9/11 - America's nightmare

If history is a subject about remembering the names of dead kings and queens and memorising important dates, then September 11th, 9/11, is the most memorable of them all. On that, beautiful Tuesday morning in downtown Manhattan, where clear blue skies and naked sunshine shone upon the east coast metropolis, the events of that fateful day, that left the whole world aghast, turned the vivid blue sky to a choking, black fog. The television news replaying footage like an advertisement, looping pictures of horror and awe. Beneath, within the panic, saw the remnants of a European city, razed to the ground by Allied bombing; a grey haze and tampered soul. Yet this was not just a mass grave, this was the sowing of seeds for a nightmare that was about to unfold, one that would make us all victims. Ten years on, the drama appears to have quelled. The protagonists have been written out of the script. George W. Bush, then US President, is now retired and has already written his memoirs and Osama bin Laden, the poetic Saudi and Al-Qaeda leader, met his end this year in his compound in Pakistan. A decade later, as the world relives the tales of bravery and loss from loved ones and observers, we have a clearer picture of the world we now live in and what 9/11 experience taught us all and inevitably the history books.

America’s response and subsequent combat mission in Afghanistan was permitted by the UN and was backed by 41 different countries, who all provided troops to bring down the Taliban in Afghanistan. Nearly ten years after the Cold War had ended and involved in fewer armed conflicts, this was an opportunity for the world to see the firepower of the American military. Cruise missiles, stealth bombers and futuristic weapons all contributed to the downfall of the Taliban regime and the liberation of Kabul in late 2001. This was a victory for the men and women who had lost their lives in the towers, the Pentagon and the many who had tackled the would be suicide bombers in Pennsylvania. Yet, all the while Mr Bin Laden managed to cross the border and live safely in neighbouring Pakistan.

Perhaps the country that has suffered the most subsequently is Pakistan. None of the men that flew the planes into the towers were Pakistani nationals. Before 9/11 there had been only one suicide attack incident, since 9/11 there have been hundreds. The Pakistani state has become a lot weaker and many of the moderates have been succeeded by Islamists who despise the values of the West and America. Much of the aid given to the Pakistani state has been swallowed up by the military, leaving the education budget with a miserly 2%. Most military analysts say that the problem now lies in east of Afghanistan, in Pakistan. NATO troops will never be able to defeat the Taleban because its roots are tribal and local, just like the British Government could never defeat the IRA. The notion of state building in Afghanistan is impractical because the issues that need addressing are political. When NATO troops finally leave, will Afghani troops be capable of defending their country or will the militants from Pakistan be waiting in anticipation? The war planning was nonexistent and improvised as the battles ensued.

Not since Pearl Harbour had America been attacked so unexpectedly and spectacularly. As intelligence experts searched for answers, the stories of heroism and selflessness emerged from the dust. No one can deny America’s anger and certainly, its self-contemplation of what had just happened; the people who had died were casualties, just like other people who had died in bombings or hijackings over the years. Yet to die ‘at’ 9/11 made someone more exceptional than for someone to die ‘on’ September 11. The circumstances were horrific, but it blazed a trail of American exceptionalism that was ultimately toxic. They weren’t just killing and targeting Americans, they were killing and targeting America itself.

This led to the Bush Administration, acting with impunity in Iraq, without a second resolution from the UN Security Council because this was a war for freedom and democracy. The CIA conducted the rendition and torture of foreign nationals in Guantanamo Bay and other countries. It was a foreign policy based on a doctrine not the economics, so as Americans enjoyed further tax breaks and the extension of social security, the country’s foreign adventures were paid on its credit card (the Bank of China had the lowest interest repayments). It is inconceivable based on today’s sluggish American economy and deficit that it would even consider intervening in countries with despotic regimes such as Syria or Iran.

9/11 was a horrendous day for the people of New York but it now is a part of what it means to be a New Yorker. It was the first event that the globalised world witnessed and suffered. We all are subject to stricter security measures in airports and the rise of CCTV in our towns and cities. We were brought together by the loss but it did a great deal of harm to the global communities. Suspicion and contempt for innocent people has only made some situations worse. September 11th was a dark day and forever the empty chair will always remind families at holidays and celebrations. Yet we should not forget the other victims and the how it really changed the world forever.

The 'Right' of Europe

As the party conference season descends on the UK after the Summer Parliamentary recess, much of the focus will be on the three major parties and their policies towards the economy, education and health. One party that will be holding its party conference this week in Eastbourne, will be the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP as it is ubiquitously known, and its charismatic leader Nigel Farage. Known within the mainstream as a party that rejects UK membership of the European Union, UKIP is often seen as a place for right wing Tories to retreat to when they don’t like the direction of the Conservative Party. Yet, with bailouts within the Eurozone and increasing concerns about immigration, where does the future lie for parties of the right within Europe.

All across the continent, parties with right wing agendas have surged in popularity. Countries like Finland, in the heart of liberal Scandinavia, saw the True Finns party take almost a fifth of the votes in the recent Parliamentary elections, finishing third overall. The True Finns reject the EU bailout of countries like Greece and Portugal and promote Finnish women to stay home and have more children, preferably ‘ethnic Finns’. This was all democratic, whilst across the border in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik a lone gunman killed scores of younger members of Norway’s Labor Party, an institution he felt that had polluted the Norwegian way of life.

Traditionally, we associate right wing politics with racism and anti-Semitism. The massacre at Clifford’s Tower in York, the conquest of Toledo in Spain and latterly the Holocaust. Yet anti-Semitism is becoming less accepted by most European countries, all European countries recognise Israel and have anti-Semitism laws in place. In fact, figureheads of Europe’s right wing movement such as Marie Le Penn of France’s Front National or Geert Wilders, the Netherland’s most outspoken politician both embrace Judaism. Most right wing parties on the continent have turned their scorn towards Islam.

Too much immigration is not necessarily a right wing dictum; you are just as likely to feel resentment of uncontrolled immigration from traditional UK Labour Party members to traditional Tories living in the Shires. The right has always been successful in threading such political wisdom through appropriating the right of the individual and the need for a smaller government. Single issues parties like the British National Party (BNP) have usually failed because their narrow point of view and lack of political organisation, rare successes can be attributed to voters wanting to give the Government of the day a bloody nose, nothing more. UKIP does not pursue a racist agenda, it is libertarian, it believes Britain has the right to control its own borders and sees Europe as a talking shop full of unelected bureaucrats. In the last European elections in 2009, UKIP secured 13 seats, the same as the governing party of the day, Labour, and under an electoral system that is slightly more favourable to them.

When asked about what concerns voters most, Europe is normally an issue that comes way down the list of priority for most of the electorate. Yet, it would be interesting to see what would happen if UKIP perhaps took a sharper line on immigration, like other European parties. The current Conservative Government of the day would have a dilemma of what to do regarding its coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. In 2005, under the leadership of Michael Howard, the Conservatives took a right wing stance on crime, immigration and Europe, forcing Tony Blair to move his election strategy to the same audience, most likely because they did not have the capability of winning. In an age where austerity is king and voters want secure employment and an accountable political and tax system, it would be interesting to hear what Mr Farage has to say and whether he decides to tread on the toes Mr Cameron.

Gaddafi: the madness of the tyrants.

After six months of fighting and over 40 years ruling Libya, it appears that the end is nigh for Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. ‘The mad dog of Middle East’ as President Reagan once called him is defying the calls from international leaders and has called for his loyalists to prepare for martyrdom as he takes once last stand against the approaching rebels. The wall-to-wall coverage on television has been fascinating as the press corps push further into the once Gaddafi stronghold, evidence of possible war crimes as followers prepare for the reckoning. Yet Gaddafi, as eccentric as he may appear on Libyan state television and defiant in his final hours, knows that surrender is not an option and giving up is the action of a weak man.

Gaddafi is part of the old breed of tyrant. He rules with an iron fist but understands the theatre surrounding personality politics. He declared himself a colonel because he did not see himself as the leader of the Libyan revolution; he was a cog in freeing the people from the monarchy. Like Nasser of Egypt or Amin of Uganda he is a representation of the people; outspoken, defiant with an ability to accrue support at home under international pressure. Gaddafi is known for his flirtation with state sponsored terrorism, arming the IRA, bombing a German nightclub full of American servicemen and infamously the Pan AM flight that blew up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. Gaddafi has been a pariah and a darling of the West in his 40 years of rule. In 2009, he bizarrely used the UN as a floor to criticise the UN Security Council and Israel before moving onto trivial matters such as swine flu and the US invasion of Grenada in 1986. Yet this perceived ‘madness’ makes him more dangerous.

If Gaddafi was mad then how did it explain his ability to seize then hold onto power for more than 40 years? To describe him as ‘mad’ (despite the TV footage) is lazy and is an easy way to submit to dictator stereotypes. Gadaffi, like Hitler or Reagan, was an actor. The issue is that like Amin or Mobuto, is when the reality and the theatre become blurred. People in the West often question why these people last so long and why there aren’t more coups; it is the mix of the personality backed by a repugnant secret police that punishes any form of criticism. Under Saddam Hussein, prisoners had their feet tortured with a cane (the feet contain hundreds of nerve endings) and Chile’s General Pinochet used to have dissidents dropped from helicopters into the Pacific Ocean whilst tied up. Madness is used because it politicians are known for risk taking and their obsession, think Richard Nixon or Churchill. It is the unpredictability and mystique of the man that makes the next moves impossible to call. People live in fear.

Gaddafi will be fully aware of the plight of his former neighbour, Egypt’s former dictator Hosni Mubarak and appearances by fallen leaders in The Hague. Or the indignant end of Saddam. Gaddafi will ensure that he does not suffer a similar a feat.

Committing genocide.

There was a programme on BBC4 on Tuesday called ‘My Father was a Nazi Commandant’ which told the story of a German woman, daughter of a Nazi, meeting a Jewish girl, who had worked as a servant under his auspices in the Plaszow concentration camp, near Krakow. The Nazi in question was the infamous Amon Goeth, famously depicted by Joseph Fiennes in Steven Spielberg’s ‘Schindler’s List’. As the programme and the film show correctly, Goeth was following orders from above, but he was in ultimate control of the thousands passing through the gates of Plaszow. Many of them making the journey from the ghettoes of Poland would never see anything else again.

What was clear from the German woman, who had never met her father (Goeth was hanged when she was a baby), was that she felt the burden of grief and pain from a generation that she did not know and from a father she had no connection. She had grown up in a Germany that had lost millions of its citizens to war. There was a culture of reticence, rather than denial. Even to do this day, criminals with an association to Nazi terror are still being tried. In May, a trial in Munich ended following the case of John Demjanjuk, a 91-year-old naturalised American, found guilty for the murder of nearly 30,000 prisoners at the Sobibor camp. Although found guilty, Demjanjuk did not face a penal sentence. So have we reached a stage where justice serves simply as a footnote to history? Have we learnt anything from putting men and women in a court of law to face judgement?

In the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands and Arusha, Tanzania, prosecutors have been questioning suspected war criminals and instigators about their roles in ethnic violence and murder in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Yugoslavia. Perhaps what is most noticeable when we see the men (mostly) in the dock is their meekness, their banality; the very essence that we expect of monsters does not appear present as they take the stand. These men naturally see themselves as Pontius Pilate figures, guilty of accessory but not murder, as academics call it perpetrators not instigators.

This was true of Adolf Eichmann, an organiser and overseer of the Holocaust, who was captured by the Israeli security services in Argentina and brought to trial in Jerusalem. Though historians and spectators conclude that Eichmann was part of a ‘show trial’, (many of the Nazi hierarchy had escaped justice through suicide at the end of the war) this was an opportunity to see why he had participated in the murders. Why did he get involved? What was it about his personality that saw he thought he was doing right? Eichmann’s answer, like many men in that situation, was that he was following orders from above and that it was opportunity for him to further his career. There is something chilling of these men’s evidence, and perhaps it seems naive to account it to a selfish streak and opportunism. Yet, when you account for the massacres that took place in Poland, Bosnia and Rwanda, the perpetrators weren’t trained soldiers or mercenaries they were blue collar tradesman or labourers who lived in a system that inculcated values that inevitably stoked ethnic tensions. They became actors in a play that been written many years before.

It is estimated that between 1900 and 2000, around 60 million people were killed through genocide and ethnic cleansing, that’s around the same amount of combat deaths in World War Two. Men like Goeth, were sadistic animals and oversaw terror that no human should have seen. Perhaps it is too difficult to rationalise the others, they are participants and for no palpable reason can we explain why they committed, watched or acquiesced. Like countries and international organisations. We are all guilty to some extent. It is often easier to sit back and do nothing. As the eighteenth century politician Edmund Burke said, “When good men do nothing, evil prevails”. History dictates all.

The Tea Party's budget

Over the weekend, the town of Ames, Iowa held a straw poll to see who would lead as the early contender for the Republican Presidential nomination in next year’s election. Out of the ten candidates who put their names forward, it was the fiery Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, who won the poll slightly ahead of Texas’s Ron Paul. Historically the result has been insignificant, in 2008 Mitt Romney won here only to lose the caucuses to Mike Huckabee and the eventual candidate John McCain. So as the electioneering and rhetoric begins are we still any closer to understanding what the Republicans will bring and whether they will make a challenge to President Obama.

The debacle over the American debt crisis was an embarrassment to the American economy leading to its credit downgrading from Triple A status to AA plus by the ratings agency Standard and Poor (S&P). It highlighted the toxic brinkmanship within Congress, particularly from the Republican controlled House of Representatives but also reflected on President Obama’s weakness to negotiate. Many critics say that the continuous sluggish growth, high unemployment and ineffectiveness of the stimulus package has meant that a well-packaged economic policy from the Republicans could pose a threat to Mr Obama in next year’s poll.

Yet the Republicans will continue to struggle until they are able to compensate over the power struggle held by the Tea Party. Vice-President Joe Biden allegedly called them ‘terrorists’ in the budget negotiations over the budget ceiling. Though strong in its meaning, perhaps he had a point. During the Presidency of George W. Bush, the budget ceiling rose on five separate occasions, two full- scale combat missions launched and Medicare extended, all at a great cost. Under Obama: operations have ended in Iraq and heightened in Afghanistan (partially in Libya), extensive reforms of healthcare to the poor, young and unemployed and at the same time no tax rises. Yet the Republicans see the raising of the debt ceiling as outrageous. America has a cultural issue of spending and consumerism that needs addressing, but the political wrestling over a possible default showed how unrealistic the Tea Party is behaving.

The Republicans will continue to sneer at the liberal elite that hold sway within the Democratic Party and enforce its tough talking on anti-abortion, gun control, evolution, loose interpretation of the Constitution and water fluoridisation, yet its fiscal and economic policies continue to fall out of line. Romney, the Mormon former Governor of Massachusetts, extended health care and introduced real term tax rises; yet this is a policy he isn’t talking about because it bears resemblance to that of Mr Obama’s. Mrs Bachmann, a trained tax attorney, has credentials but appears to be playing to the crowd that desperately loves her social conservatism and doppelganger, Sarah Palin. Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas (a la George W. Bush) and newcomer into the race, has cleared the State’s debt and has kept taxes low (though critics will point to high oil prices) though whether he can adapt his methods to the entire country is another question.

These polls have no real significance and ultimately play a role in raising funds for the candidates. The tough talking will continue to flourish between all candidates, yet until one of them can conceive a viable economic plan then it isn’t worth listening.

Stranded on death row.

The British public is apparently demanding a Parliamentary vote on whether the Government should reintroduce Capital Punishment. It is over 50 years since Parliament abolished the bill and in the nineties the final crimes of high treason and piracy were erased from the legal manuscripts that deemed that the United Kingdom is not a place where criminals are put to death. Yet, is there a moral or financial argument to be made? Or is this purely a piece of political populism that will be contrived to stimulate an apocryphal public debate.

This all stems from the Government’s willingness to open politics to the floor of the people and enhance their contributions through online petitions. The subjects are vetted to prevent insensible debates arising, but any e-petition that exceeds 100,000 signatures must be debated within Westminster and secure a Parliamentary discussion and vote. So would it be realistic to bring back the noose on British soil?

It was Immanuel Kant who said that in a civilised state, it had a right to punish the individual; the death penalty was a moral imperative. In fact, it was a duty; but not to be done with emotion. It is a way to celebrate human dignity, by executing people society is saying you are the responsible agent, you chose to do what you do and you deserve to die for it. We will not look at you as a means to deter others. Your actions are ends in themselves. Only purely evil things are from an evil will. Kant makes a good argument, yet society has moved into an era where punishment is a time to rehabilitate the guilty, not to kill them. It is deemed that liberal democracies do not put prisoners to death. The word punishment derives from the word ‘pain’ but most people think this would be a step backwards.

Is it an effective deterrent? It is still used across Asia and the Middle East, and most notoriously America. In the US, 33 states still have the death penalty, yet a third don’t use it and another third of prisoners who are sentenced to death never see an electric chair or gas chamber. Perhaps it is unsurprising to learn that half of the US’s executions happen in Texas. People sent to death, often spend years on death row challenging the decision. The death penalty does not necessarily create a cheaper and cleaner method of justice.

I am of the opinion that this is a debate that doesn’t need to take place. There are arguments of what to do to the most heinous of criminals like Harold Shipman or Ian Huntley, but it is still demanding of a Government to ask members of a jury to send people to death. The debate should be why short term sentencing doesn’t work and what should be done to reform Britain’s prisons.

The genius on the ball: Bergkamp and Cantona

When we watch football, do we watch it to satisfy a certain emotion? Is the game played to an audience that expects anxiety and yet minutes later rapture? Is football a metaphor for something deeper or metaphysical? Is it a re-enactment of military battles or does it represent something more conceptual? Is football art? Are certain sportsman bringing a more rugged, yet enduring piece of art to a mass market?

Football fans can breed an aura of ignorance or certainly blitheness to the comings and goings of their football team; and many of them are pigeon-holed as yobs or certainly trouble makers. However; if you compare the cost of following your football team over a season to going to the ballet or opera, then you would probably find that watching football comes at a higher premium. Football fans can be harangued as stupid people; why would someone want to follow something that often brings misery to your Saturday and where you have no control over the outcome? Football does not have the crescendo of an orchestra or the soliloquy of a play; yet its arbitrary and refreshing notions take it beyond the realms of higher art; it is safe to say that some footballers are artists themselves.

Two greats of the game, who transformed the way the English game is played and followed, are now curators to the game in another form. Dennis Bergkamp, the former Arsenal and Holland striker is now assistant manager at his boyhood club Ajax. Eric Cantona, the unforgettable Gallic king of Manchester United is now director of soccer of the reformed New York Cosmos. Both men, not necessarily the best players the Premiership has seen, but both brought an artistic deference that can never be murmured.

Anyone that saw Bergkamp control the ball and thread a pass could not mistake it for a work of a genius. His ability to think and play; intelligence is not necessarily an attribute that footballers are compensated with, yet his calmness and display on the pitch was a joy to watch for Arsenal and Holland. There isn’t a football fan who didn’t acknowledge the effortless brilliance of his goal in the quarter finals against Argentina.

Cantona’s mystique was something different. The arrogance of the upturned collar, he was a rebel; but not the teddy boy or punk rocker. He was thoughtful and delicate. His English appeared patchy (he is synonymous with strange adages), yet he was able to express his thoughts on the football pitch. His love of art and poetry from an early age may appear absurd to contrast with away matches against Coventry or Middlesbrough on a Saturday afternoon, yet Eric loved it all. This was his arena. He was a bullfighter and this was his show.

Neither of the two men were blessed with looks, nor the personalities to adore themselves to a family audience. However; art is fundamentally about expression of oneself and the environment around us. Both men employed their talents to define games, seasons and tournaments. Football may not have the prestige of La Scala or the Bolshoi but both men found their way to proclaim themselves and their history is etched on the backs of football shirts and club legend.