BLOG POSTS

In June last year the people of the U.K. voted by 51.9% to 48.1% to leave the European Union. ‘Brexit’ had triumphed, but only just. The result highlighted a nation deeply divided, perhaps more so than it had ever been since the Civil War of 1642.

In November last year the people of the United States of America voted Donald Trump as their new president. The result was so close that, had it not been for the Electoral College system of democracy in that country, his opponent would now be occupying the White House, and Mister Trump would have retired with his tail between his legs. Another nation deeply divided in its political thinking, perhaps the most its citizens have been set against each other since the American Civil War of 1861.

Today, we learn that Turkey’s leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has succeeded in his attempt to become the virtual dictator of that country by a mere 51% of the vote. Yet another bitterly divided nation. ^[1]

After a British ‘Brexit’ the far-right wing of the Tory Party established itself in government without a mandate from the people. It’s leader, Theresa May, is proving herself a Margaret Thatcher on steroids. Her political ideal is an alliance with the right-wing Trump regime in America, more power to the corporations, and almost certainly the eventual ‘Americanization’ of the British National Health Service.

Meanwhile, Trump and his cohorts inflate the military budget and begin a strategy of ‘do as we say, or else,’ to the rest of the world. North Korea, Russia, and China are lined up in U.S. crosshairs and Trump’s second-in-command has only today made clear that nuclear war is an option firmly entrenched on the table. ^[2]

Quite how Turkey’s Erdogan will react to all this is still debatable. The country’s future is as yet a closed book, but given his treatment of innocent academics, journalists, and others following the abortive coup against him last year, it cannot appear exactly rosy.

On May 7th this year, the French people will vote for a new president. The far-right nationalist party leader, Marine Le Pen, has been doing well in the polls…

…but is not thought to have any chance of becoming the overall winner. But then, Brexit was unexpected, Trump was a rank outsider, and a secular Turkey never really anticipated Erdogan would get his way.

A world divided as never before is a world enveloped in conflict and drawing closer to eventual war. If the French throw Marine Le Pen to the wolves on May 7th it will keep at least one candle of hope burning in this otherwise darkened world. If they don’t it will add one more division of conflict to this bitterly divided planet.

^{[1] “Turkey referendum: Vote expanding Erdogan powers ‘valid'” BBC, April17th 2017}

^{[2] “Pence: US era of strategic patience with North Korea over” BBC, April 17th 2017}

The air strike by U.S. missiles on a Syrian airbase today is an act of war, not just against Syria, but also its ally, Russia. It puts the ball firmly in Putin’s court. If he doesn’t react, he will be seen as weak. If he orders military action in reprisal, it will likely result in a third world war.

There will be many who’ll applaud this latest act of aggression by the United States. The U.S. Congress has already fallen into line behind their leader and the British government has, unsurprisingly, showed its support for America’s reactive military strike.

The use of nerve agents in warfare has been banned since 1925 under the Geneva Protocols, yet chemical weapons were used with impunity by the U.S. military in Iraq. But where were the U.S. media cameras, so quick to broadcast images of dead and dying children in Khan Shaykhun, when white phosphorus was killing and maiming people in Iraq? Strangely, they weren’t around. I wonder why.

As George Monbiot reported in the Guardian back in 2005:

The first account…unearthed in a magazine published by the US army. In the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry’s fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: “White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high explosive]. We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”

The second, in California’s North County Times, was by a reporter embedded with the marines in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. “‘Gun up!’ Millikin yelled … grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. ‘Fire!’ Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call ‘shake’n’bake’ into… buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.”

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for “Military purposes… not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare”. But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be “any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm”.

White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org: “The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen… If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone.” As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke “releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces… Contact… can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage.” ^[1]

The speed of Trump’s reactive strike against the Syrian al-Shayrat airfield just south of Homs speaks more of China and North Korea, than possible Syrian malpractise. It’s usual for military involvement to only come following days, or weeks, of planning and discussions. The speed of this response was all about Chinese premier Xi Jinping’s imminent arrival in Florida for his much publicized first meeting with Donald Trump.

To quote Paul Haenle, a veteran US diplomat:

“This is probably not a welcome development for Xi and the Chinese in terms of optics. It somewhat weakens the image of Xi as a strong statesman on the world stage. It will distract from coverage of the summit in US media. But more importantly, I think it says a lot about the US power and preeminent leadership role. It’s hard to imagine any other country in the world making that kind of unilateral strike – certainly not China.”

Bully-boy tactics have long been the Trump way of business. He’s always got his way by ensuring he held the strongest hand in any deal. That’s fine when playing poker; these days, when honour and loyalty raises only a sneer, it may even be considered the right way to do business.

When charged with leading a hellbent on empire-building superpower, such methods may bring results, but they may not be the kind of conclusion likely to prove beneficial to the long-term welfare of the human race.

^{[1] “The US used chemical weapons in Iraq – and then lied about it” George Monbiot, The Guardian, November 15th 2005}

Flags disgust me. Why do we as a species continually insist on displaying these symbols of nationalistic pride as though we were still uncivilized tribes hellbent on raping, pillaging, and slaughtering the bods living over the next hill, or sand-dune, for no other reason than, well – ‘it seemed a good idea at the time?’

I saw the image above on the BBC website today and realised just how sickening it truly is. It’s Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May, signing the letter that will instigate the U.K.’s departure from the European Union. The large (and obviously carefully placed) Union Jack draped by the ornate fireplace is symbolic of nothing more than a nation withdrawing into itself, a return to the days of yesteryear when it was still possible to brainwash young men into being slaughtered by the thousands on some far-off battlefield, for no reason other than that of nationalistic pride.

Nowhere is this vile symbolism more grossly portrayed than in the United States. I remember arriving on its shores back in September 2002, just one year after the attacks known as 9/11, to be horrified by the nation-wide outburst of nationalism visible on almost every building, vehicle, ‘T’-shirt and baseball cap. The national flag was displayed everywhere it could possibly be placed, like some great, symbolic, upraised finger gesture, and not just to the perpetrators of those attacks but to all the rest of the world.

“The Flag” is what America’s about. Little kids in grade (infant/junior) school are taught ‘allegiance to the flag’. Immigrants wishing to become citizens must swear allegiance to the flag:

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Despite nearly fifteen years in the U.S., I never had the desire to become an American citizen. I couldn’t, anyway. I would have choked on the oath of allegiance. I’ve never pledged allegiance to any one nation, and I never will. I was born British, but now I’m ashamed of that country and what it’s becoming.

I remember seeing all those symbols of nationalism on arriving in America, and thinking how terribly ‘un-British’ it all seemed. The only time Union flags were displayed in any number in the U.K. was at a coronation, or royal funeral perhaps. Now, since Brexit, flags are on display again; nationalistic fervour stirred up via a piece of coloured cloth on a stick.

Governments rattle on about ‘globalization’. On the one hand, they tell us how wonderful it is while waving their nationalistic symbols with the other. What they mean is globalization is great if you hold all the aces, especially militarily. It’s not so much fun if you’re the underdog forced to do the bidding of a superpower. “Liberty and justice for all” doesn’t mean much when the hated symbols of an invader, and its lackeys, are planted on your doorstep.

There’s a programme on British television called, “Room 101.” Three pseudo-celebs are asked to pick a particular something from everyday life that they intensely dislike. The three things are debated and one of them will end up in “Room 101,” a mythical vault in the BBC from which things never return.

I’m never likely to be asked to appear on “Room 101,” but if I were the first thing I’d choose to be consigned to that vault would be “Flags and nationalistic symbols.” I truly believe it’s time we got rid of them and learned to live together in this world.

Though I don’t doubt there are many who would disagree.