Notes From a Small Planet

2 Conversations


The war against agreement

Well, that's it. Obviously, we must go to war now. The United Nations has demanded that Iraq should readmit its weapons inspectors. And what is Saddam Hussein's latest response to this perfectly reasonable demand?

Why, it's: 'All right then. When would you like to come over?'

Clearly, this fiendish attitude marks him as more evil than Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot combined. Start revving up the bombers now!

The above is, admittedly, a slight exaggeration of the attitude being struck by the Bush administration since Saddam sent his letter agreeing to just about everything that had been demanded of him - but it conveys the general flavour of Washington's response.

President Bush blustered: 'You've got to understand the nature of the regime we're dealing with. This is a man who has delayed, denied, deceived the world. For the sake of liberty and justice for all, the United Nations security council must act - must act in a way to hold this regime to account [sic], must not be fooled, must be relevant to keep the peace.'

Somewhere in there among the mangled syntax is the sound of a man desperately defying reality. Bush needs a war to justify high spending on defence and crackdowns on civil liberties. He needs a war with Iraq in particular so that the American oil industry can operate freely in Iraq's rich oil fields, and so that America's oil supplies can be guaranteed even if there's regime change in Saudi Arabia.

Above all, Bush needs a war to deflect attention away from his domestic difficulties - so that he can be associated in the American public mind with a 'patriotic' military campaign, rather than with domestic scandals like that at Enron. He needs that because he has elections to fight, and at times of war people are willing to rally behind a leader they might previously have mistrusted (in this case, with good reason). When he heard that Saddam was willing to agree to the UN's demands on weapons inspection, Bush must have been furious.

Certainly, he's seen international support for an attack on Iraq evaporate very quickly indeed. China, Russia and France, three permanent members of the UN Security Council with the power to veto any proposed attack, have all welcomed Saddam's invitation. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov saw it as a triumph for the UN, commenting: 'Thanks to our joint efforts, we managed to avert the threat of a war scenario and go back to political means of solving the Iraqi problem'.

I'd love to think that Mr Ivanov was right, but Bush's attitude suggests otherwise. The day after Saddam invited the weapons inspectors to return, Bush was busy in meetings to draw up a resolution to be put to the US Congress which, if passed, would give Congress' blessing for unilateral American military action. Bush has explained: 'It's an important signal for the world to see that this country is united in our resolve to deal with threats that we face'.

Although Bush's choice of words often seems somewhat random, there's surely some bitterness in that comment. He wants the world to know that this country, his USA, is determined to stand up to Iraq, even when Iraq does sneaky things like giving in. Other national leaders may see the enemy's surrender as a reason to stop fighting, but our George is made of sterner stuff. Got that, all you un-Americans?

The latest turn of events has obviously put Bush's loyal sidekick Tony Blair in a difficult position. How can he stay loyal as Bush's belligerence grows harder and harder to justify? However, credit where it's due: Blair's response was measured and reasonable, still resolute but considerably less aggressive in tone than Bush's rhetoric.

Blair observed: 'It's the pressure that has brought him [Saddam] to this position. We have got to keep up the pressure to make sure the weapons inspectors actually go in - not just that he says they can go in, but they actually go in and that they can do their job.'

I can't argue with that. However, when the House of Commons debates Iraq next week, Blair should make it clear that if Saddam keeps his word on the weapons inspections, then Britain will not give its support to any American military action without UN backing. In the light of Saddam's surrender, to support such action would be unjustifiable, outrageous and shameful.

Blair says the r-word

The idea of Tony Blair ever saying 'No, Mr President' might seem far-fetched, but occasionally the Prime Minister springs surprises. He certainly did so in his speech at an east London school this week, in which he uttered a word that many had assumed was considered taboo in New Labour circles - 'redistribute'. Amazingly, Blair appeared to suggest that Britain might be a better place if some money were transferred from the very rich to the very poor.

Blair declared: 'Our goal is a Britain in which nobody is left behind, in which people can go as far as they have the talent to go, in which we achieve true equality - equal status and equal opportunity rather than equality of outcome. It must be a Britain in which we continue to redistribute power, wealth and opportunity to the many not the few, to combat poverty and social exclusion, to deliver public services people can trust and take down the barriers that hold people back from fulfilling their true potential.'

Admirable sentiments, but they're more than a little surprising coming from the man who, in a TV interview not all that long ago, infuriated Labour activists by flatly refusing to say that narrowing the gap between rich and poor was among his ambitions. In government, the Blair administration has generally seemed to have more enthusiasm for private-sector involvement in just about everything than for taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Indeed, as benefit fraud has been obsessively targeted by the government, it's often seemed as though New Labour shared the traditional right-wing view of the poor: that they were the criminal class, and the feckless authors of their own misfortune.

But in this week's speech, Blair reprised one of his old slogans, promising once again to be '...tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'.

He said: 'At the same time as we toughen the criminal justice system, it is crucial to address poverty, social exclusion, unemployment, lack of education, the sense of hopelessness that is so often the breeding ground for crime amongst our young people.'

'I am not saying that every young person who grows up poor will turn to crime. But they are significantly more at risk of doing so. We need to do everything we can to help them choose a different path.'

It might seem painfully obvious that someone growing up in poverty, with few chances of advancing themselves through legitimate means, might be more tempted to turn to crime than someone living in luxury - but this is a link that many on the right refuse to acknowledge, so it's good to hear Blair admit that it exists. The Prime Minister's restatement of Labour's ambition to '...abolish child poverty in a generation, so that in time all can share in the nation's rising prosperity' is also very welcome, as is his admission that much more needs to be done to achieve that very worthy goal.

However, with the Labour Party conference imminent and many traditional Labour supporters very unhappy with the government's record, there must be some suspicion that he is simply telling the party faithful what he knows they want to hear.

So, considering his government's record to date on wealth redistribution, I think I'll take the same attitude towards these new policies as Blair urges us to take towards Saddam and his welcome to the weapons inspectors. I'll believe in greater equality when I see it.

Tony, it's pressure that has brought you to this position. We have got to keep up the pressure to make sure that the wealth redistribution actually goes on - not just that you say it can go on, but that it actually goes on and that it can do its job.

Happy birthday, dear Smiley

Finally this week, news of the 20th birthday of a major contributor to h2g2 and to Internet life everywhere. Mike Jones, a researcher at Microsoft, claims to have found the first-ever online Smiley. If he's right, our little friend was born on 19 September, 1982 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

Jones, who works for the Microsoft empire's Systems and Networking Research Group, says that he found the origin of the Smiley species after six months of digging in computer archives.

He and his colleagues unearthed the historic posting on a bulletin board from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. It read: 'I propose the following character sequence for markers :-).'

And from such small beginnings, a whole new language grew. I think that calls for some smiley - bubbly and smiley - cake, don't you?


Ormy's 'Notes' and Other
Scribblings


The definitive collection


Ormondroyd


19.09.02 Front Page

Back Issue Page


Bookmark on your Personal Space


Entry

A831908

Infinite Improbability Drive

Infinite Improbability Drive

Read a random Edited Entry


Written by

Credits

Disclaimer

h2g2 is created by h2g2's users, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the Not Panicking Ltd. Unlike Edited Entries, Entries have not been checked by an Editor. If you consider any Entry to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please register a complaint. For any other comments, please visit the Feedback page.

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more