness. Tony Blair, despite the charisma and personality, is known for his lack of substance too. Playing to the media helps politicians get to where they want to belong but the continuous airbrushing assimilates a portfolio to one of Lord Sugar’s rejects: all talk but utterly hopeless.

It is unfair because politicians are never going to get things right. The age of 24-hour news examines every single angle of a story and grasps every opinion. An apology shows weakness, but defiance can show a lack of sympathy or pure haughtiness. The end of Gordon Brown’s tenure in Downing Street reflected this perfectly. Enoch Powell famously said that ‘All political lives end in failure’ and whilst Cameron and Miliband will continue to play their Punch and Judy politics, Clegg will continue to stand in the background resembling Hamlet’s indecisiveness and retain his position as media/electorate punch bag.

The last fighting Tommy. Remembered

The final British soldier of the Great War passed away this week. Claude Choules, who was 110, died in a nursing home in Australia. He was the final combat troop to see the surrender of the German Imperial Navy and the scuttling of the fleet at Scapa Flow. For a long time, we have counted down a final resting place for this selfless generation to a war that no one wanted to talk about.

The interesting thing about Britain and war is that we seem to revel in all elements of it. Military terminology is laced in sporting adjectives and the Royal Wedding would not have been complete without a flyover from a Hurricane, Lancaster and the Spitfire. The current trend is raising money for cancer and armed forces charities, yet to a great extent Britain, until the Second World War, Britain was quite a pacifistic nation. World War One is inherently apart of that.

Empire was not necessarily conducive towards war-mongering and despite the ugly images of Amritsar, Hola or Palestine, Britain did its very best to keep the peace with few patrolling on the ground. In historical terms, British generals tend to be lionised because victories tended to come by surprise; mainly because our geography saw a greater need in sea power rather than land forces. The likes of Blenheim (Marlborough), Waterloo (Wellington) and El-Alamein (Montgomery) are etched in the nation’s psyche, yet other historical land battles are hard to come by.

Britain has had few, certainly over the past two centuries, army generals as Prime Ministers. The Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley) stands out, yet the greater demands of Parliamentary democracy intertwined with Empire meant that Westminster had less input from military minds. Even Cromwell’s New Model Army was disbanded after it defeated the Charles the First’s loyalists. Compare that to the likes of continental Europe who saw military men dominate domestic politics for a century further.

The origins of World War One are often manifested in the Congress of Vienna, a century earlier that did not prevent all wars (Crimean, Franco-Prussian) but negated all out continental war. This was the first war that Britain legally enforced enlistment. This was common in Germany and France, yet Britain, who tended to avoid European affairs, finally asked its men to enrol. We now know, the pageantry and patriotism became blurred and much of Europe was converted into blood lands. The massacres and suffering decimated a generation and inflicted the vivid horrors of mechanical war to the ordinary.

People like Choules, and those that have gone before him, did not revel in their situation. To them it was pure and simply about duty. World War Two is frequently embedded in our national psyche because we did not see the wide scale human suffering across Europe. We remember the likes of Coventry and HMS Hood, and those who died. However, we do not lament the struggle of the Blitz, Dunkirk or the Battle of Britain. These are scorched in our memories as times of community and celebration. World War Two was an occasion when we emerged from the dark perils of solitude to emerge as victors. World War One was intolerable, unimaginable and suffering. The fighting was not brave because no one entirely knew what would ensue. Inevitably, men were slaughtered and families destroyed. The Great War should never be deemed as a grey conflict that preceded the heroism and gallantry of World War Two, it was a story in itself. Choules, was part of a generation of men that went over the top with the uncertainty of what would happen. The tragedy of the Great War was not the diplomacy and politics that happened after, it was the slaughter on the Somme, Passchendaele and Verdun. We should all remember that.

Kant and Osama.

I had an interesting thought after the manhunt and then eventual death of Al-Qaeda’s Osama Bin Laden. Many philosophy students will be familiar with the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario; an idea of whether it is right to torture someone who holds information that could prevent a bomb or weapon of mass destruction from detonating, saving many lives but compromising morals. Information is still unravelling from the operation and the US government is deciding whether it is in the public interest for some of it to become known. We are told that knowledge of Bin Laden’s compound was obtained through the monitoring of a courier, but who knows whether this information came from another source?

The utilitarian view that everything should be done in the greater good is extremely plausible and favourable in most scenarios; but most countries hold dear the founding notions of Habeas Corpus and not torturing citizens. Kant’s argument, the categorical imperative, pushed the notion that people are ends in themselves; they cannot be used as means. For example, in a war, it is morally wrong to shell an area if you think an enemy may be hiding there, but kill a few innocent people instead, the sacrifice of the few for the many is necessary - is morally incompatible.

Theories always sound grand on paper and often seem inflexible when discussed in open debate. Would countries and citizens deem the utilitarian approach that punishment of the innocent can be justified if the majority benefit, if Osama’s whereabouts had been obtained by torture and he was on the verge of planning another 9/11? Would this contravene national morality? Or can laws and rights be absolute? These were questions America asked itself in the aftermath of September 2001 and after Sunday it may tip the balance that it made the right decision.

In the name of Osama.

So Osama is dead, hiding in a small provincial town in the heart of Pakistan, his last moments were dealt with by a team of US Navy Seals. The rapture across America is understandable and the vast majority of world leaders have welcomed the news of bin Laden’s death. There are a few things to take away with his passing. Firstly, one of the most iconic men of the twenty-first century is gone. The pictures and videos that followed 9/11 showed a man uttering strong hate and revenge, yet remaining calm and unflustered throughout. We have been led to believe that he has been residing within caves and the parochial uplands of Pakistan. Yet despite the infrequent nature of his media appearances this revolutionary became more iconic than the likes of Che Guevara. The world underestimated the man's reverence and his ability to unite under one organisation.

Previously, America had fought enemies within countries and regions. Even the Communist ideology could be sourced to the Kremlin in Moscow or Castro in Havana. Al Qaeda was an enemy confronting American interests all around the world and yet its leaders could not be sourced to one specific location (Bin Laden spent years in Sudan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and his final residence Pakistan). This distorted omnipresence fooled Pentagon hawks into believing all terrorist groups prescribed as ‘enemies of America’ were off shoots of Al Qaeda. Militant Islamic groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas were tarred with the same brush yet their cause was ingrained in a deeper nationalist cause much like the IRA. This made the ‘War on Terror’ became amorphous and tactically unwinnable.

September 11th and the casualties across the Eastern seaboard of American will always be remembered. The calculated and horrifying death toll will be etched in the minds of the people going to work on that Tuesday morning. This was only the awakening, attacks in Bali, Madrid and London spread the terror to other big metropolitan areas. It changed the relationship between citizens and governments and between faiths and neighbourhoods.

When the world comes to judge the legacy of bin Laden and his ideology, perhaps most people will forget the deaths inflicted not on infidels, but on ordinary Muslims. Al Qaeda saw itself as a liberator from Western decadence and puppet regimes in the Middle East, yet tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people have been slain in Pakistan, Indonesia and ultimately Iraq in the name of Al Qaeda and Islam. Whether Bin Laden ceased to become a protagonist or figurehead in recent years is possibly true, but it is fair to assess that his impact was huge, in terms of lives, not successes.

The question no one can answer is whether his death will draw a line under the continuous violence in the name of ‘Islam’ or whether the Arab Spring will evolve into a bloc of freely democratic and legitimate Arab nations? The latter would perhaps be a worthy resolution for all those innocent men, women and children who died under his stewardship. It will certainly not be the end of Al-Qaeda.