What the World Cup tells us about peace in South Africa
The symbolism behind South Africa’s refurbished national stadium strongly represents the spirit of the New South Africa.
The spectacular Soccer City Stadium in Soweto, Johannesburg. It seats 94,700 people.
The centrepiece of World Cup 2010 is South Africa’s refurbished national stadium, Soccer City (Afrikaans – Sokkerstad) in Johannesberg’s Soweto district.
The imagery of this spectacular stadium, its location and the path South Africa took towards not just the World Cup, but also peace, will ensure that this stadium will probably be looked back upon as the most historic since Berlin’s infamous 1936 Olympic stadium.
Built to look like a giant traditional African pot, the stadium sits in one of Johannesburg’s most famous districts. Soweto was the scene of the eponymous uprising against the apartheid regime. When the ruling National Party government tried to enforce Afrikaans language lessons on the English speaking black population, over 10,000 students marched against the government. The government retaliated by shooting and killing 23 students on the first day alone.
The fact the world’s eyes are now fixated on this district once again, but under such a radically different context, provides a stark contrast between the South Africa of then, under apartheid, and now: the New South Africa.
The imagery of the stadium-as-melting-pot, fusing the different disparate people of South Africa into a united people is mirrored in the post-apartheid flag of South Africa: the V or Y shape represents “the convergence of diverse elements within South African society, taking the road ahead in unity”.
The stadium’s cladding represents “earthen colours” and fire, with lights around the bottom representing the heating of the pot, heating which allows the fusion of all the various ingredients. The imagery and narrative of creating a new cosmopolitan and united nation of South Africa out of the many, previously separated peoples, is profound.
The odds of South Africa ever hosting one of the largest sporting events in the world looked million-to-one just a generation ago. The focus for global derision and sports boycotts, how could SA ever put on such an event?
Nevertheless, against all odds the unthinkable has happened and the once boycotted state has made a spectacular turnaround. Now more legitimate and vibrant than ever, South Africa is the host of what is being called the African games, the games are being lauded as a source of hope not just for SA, but the whole of Africa.
We can see that the story of peace in South Africa and its route to receiving the accolade of the World Cup are very much a part of the same narrative.
Constructing the Stadium, Constructing Peace
An Anglophone Union? Emotion and reality
Could a union of English-speaking countries really work? It’s already being called the “next big right-wing political idea”.
The European Union is endemically unpopular in the UK. Brits look across the world and see nations such as the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as preferable bedfellows in stark contrast to the many and varied peoples of Europe, none of whom have English as a national language.
Those who are opposed to the European Union are constantly reminded of the necessity of European integration in the face of globalisation and the emergence of new powers like China, India, the BRIC countries and other burgening states hot on their heels, such as Mexico.
It is in this light that the pipsqueak nations of Europe share a common sense of density – either they hang together or hang alone in the face of the big, bad world. This sense of destiny in amplified by the fact it’s only recently that many of the small nations of Europe have gained independence following an eternity under the thumb of empires. The experience of WWII also makes so many Europeans value co-operation.
Thus, we should see the EU as an alliance of the inadequate. Europeans must speak with a common voice in the world, or else find themselves drowned out by the bigger boys in the playground.
Nevertheless, together Europe can more than just speak up for themselves, these Europeans United form the largest economic market in the world, and have a combined population of half a billion, that’s two-hundred million more than the USA!
However, the Brits have found it all a bit hard to fathom.
When the UK looks at the world it sees not just the faded pink on the map of the world they conqured, but swathes of the world that speaks its language. The British sees whole other continents they can comprehend. On a literal level the British understand Americans, Canadians, Australians and 49 other countries which have designated it as their official language.
The Anglosphere is an almost global nation.
The British imbibe American culture without even thinking about it. It’s so obvious I won’t even spell it out. The same goes for Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
The psychological impact of this is that the British just don’t share the feeling of being a small, endangered nation which needs to club together with the others in proximity to it; the British just don’t have the same felt safety-in-numbers the other nations of Europe acquire from the Union.
Furthermore, the impact of literally being apart from other European nations, the literal separation by the channel, means the UK doesn’t feel the benefits of freedom of movement as obviously. Few British people see spending a day in another European country as effortless as the continentals. Furthermore, when vast tracts of the world shares your language, culture and in many cases, way of life, you don’t see the necessity of European integration. The experience of the World Wars also make the British want to keep away from Europe. Instead we set our sights further afield to the nations and peoples which fought on our side when our European allies (such as the French) were either conquered and occupied, or simply fight against us.
But the ties across the Anglosphere extend to more than just literal ones, ideologically, the UK ‘gets’ the American’s free-market ethos far more, too. Our legal systems are also more similar, with regards the Commonwealth countries. An obvious expression of this would be our shared head of state, none other than HRH Queen Elizabeth II.
I’ll regard the EU as a success when Neighbours is replaced by a Polish soap opera.
In sum, the literal separateness from Europe along with a stronger closeness to the other English-speaking countries means the EU almost violates the key concept of nationalism – that the state (political unit) and nation (grouping of people who share real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin) should be congruent.
This is not to say that the British want to become the 51st state of the USA, or become a province of either Canada or Australia, rather that the UK would (relatively speaking) be more comfortable with a union of Anglophonic countries – be it under NAFTA with the US, Canada (…and, erm, Mexico!) or through enhanced cooperation with the Commonwealth than it would sharing a political system with the many different and more foreign cultures and nations in the EU.
Some may be quick to paint this as racism or ‘exceptionalism’, but firstly the Commonwealth – and Canada and the USA, for that matter, are far more racially diverse than most European countries.
Secondly, and let’s be blunt – was it racist for South Africans to want to be governed by Africans, not Europeans? Or irrationally racist or exceptionalist for the Irish to want to unify? I don’t think it was. And given the option of swapping the EU for an ‘AU’ I believe the British people would chose an Anglophone Union.
However, we must look at the prospects for turning the emotion into reality.
The English speaking countries of the world are disperse.
An Anglophone Union would be far more than 10,000 miles from tip-to-tip
The UK’s proximity to Europe means that our economic ties to Europe are far stronger. The USA may be our top export partner accounting for 13% of trade, but the following six are European, and their combined percentage is 43%.
Furthermore the the USA’s main trading partner in Europe is Germany, not the UK.
In addition, Australia is deepening its economic and regional ties with China, the importance of this new relationship – based largely on Australia’s mineral reserves and other natural resources – is exemplified by Kevin Rudd’s fluent Mandarin.
Money as a language evidently transcends linguistics.
Australia and New Zealand are probably the best case-study if the impracticality of an Anglophone Union. Two English language countries in close proximity with economic, cultural and legal similarities which have yet to unify politically or economically. Though Australia has made various moves toward unification, New Zealand has repeatedly rebuffed them.
“We intend to keep all of our identity, and more,” Ms Clark retorted to Mr Hewson’s suggestions.
If New Zealand can’t put side their few differences, what hope is there for the rest of the English speaking world? Especially when one considers the vast gulf that exists in terms of political differences between the USA and the rest of the English commonwealth, in terms of gun controls and presidential republicanism.
In addition, New Zealand’s rebuttal of Australia shows that though – and obviously, this is only my hypothesis – the British would perhaps will an AU as an alternative to the EU, would the rest of the Anglophone world want us? Why would Australia, Canada and New Zealand want to return to political or market union with the UK if their economic interests lie elsewhere? Political union would almost be tantamount to a return to colonialism, when one considers their combined population is lower than the UK’s. The current moves towards Republicanism in these countries also shows a reluctance to continue even symbolic connections to the UK, let alone substantive connections.
We return to the status-quo. Though it may be emotionally and perhaps even nationalistically harder for the UK to accept, the EU is more logical, flaws and all.
I’m not the kind of person who whines about the Olympics constantly; in fact I’m a massive fan. The entire project is the best opportunity east London’s had in its entire history. Furthermore the entire scheme is currently under-budget (..following a hike in the budget, but let’s forget that) and building work is way ahead of schedule.
Nevertheless, what ought to be the show-piece venue has been subject so many compromises what Londoners have been left with is an uninspiring meccano stadium that currently has no tenable future.
The initial design
The stadium’s initial design (above) was inspired by the human muscle, but since then the design has been scaled back massively. The logic is all well and good, the government does not wish to build a 100,000 seater stadium in London when there is little demand for one. Doing so would risk a Millennium Dome II, potentially straddling the taxpayer with a massive bill for up-keep until a tennent could be found.
Thus, the stadium has essentially 20,000 permanent seats with another 80,000 temporary seats which will be removed following the games.
This is why we have the current, uninspiring, utilitarian design.
Imagine it on a rainy day.
In true British fashion we’ve not quite managed to get that design right, and it’s now got far bigger, unwieldy lights which almost resemble a crown (which is fitting, as 2012 is the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee – perhaps they can pretend it was supposed to be like this all along?).
But this is besides the point, what is of even more concern for me is that the government is legally bound by the IOC to make the stadium a athletics venue, perhaps as a replacement for the ageing Crystal Palace venue. It was a central plank of our bid for the games – a new athletics venue for London. Of course, athletics never attracts 100,000 spectators (except at the Olympics) hence a 20,000 seater venue. All at the cost of £550,000,000. Half a billion on a mostly temporary stadium. With removable seats that won’t even be used for Glasgow’s Commonwealth games, they’ll just be thrown away. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.
But the more one looks into the logic which saw the entire stadium design compromised, the less comfort one can have in the governments ability to organise their way out of a paper bag.
The government has no idea who will take on responsibility for the athletics venue. The plan to avoid a white elephant risks creating a white elephant. Nobody knows who will run this stadium (taxpayer, perchance?).
There have even been vague plans to make the stadium into some kind of educational facility(!?) (Surely 20,000 to a class would fly in the face of Labour’s no-more-than-30-to-a-class policy, haha)
In the absence of a clear plan football team after football team want to take-over the stadium. As a football ground. Not athletics. And this looks increasingly likely to be the case.
There are now serious plans for the stadium to go to West Ham, with them keeping the running track and other athletics facilities for use if and when they are needed.
This is probably the biggest compromise since we became a constitutional monarchy.
We now have to ask ourselves serious questions on why we are building a mostly temporary stadium, at a cost of half a billion pounds only to see it become permanent.
It’s not that there’s been a lack of forethought, the government has simply been thinking the wrong things. This means we’re left with a stadium that looks like a glorified ExCeL centre, a mass of unsightly white tubular metal poles, inspiring.
And a new footie stadium for the Hammers, despite Westfield’s insistence against a football stadium – fearing the calibre of humanity a football match would bring to their brand new shopping centre in the Olympic park.
The whole process is just depressing and shows how confused the authorities have been in going about finding a tenant for the new stadium.
If they’d planned the stadium’s future better we would could have been getting a far more inspiring design.
Bejing's Olympic Stadium, the Bird's Nest
Click here for webcams to see the Olympic’s current progess.
Don’t panic, they’re Islamic
I recently stumbled across this remarkable building in London.
Westminster Cathedral, the Mother Church of Catholicism in the UK
Its neo-Byzantine (think Islamic, but in Roman times) architecture belies its real function – that of the central Catholic church in the UK. It’s certainly the most grand Islamic-style building I know if in the whole country, except maybe Regents Park Mosque.
This building set of off on a trail of thought, firstly I wondered what the Swiss would make of the church’s eighty-seven meter high minaret style tower.
Westminster Cathedral took eight years to construct, starting in 1895
Would this beautiful (Christian) building be unconstitutional in Switzerland?
Regardless of Switzerland, it also forced me to consider the current issue of Islamophobia in Britain. One of the lightning rods for this hatred was the furore surrounding the now dead-in-the-water ‘Mega Mosque’ planned for West Ham. This saga has been rumbling on since 1996.
The £100m-£300m Mosque was designed by renowned architects Allies and Morrison, and would have had a capacity of 40,000 worshippers.
The futuristic Allies and Morrison mosque
The rallying against the mosque in West Ham, and the minaret ban in Switzerland are clearly symptomatic of deeper issues within our society and the current, at best, misunderstanding and at worst, outright hatred towards our fellow countrymen and women.
Finally, the building made me realise there’s a degree of irony in that the chair of the Catholic church is an Islamic influenced building, when one regards the history of anti-Catholicism in the UK.
Each building makes up a part of our city, and together all of a cities’ buildings form a grand and diverse tapestry that inform us of that city’s history. In order to understand our context, history and surroundings we must appreciate each building, every style and all of our landmarks, no matter how much we may dislike them.
There are plenty of examples of cities around the world, and buildings in London, which have been erased due to the fact they don’t fit the current fashion or our current ways of thinking.
One notable example of this is the former parliament of the Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany).
The Palace of the Republic in the former east Germany
The Palace of the Republic (Palast der Republik) in Berlin was built in the 1970s, and though it may not win any prizes in a contest for the most beautiful seat of government in the world, it nevertheless told us an important story which is part of not just just the history of Berlin and Germany, but of the whole of Europe.
Its demolition was completed in 2008. I believe the German authorities made a tragic error. It is entirely wrong to try and airbrush the heritage of east Germany from history. During fifty years of separation, east Germans gained their own traditions, customs and ways of life.
Cultural tensions between the former east and west persist, most vibrantly demonstrated by the persistence of the ‘Wall in the Head’ and the current trend for Ostalgie (Nostalgia for the East).
A friend from the old East Germany testifies that many Germans sought reform of their government, not abolition. She herself protested outside the parliament and at the wall for freedom of movement and freedom of speech.
She did not, however, protest for homelessness, poverty or unemployment, all of which are now endemic problems in Germany – especially in the states forming the former GDR. Many east Germans resent the fact their state was absorbed into the West German system with no compromises and no co-option of many of the policies and in fact, rights, those in the east enjoyed.
These current problems facing the east Germany republic, surely explain Ostalgie.
The 'Trabi' is an enduring symbol of East Germany
Now I am not advocating the re-division of Germany and Berlin, rather pointing out that for us to properly understand history we must understand the lives of those on the other side of the coin. We can’t grasp life on the other side of the Iron Curtain by destroying its remnants.
The former parliament building was relic of east which told us of east German’s lives. From the happy times (my friend recalls fondly visiting the ice skating rink there on weekends) to the more difficult. The parliament was one of the focal points for the escalating protests which eventually brought down the government and was a massively important point in world history, triggering the end of the Cold War and beginning one of the largest waves of democratisation in world history.
This building told us far more about the current issues in Germany, the entire nation’s context, than its planned, pastiche, replacement. How can we understand the present if we erase the past?
The Stadtschloss was demolished to make way for the Parliament. Of course, a historical building in its own right we cannot turn back time - the east German parliament told us far more about contemporary Germany.
The pretext of the demolition was the ostensible presence of asbestos, though it is doubtless the reconstruction of the Stadtschloss will no doubt be far more expensive than any renovation. (Ignoring of course, the fact that many public buildings across the UK and probably Germany are riven with asbestos. I don’t see the authorities demolishing my university or local hospital!)
It saddens me to see the fabric of history destroyed for what are clearly political reasons.
One city that has dealt far better with their communist history is Prague.
The Žižkov TV Tower stands out completely against the serenity and baroque one usually associates with the Paris of the east.
The TV tower was very much maligned by the Czechs, nevertheless proving to be useful for its eponymous function it has survived. In 2000 artist David Černý installed numerous crawling babies on the structure as a temporary, now permanent art work.
Constructed between 1985 and 1992, the TV tower is a symbol of the former communist regime. Picture courtesy of Yoko!
This has proven popular amongst Czechs and adds a whimsical feature to the tower which subverts its communist associations and helped Czechs reconcile the towers imposing nature, while also becoming a tourist draw.
Surely the Germans could have done something just as imaginative with their Palast? They have, after all, retained sections of the Berlin wall, now transformed into the East Side Gallery.
The East Side Gallery, formed from sections of the Berlin Wall. Piece entitled My God help me, this deadly love to survive
Every period of history makes its mark on the present, and in no way is this mark more obvious than in buildings bestowed to us.
We need to look long and hard at our buildings (and ourselves) before we destroy them.
Mexican-American War, 1846-1850; Iraq, 2003-present
John Gast's 1872 painting depicts Colombia (a personification of Ameirca) leading civilisation - enlightenment over (in the picture, literal) darkness, telegraph lines and trains replace barren empty land, and pastoral farm animals replace wild ones; natives flee her unstoppable 'destined' advance. This is Manifest Destiny
“Righteous but ill-informed people of that day sincerely believed their democratic institutions were of such magnificent perfection that no boundaries could contain them. Such a benevolent Creator did not intend such blessings for the few; expansion was a divinely ordered means of extending enlightenment to despot-ridden masses in nearby countries! This was not imperialism, but enforced salvation. So the average American reasoned in the 1840’s when the spirit of manifest destiny was in the air.”
- Westward Expansion, 1949 – Ray Allen Billington
Shock and Awe in Baghdad, 2003
London is perhaps better known for being one of the greenest capital cities in the world, with over 22km squared of royal parkland gracing its surface, than for having a particularly noteworthy skyline.
Bishopsgate Bombing, 1993
That said, London’s relationship with tall buildings is a long and uneasy one. All tall buildings in London share a tragic history of bombings, which took place throughout the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s due to the IRA. The City’s Bishopsgate estate was rocked by a bomb in 1993 which caused literally millions of square foot of damage, almost leading to the Natwest Tower’s destruction. It required extensive refurbishment, costing in the region of £1bn. Natwest eventually left, leading to the new tenants renaming the tower. The death toll was minimised by virtue of it taking place on a Saturday morning. One journalist died.
‘Black gaps punched its fifty-two floors like a mouth full of bad teeth.’ – Daily Mail
Bishopsgate, 1993
The Baltic Exchange, now the site of the Gherkin. 1992
The Canary Wharf estate has had several lucky escapes. Once when an IRA bomb exploded on the nearby South Quays estate in 1996. Two people died. (This bomb literally shook my house, I recall everybody talking about it in primary school the next day.) Another bomb closer to the estate failed to detonate.
BT Tower, 1971
The BT Tower’s top-floor restaurant closed permanently following a bombing.
The newest additions to London’s emerging skyline, such as the Gherkin are also tainted by this bloody past. The Stirling Prize winning tower sits on the site of the Baltic Exchange shopping centre, destroyed by the IRA in 1992.
The future of London’s skyscrapers looks bright, however as that chapter of British history now looks firmly closed thanks to what looks to be an enduring peace in Northern Ireland.
Despite a reputation for architectural serenity when compared with fellow leading cities such as New York or Tokyo, the construction of the HSBC/Citigroup Towers in Canary Wharf (2002) and the more famous, if shorter, ‘Gherkin’ in the City (2003) broke with this tradition, giving London’s few, now ageing, skyscrapers some company.
London's three tallest buildings... but not for long.
The sky-rocketing property prices prior to the economic downtown lead to a glut of new projects. The economic downturn has lead to the suspension of several of these projects, but the good news is most of the noteworthy developments continue, and have moved from architects drawing boards to the building sites.
Of course, this new generation of skyscrapers continue London’s tradition of nicknaming her proudest buildings.
My joint two favourite (and tallest) skyscrapers under construction are the Shard of Glass aka the London Bridge Tower…
This will be the tallest building in western Europe (Moscow will maintain the title) standing 1017 ft high (310m) it will be the first to break the 1000m barrier in London.
..and the Helter Skelter or Pinnacle, only time will tell which name Londoners choose to Christen it.
Set to stand at 288m high, this tower dominates two of London's iconic skyscrapers - 70's masterpiece Tower 42 (bka the Natwest Tower) and Foster's 2003 icon the Gherkin - both pipsqueaks in terms of Skyscraper height at just 600ft and 591ft respectivly. Construction is set to be completed late 2012, early 2013.
Astonishingly, 2009 will see more steel being used in the construction of the Shard of Glass than the entire Olympic Site (source: Financial Times, March 16 2009).
As the Olympics draws ever closer it looks like London has more than just a brand new Olympic Park to show off – it will hopefully have a whole new skyline.
For a full summery of London’s planned skyscrapers visit Skyscrapercity.
What’s wrong with this poster?
- Actually, Churchill understood the virtues of European cooperation
Churchill’s speech to Zurich University, 1946:
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am honored to-day by being received in your ancient university and by the address which had been given to me on your behalf and which I greatly value.
I wish to speak to you to-day about the tragedy of Europe. This noble continent, comprising on the whole the fairest and the most cultivated regions of the earth, enjoying a temperate and equable climate, is the home of all the great parent races of the western world. It is the fountain of Christian faith and Christian ethics. It is the origin of most of the culture, the arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern time. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and the glory which its three or four million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that have sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this twentieth century and even in our own lifetime, wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.
And what is the plight to which Europe has been reduced? Some of the smaller States have indeed made a good recovery, but over wide areas a vast quivering mass of tormented, hungry, care-worn and bewildered human beings gape at the ruins of their cities and their homes, and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new peril, tyranny or terror. Among the victors there is a babel of voices; among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair. That is all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient states and nations, that is all that the Germanic races have got by tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide. Indeed but for the fact that the great Republic across the Atlantic Ocean has at length realized that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve their own fate as well, and has stretched out hands of succor and of guidance, but for that the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor. Gentlemen, they may still return.
Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is to-day. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe.
In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing.
Much work, Ladies and Gentlemen, has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union which owes so much to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi and which commanded the services of the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand.
[...]
And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent? And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the onward destinies of men? In order that this should be accomplished there must be an act of faith in which millions of families speaking many languages must consciously take part.
[...]
I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honor by their contribution to the common cause. The ancient states and principalities of Germany, freely joined together for mutual convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of Europe. I shall not try to make a detailed programme for hundreds of millions of people who want to be happy and free, prosperous and safe, who wish to enjoy the four freedoms of which the great President Roosevelt spoke, and live in accordance with the principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter. If this is their wish, if this is the wish of the Europeans in so many lands, they have only to say so, and means can certainly be found, and machinery erected, to carry that wish to full fruition.
But I must give you a warning. Time may be short. At present there is a breathing-space. The cannons have ceased firing. The fighting has stopped; but the dangers have not stopped. If we are to form the United States of Europe, or whatever name it may take, we must begin now.
In these present days we dwell strangely and precariously under the shield, and I will even say protection, of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb is still only in the hands of a state and nation which we know will never use it except in the cause of right and freedom. But it may well be that in a few years this awful agency of destruction will be widespread and the catastrophe following from its use by several warring nations will not only bring to an end all that we call civilization, but may possibly desintegrate the globe itself.
I must now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the strength of the United Nations Organization. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European Family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe. And the first practical step would be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and of every land from war or servitude must be established on solid foundations and must be guarded by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than submit to tyranny. In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America and I trust Soviet Russia-for then indeed all would be well-must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.
Therefore I say to you:
Let Europe arise!
'Churchill was better than this'
I would say they’ve skewed his words, but they’ve actually airbrushed them from history. How can they use this great man in their concieted and short-sighted campaign to remove the UK from one of the most remarkable examples of international cooperation in the world?
‘Family Values’
Picture-perfect 2.4 children, white, middle class vs. game consoles, iPods (and Homosexuals and Feminists too, no doubt)
The family is the holy cow of modern British politics. Politicans from all parties fall over themselves to fawn over how this cherished institution is in need of protection, bolstering and celebration. The family is a simple – and of course ‘common sense’ – template for ending the ubitiqous and decidedly Twenty-First Century problems such as knife crime, binge drinking, vice and gambling.
I came across this article which makes what is, in my opinion, a very good point. It lead to me wonder about why the Right enforces such a prescrptive ‘family’ on the rest of society? We are used to hearing accusations of the ‘Left’ seeking to destroy this all-healing institution by giving families* who need it most – usually single parent households – tax breaks or other benefits. *(And yes, they are families despite not conforming to the Right’s false prescriptions.)
Family breakdown is due to government giving benefits to poorer single-income households? Find me a family which has seperated due to the apparent ‘inscentive’ of government cash!
And if the Right’s fake families (just 7% fulfil their ideal! See Independent article) will only stick together simply for government tax breaks, then what kind of a family are they? I’d much rather live in a loving family, regardless of its make up than in a household in which the parents are only together for the Tory’s planned married couple’s tax allowance.
Do not miss my point here – I’m not attacking two-parent households, I’m attacking the condecending, paternalistic and warped attitudes of people like Ian Duncan-Smith who thinks pushing single-parent households into poverty will somehow alleviate social problems he himself says come from family breakdown.
Conservatives need to wake up and see that despite many contemparty problems in society – which I will not deny the existance of – the solution is not painting a almost hysterically utopian vision of the past and placing the blame on the rise of totally legitimate, loving – but shock! – different families which most children the UK today live in.
Binge drinking pre-dates any 'family breakdown'
Neither should the family be used as a weapon against gay couples or as a means to demonise single mothers or mothers who wish to work. Civil unions, or even marriage between gay people doesn’t threaten the family. Divorce does. Even then, children can find solace in other, less conventional family ties – between their parents, despite their seperation, and other family members they may live with or be cared by, such as grandparents or step-parents.
We would never demean families with just one parent through death, so why the stigma of seperation by choice from the Tories?
Marriage is important to many, many people, but government should support all families – especially those who need it most, rather than being self-congratuatory, which is the tone many on the Right seem to take. Holier than thou will not solve anything and neither will helping those who do not require such financial help while forcing lone parents to work rather than bring their children up property.
Families don’t stick together for cash – it’s about love, the very point Carol Sarler makes, which makes her picture of the modern British family so much more believable.
Dis-amour
The relics of the Cold War are brought back to the fore by a pariah state
North Korea detonates its second nuclear bomb, 20 times larger than its previous test, raising the prospect of a rebel state moving ever-closer to full nuclear capability. Though the DPRK army is way off ever having a weapon as spectacularly powerful (and beautiful) as that of the ICBM in the picture above, it raises the terrifying prospect of a country gaining nuclear weaponry while it is still legally at war with its immediate neighbour, whose sprawling capital city of 24.5m people is just twenty-five miles from the highly militarised demarcation line.
North Korea must be stopped. But why do countries seek nuclear weapons? And can they ever be justified?
Nuclear weapons are a symbol of national sovereignty, a force that certifies a country’s monopoly of power over its citizens in defiance of any attempt by a foreign power to impinge on it. ‘Rouge states’ such as North Korea, and allegedly Iran, seek these weapons as safe-guards – a way of ensuring no other country dares to launch a bold regime change and to prevent them ‘going the way of Iraq’.
In a post-Cold War world where the balance of terror has been replaced by economic interdependence, nuclear weapons have never looked more out of place.
The general assumption about who is deserves to be in the ‘Nuclear Club’ revolves around responsible governance. Currently comprised of the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Pakistan and (the biggest open secret in the world) Israel there is clearly no correlation between being ‘in the club’ and adhering to democratic, liberal norms and international conventions. This begs the question as to why NK and Iran shouldn’t also be allowed to pursue these aims – especially when nuclear proliferation treaties have been disregarded by the international community at large?
My perception is that people regard – whether correctly or not – that the current ‘legitimate’ countries with nuclear weapons will not use them due to their stability (Pakistan?) and regard for international conventions (USA? Israel?).
This begs several questions – if states will not use their nuclear weapons, are they necessary? Should we (the UK) spend billions on upgrading our nuclear submarines if we are not going to use them?
Realistically, there is no country currently posing a nuclear threat to our fellow citizens. The success of liberalism is demonstrated by the fact that countries today generally don’t go to war with each other – civil war and both international and domestic terrorism has replaced state conflict as the primary threats to global security. Nuclear weapons cannot combat these issues.
Further to this is the moral aspect of nuclear weaponry.
It is not right that citizens be held hostage by states. It is a war crime to attack civilians directly in times of war; nobody wishes to return to fire-bombing of entire cities vis-a-vis Dresden or Tokyo in WWII or blitzes on British cities in the same era. By their, the magnitude of nuclear weapon achieve the same results with a single bomb. How can weapons with such little regard for human life be tolerated in this day and age? Their massive destructive force also makes any war with such weapons simply unwinnable in the conventional sense. Annihilation of, conceivably, entire countries and regions means nothing is salvageable from such wreckage, rendering war useless except to decimate entire peoples.
Nuclear tactics are at best crude, with deterrence the main reason they are kept. The logic behind deterrance is sickening – if you nuke us we’ll nuke you. I find that George Kennan sums up the humane position any person who accepts the value of human-life and universal worth of all people would take.
Let us suppose there were to be a nuclear attack of some sort on this country and millions of people were killed and injured. Let us further suppose that we had the ability to retaliate against the urban centers of the country that had attacked us. Would you do that? I wouldn’t … I have no sympathy with the man who demands an eye for an eye in a nuclear attack.
Certaintly, a world without nuclear weapons is an ideal we ought to strive for. North Korea must be dealt with and under no circumstances should they be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Despite my objections to all counties with nuclear weapons, North Korea is certainly a special case.
We must not fall into the rut of fatalism prevalent in the inter-war period, and repeated throughout history since.
The Locarno Treaties were an early attempt at disarmament. Aristide Briand sings his famous speech - "No more blood, no more cannon, no more machine-guns! ... Let our countries sacrifice their amour-propre for the sake of the peace of the world"
Barack Obama has the right idea but leaders must take the initiative and offer concrete, and if need be unilateral concessions just like Gorbachev offered at the Reykjavik meeting with Regan – promising massive reductions – if not total disarmament of – nuclear weapons. One of histories great chances at nuclear disarmament sadly never transpired due to American reluctance.
Let this be clear, however, I’m not calling for total military disarmament, I’m calling for our defence budget to be better apportioned. When your nations own generals make comments such as this, one has to wonder why we really need nuclear arms.
UPDATE: North Korea threatens military action, abandons truce..
