Pride comes before a failure

The "story" of the Green Party annual convention that took place in Dundalk, co. Louth last weekend was undoubtedly John Gormley's clear message to the Chinese government (via the intermediary of the Chinese ambassador, conveniently seated in the audience) re. Tibet, during his leader's address on the saturday evening. Those words once again:

“Respect for human rights must extend to all cultures and countries. One country which has been exploited and suppressed and suffered for far too long is Tibet. We condemn unequivocally the flagrant abuse of human rights by the Chinese government and call on the Chinese government to enter dialogue with the Dalai Lama.”

Following this statement, the ambassador and his little team of diplomats, were no longer sitting in their seats. Cameras flashed, champions of Freedom and Human Rights everywhere cheered, and a buzz filled the room which didn't dissipate until well into sunday afternoon.

I wouldn't describe myself as a contrarian, by occupation, I think it's fair to say I've no objections to towing the party line, when it's a line I can stand by. No doubt it would be cynical and harsh to describe our esteemed leader as merely jumping on the china-bashing bandwagon, I'm sure John's sentiments were genuine and that his intensions were golden. But his words and especially the reaction that followed, left me feeling distinctly uneasy. And perhaps for that reason I began to search for another side to a debate that, so far, I feel has been extremely one-sided.

And as it turns out, one can ask questions about the Tibetan campaign and not be a fascist: http://organizedrage.blogspot.com/2008/04/tibet-china-and-west-so-many-questions.html

I have to say I wasn't particularaly impressed or filled with pride by what was effectively an orchestrated publicity stunt. And a rather crude one at that. It's not news, it's not a message that's being suppressed, in the media or political spheres, by any stretch of the imagination, so I fail to see the element of bravery involved.

But I was even less impressed with the jeers, with the name-calling and the self-congratulatory pats on the back all round that many indulged in, in the aftermath. But this was my first "grown-up" party convention, so perhaps that's what goes on at these kinds of things. The herd-mentality kicks in, it's a bit like supporting your home team at a football match, this is just the way in whcih we identify ourselves, by our political convictions, but it's just as basic in many ways. Unfortunately.

It's an unfortunate coincidence perhaps, that the day after the convention ended it was reported on the BBC news that China had just overtaken the US as the world's number 1 polluter. In fairness to the BBC, they did of course report the fineprint - that carbon consumption per head is a fraction of what it is in the West, and living standards for the vast majority of Chinese still lag far behind. Speaking of inconvenient truths...

The Free Tibet campaign has exploded over the past few months, gaining increasing momentum with the approach of the Olympics. Understandably, if there was ever a time to take to the streets in support of Tibet, now is it, when everybody's watching and the profile of the dispute and the plight of Tibet & the Dalai Lama is sky high.

I'm not saying that Tibetans don't have legitimate and very serious grievances, I'm just wary of the fact that the cause seems to have been latched onto by a whole new group, at a time of particular political and economic significance. And perhaps it serves their cause, but it also undermines it. Sympathy with Tibet shouldn't necessarily mean anti-Chinese feeling or Sinophobia, but they're in danger of becoming two sides of the same coin.

Chinese imperialism and the oppression of minorities are one thing (that I'm by no means defending), but when it comes to countries in the West ganging up to take pot shots at China, it seems to me that there's another kind of power-game going on here at the same time, a kind of bullying on an even larger scale, a reaction to the fact that China seems to have pretensions in terms of acquiring super-power status, and needs to be kept in check. But perhaps these relations of domination are benign, because the West is in the right - it systematically supports human rights and claims to independant sovereignty, after all. No vested interests there then.

No doubt this is hardly how the Chinese see it, but then what would they know, they're just being fed a load of propaganda.

Clearly we think we can afford to trample on our diplomatic relations with China. To throw stones and ostracise them, to be uncompromising. But how is that going to serve our purposes, exactly, when they subsequently refuse to engage with the rest in dialogue about say - the environment, let alone Human Rights or Tibetan independance. How does it help the state of the world to make the Chinese - politicians, youth, and the general population - feel isolated, under attack and discriminated against? From someone who has just returned from China, I'm told of the fierce anti-Western feeling, the anger among many, and it makes my blood run cold.

I don't think one can overestimate just how dangerous it is for Europeans and Westerners to boil the issue down to demonising China. I think in the long-run this can only lead to very serious intractable problems and fractures. So why on earth have we begun digging another rift?

Is there really so much of a consensus in the world that we need to go out of our way to alienate and ostracise vaste sections of the population? I think the Greens especially, who desperately want a breakthrough when it comes to global environmental policy, have administered a real shot in the foot here, and demonstrated a remarkable lack of tact, sensitivity or foresight.

Aren't there other means of negociation and pressure rather than calculated insults? Isn't the only chance for global co-operation necessarily about compromise and finding common ground, about respect, rather than launching attacks and making demands, just for the sake of a round of applause?

The Battle for Europe

I have now accumulated a huge backlog of various bits and pieces I wanted to write about, and I shall do my best to try to get somewhat up to date and be as chronological as I can about it, although no doubt some synthesis will be necessary, and some things are not so fresh in my mind as they were.

First, here are my updated and slightly more thought out views on the question of the Lisbon Treaty and its little friend the Irish referendum. The ad hoc patched-together little piece below turned out to be only the first foray into a long process of searching, questioning and discovery on the subject of the Treaty and its real meaning and wider political implications. The regrets and the ensuing legitimacy crisis that it sparked in the aftermath of the Convention the Irish Greens held on the Treaty, although with a vengeance, were qualified in the end by my admission that that "speech", although containing elements of sincerity and earnest conviction, was an over-simplified parody and I was right to second-guess it (although perhaps not right enough to warrant full justification for my inaction, such as it was). Its considerations in no way do justice to those who've read the Treaty in its entirety, who've made efforts to uncover its full meaning, intentions and detail, against the odds, or who've agonised over which way to vote, due to conflicts of interest that touch the very core of their ideological convictions.

It's a debate that has rattled on and on, and will no doubt continue to do so up until the referendum, and probably well beyond. It's been inescapable. On television, in the papers, among the Greens, on the radio, in my university lecture halls and its debating chambers... and each time I've issued a "statement" on the matter, I've been determined to draw a line under it but that's just not been possible. So much debate and so many views heard has not left me indifferent. I've been through phases of euro-phoria, euro-scepticism, euro-phobia, and euro-indifference and I've emerged the other side with a far better understanding of why people might feel nthe way they do about Europe, and why people who I feel should be pro-Europe, might not be, for reasons that aren't just down to national pride and/or ignorance, as I always previously believed. And this hasn't just taught me more about people's attitudes to Europe, but also about where my own political loyalties lie, fundamentally. I am above all a Socialist and Green, I have definite extremist tendancies when it comes to the former, but I am also above all a Europhile. Although when I say I've been brainwashed by the Brussels Eurocratic establishment it's only half serious, I do feel very strongly that people's political beliefs are conditioned by their environment. When it comes to my immediate surroundings, I always suppsed we were pro-Europe because we came to Brussels, but perhaps we came to Brussels because we are pro-Europe. In any case, the fact remains. I am a passionate beleiver in the potential of Europe, its as yet under-exploited capacity to be a progressive force, politically, socially and ecologically. And I think that just because it hasn't lived up to the Left's expections on this account (although there is certainly much worth commending it for), doesn't mean it can't.

Many people I fervently admire would disagree with me on this point, and would argue that it's not good enough, that it's too much of a compromise, and a bitter pill. (That said, given how well the Greens have shown they can take pills of that kind when it comes to national government, one wonders at their incapacity to do the same when it comes to Europe, but this isn't the case for everybody.) But who I'm really thinking of here is my newfound ideological leader, the trotskyist postman Olivier Besancenot, leader of the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire, a fledgling party with the audacity to flaunt its slogan "100% a gauche" and yet still managed to score almost 5% in the first round of the French Presidential elections (and if that sounds meagre, just remember that he regards himself as Communist revolutionnary - these aren't words we hear in politics anymore.)

I had the good fortune of hearing Mr Besancenot's views on the Treaty when I was home in Belgium earlier in the Spring. Of, course, it took a secnd viewing to let it all sink in. Besancenot is hardly like other politicians who speak slowly and in nice short words to hammer their message across (cf. Segolene's bathbook discoure or Le Pen's inflammatory demagogie), he talks about incredibly complex political things at a very high velocity and I find him very difficult to keep up with.

He's a wit too. When asked if he would be attending Sarkozy's wedding, he retorted: "Je ne serais ni a son marriage ni a l'enterrement de l'Europe sociale-democratique pour laquelle on se bat"
When it comes to his reasons for placing himself firmly in the no-camp, his assertions are fiery, forceful and biting. He explains the previous no-vote to the Constitution by the fact that Europe was back then and still is -
"L'Europe de plus en plus discreditée dans le quotidien de millions de personnes, parce qu'elle correspond a des licenciements, a la precarité, a du chomage et a des services publiques qui sont cassés."

By voting no, the extreme left can dissociate itself from the consequences of all the directives to come. So then at least, those who resist, "qui sont en bas", can say Not in Our Name, nor is it legitimate (but a fat lot of good that does them).

And make no mistake, those of us who are apologists for the EU as it currently stands are deluding ourselves. This Europe we see today is -
"L'europe du movement des services, de la monnaie unique, de Schengen, la forteresse, et l'Europe sociale elle vient jamais"

This disillusionment has long since been taken as a reality check for people like Besancenot. We have been waiting too long to see the kind of Europe we wish for to begin to take shape, and Besancenot like many has now been permeated by the sense that it will never arrive. As one of the deluded, I am of course willing to give the EU the benefit of the doubt, another chance, to wait a little longer. Those who are critical, unrelentingly so, who believe that we should make the eurocrats squirm at every opportunity - are led to be so by loyalties that I confess do not override my apologism. When the eurocrats squirm, I squirm along with them. And although it sounds ridiculous, I can't apologise for being an apologist for them and the whole European Project.

Sometimes he makes me angry, along with the other no-voting greens and lefties. Their intransigence, they do not feel the way to win is to compromise, the way to win is to stick to the hard & fast line and not give an inch - but since when is that politics? "Compromise" is essential and always has been, but for the extreme green/left, the prespect seems to be a fate worse than death.

But you don't have to listen to Besancenot for very long to realise that he isn't the kind of lefty who opens arms towards the centre, who panders to the right like the mainstream socialists in attempt to maximise voting score. "Je me bats pour que nos idees soient de plus en plus majoritaires" - OUR ideas. Essentially Besancenot is in politics to get more people to agree with him. Not to obtain power by satisfying as many people as possible, even if it means distorting his ideas out of shape. For this reason, he will no doubt always remain a marginal figure. Because let's face it, a lot of people are never going to vote Left, let alone extreme left.
Besancenot seems confident that a shift is taking place however. Largely because "La politique de sarkozy, elle exaspere." and this is provoking "un changement profond dans la societé", "une radicalisation" no less, and "un engagement nouveau".

He is completely open about this ideological immobility and his ambitions, "Moi mes idees j'ai envie qu'elles gouvernent" and yet he himself admits to not quite knowing what this non-capitalist, non-market economy society would look like exactly, but wants to bring as many people together in support of the prospect, to imagine it.

But returning to Lisbon from that little detour into the more general politics of Besancenot, what I am incresingly coming to understand is the sense from the people in these camps that we need to start completely over - that the Europe we want CANNOT be reached from this path, forged from this mold, that we need to trash the whole thing and start to build again on diferent foundations rather than chipping away it to make it more pallatable, more suited to our interests and values and convictions.

When it comes to deconstructing gut feelings and motivations, it goes without saying that we follow our convictions, and speak/vote/believe in ways that are in accordance with them, complex and multi-facetted as they may be (and sometimes in conflict - cases of cognitive dissonance I believe is the term in social psychology). Thus, Olivier Besancenot will vote no because he is extreeeeme left, many greens will vote no because they are foremost green, my own mixture of socialism/extreme leftism/green fervour is diluted by an overarching sense of faith and beleif in Europe (as an inherently positive phenomenon), in moving the European project forward even if we're not 100% sure it's the right direction because it's preferable to moving it backwards or paralysing it completely, which effectively come to the same thing.

Gunning for the YES

At the Green Party's Special Convention on the Lisbon Treaty tomorrow, I won't be speaking, in fact I'm not even certain I'll be voting. However, if I were going to take the floor for 3 minutes, I would probably say something along these lines...

First, I want to begin by reminding you how Europe has evolved. A look at its trajectory, over 5 decades, from Paris to Maastricht, from 6 nations to 27 and counting, from its initial narrow economic focus (on coal & steel sectors) to legislation spanning areas from the environment, to human rights & international law - is cause for enormous optimism. It proves that when considering the development of Europe, nothing should be ruled out, but also that we should not look to the past for inspiration of what the European project is about, but rather ahead, we are shaping it now, as we move forward.

The Greens have a place, unlike any other group, in this new order, and a responsibility that goes with it. As a modern & progressive party, it has attained a level of co-operation and united status between the Greens parties across europe, far & beyond any other party. This is why Europe is a forum where the Greens come into their own, where they can be empowered, engage in dialogue, and promote the values of tolerance and collaboration by leading by example.

We cannot retreat into our own national political universes anymore, shut the rest of the world out, talking about "sovereignty" as if this were something inherently good - it is only ever important and meaningful when a nation is under threat. The EU is not a threat but a vehicle for progress, for the diffusion of values, and the echange of information. Furthermore, EU & state are not mutually exclusive, the EU was never intended to replace it, rather to complement it, to exist in parallel, as a forum for debate & cooperation, common regulation of areas that NEED to be regulated centrally (refer to the many progressive environmental that policies began in the EU).

That is not to say that there are no aspects of the EU that are not entirely benign. The move towards social europe hasnt happened yet, but as mentioned above, nothing should be ruled out. We've seen pan-european social mobilisation and strikes - the advent of "europrotestations" and pan-european workers rights movements. We've seen huge progress in development, integration, and the free movement of peoples. National boundaries are not so impermeable as they might one have been, and this is a fundamnetal reason behind the need for supranational regulation & CONSENSUS on these important issues with which we are all confronted, and cannot effectively deal with in isolation, such as migration and environmental degradation.

We need a different kind of europe, but let's not allow that to make us lose sight of the fact that we want & need Europe.To give europe the political weigth to make a real difference, to influence, to be a leader, we need to steer it in the right course, and this can only be done through a democratic process of consulation, of dialogue, in the words of Senator Deirde De Burca, of "critical engagement". One of the formal institutional measures towards this end provided in the treaty, is the attribution of more power to the Parliament, which allows citizens to vote directly in European elections - crucial to resolving the democratic deficit and promoting a sense of European identity & awareness. We need to encourage the taking of measures to enable people to engage, necessary for the process to be democratic.

The original aim of the constitutional treaty was an attempt to simplify Europe, to make it more comprehensible to the citizens of Europe, to frame its policies in a comprehensive & clarified system. Beyond this, it recognises the crucial element of fundamnetal rights - the charter will gain binding legal status, giving much-needed substance to this framework for citizenship. Yes it is too weak (the result of compromise upon compromise) incomplete and imperfect, but nevertheless part of a process that gives us cause for enormous optimism. Let's be clear, it is NOT a solution, but it is a step.

Europe is a political process which is unfolding day by day, progressing by trial & error, and we must to hold those driving the process forwards accountable at every step & make demands, this is essential to the democratic process, and for establishing conditons under which a meaningful european citizenship can emerge.

A European consensus, deveoping alongside a rapprochement of nations & the integration of its peoples, must be rooted in a spirit of tolerance & co-operation, ever broadening in reach & scope. Co-operation is difficult to acheive, but it is not constructive to obstruct it, and we should remember the symbolic aspect of a vote on such an unprecedented european-wide document, in its implications for European unity & integration, both now & in the future. Clearly, it is difficult enough to come to a europe-wide consensus given the diversity of opinion - without protest votes in national referendums, where far-right and far-left both perversely vote the same way for vastly different reasons - which certainly does not send a clear or useful message to the creators of this document, and the leaders of Europe.

Therefore I implore you, do not allow your reservations on individual clauses of this reform treaty that is perhaps merely an attemp on behalf of europoliticians to save face, put the crisis behind them and move forwards, to make you lose sight of the greater picture, and the challenges & difficulties ahead, please don't vote no to europe.

Recall Caroline Lucas's wise spanish proverb: "there is no path, paths are made by walking." We must fashion our own, in our name and in the name of our convictions, but first we must be brave enough to take that step.

Benazir

It's not the for first time, in this blog, that I will have mentioned Benazir Bhutto. My discussion of the Iraq War's 4th birthday all too briefly refers to her contributions on Question Time, insights which that day marked her out to me as one of these beacons of common sense and tolerance amidst the chaos. Since then I vaguely followed her tumultuous trajectory back into the heart of Pakistani politics. With admiration and not as much understanding as might have been warranted.

But now I'm becoming self-conscious. The media's description of her as a "westernised" politician makes me feel that maybe she appealed to me because she was essentially "one of us" and shared in "our" values. But responding to the argument that human rights and democracy are in some way specific to the West, in origin or application, will have to be saved for another day. For now, suffice to say the there is as much fundamentalism in the West as in the East, it is just as threatening to human rights and civil liberties, and just as condemnable.

What I failed to understand, essentially, is why she would have put herself at such grave risk, didn't she realise that the life of an academic, a commentator - would be far more cushy and lucrative, and far more likely to extend her life? But of course, she is one of these who could have been no other way. Put in context, her own, which is not the docile panel of disgruntled, ageing writers and armchair politicians & salon socialists alongside whom she sat last spring, it all makes much more sense.

That we are conditioned by our surroundings and our families should not undermine her courage nor her acheivements. Whatever can be said about being born into a certain life, part of a certain dynasty that shapes one's destiny, Bhutto clearly went a step further. That she now joins her father and brothers, who also suffered brutal deaths, was by no means a fait accompli. Though the convictions that cement our education, and the struggles of those close to us no doubt condition to some extent our conception of the world and of what constitutes reasonable sacrifice and risk for a worthy cause, no-one is born with the capacity nor the courage to defy the fear and the very prospect of death itself. Such defiance & resistance, in the face of extreme and inescapable danger cannot be simply attribted to an inevitable personal trajectory along pre-traced lines. Rather, it testifies to a kind of abandoned devotion and disregard for personal safety & interest, spurred by belief in a greater purpose so commanding and so intense that it simply cannot be ignored.

Ten today

I've already remarked on 2007's lack of an inspiring overarching theme, in comparison to say - worker mobility in 2006 which inspired a project on the topic, and inter-cultural dialogue in 2008 which may or may not inspire a young greens campaign.

The most significant thing about 2007, and definitely worthy of note and celebration if not political activism - is that it marks the 10th anniversary of 1997. No particular event that occured in 1997, just the year itself.

Anybody who's read Pete Burns autobiography (which I won't go so far as to recommend but rather will sympathise with anybody whose intrigue and curiosity wouldn't let them avoid it) will no doubt have endured his scattery account of "the formative years" in terms of popular culture, and because it's the holidays, I thought I'd go in for some similiar self-indulgence.

1997 was the year, for me. The one where you suddenly become exposed, to the stuff that comes to symbolise the pop culture of your generation. Also the one where you become turned onto politics, and current affairs. Admittedly, '97 was no '89, nor indeed was it any '01, but because of its particular timing and significance for me, everything seemed historical & momentous. It was a sudden & overwhelming rush of information, and it seems now, at least to me, that there never was nor will be a time quite like it, quite so colourful, so unprecedented, so revolutionary. As if nothing will ever be so incredibly important ever again.

To avoid an agonising Pete Burns-esque stream of consciousness, I'll take ten items from popular culture, in no particular order, in the name of memory-refreshment...

1. 
   American Beauty (MAJOR. The kind of thing that makes such a huge impact you spend the next 3 days constantly thinking about it, and mentally replaying it, to the point where it interferes with social interaction and keeps you awake at night. Very rarely, if ever, do films affect me so much anymore)
2. The Spice Girls (my debut in the reception of popular music basically consisted of a head-on collision with the Spice Girls, and is the reason why I can't be cynical about their reunion like those sneering 30-40 somethings)
3. Teletubbies (generally I either watch children's television with delight or horror, the the combination of the two stirred by the teletubbies was something I've really yet to come to terms with)
4. LA confidential cleaned up at the oscars, and I of course was not allowed to see it. Nor indeed was I allowed to watch Jurassic Park, which also caused a sensation that year, being as it was, on the cutting edge of computer-animated dinosaur technology.
5. Hanson (the novelty of androgenous children singing incomprehensible things blew my mind at the time, and all the therapy since hasn't helped to lessen the mental impact)
6. Blood on the dancefloor & Stranger in Moscow (two of the greatest and most-underrated songs in Michael Jackson's repertoire, & the latter, admittedly perhaps from late '96, featuring on the seminal HIStory album, I still go around proclaiming to be my favourite song of all time)7. Indie genius (Oasis - dyou know what I mean, Verve - Bittersweet symphony)
7. Gala (my initiation in skanky dance music began with the finest in euro-trash)
8. Boybands (BSB's first comeback, Gary Barlow - I may have missed the Take That generation, but at least i still caught the barlow bandwagon, brief as it was)
9. Titanic (when a generation of pre-teen girls fell hopelessly in love with leonardo dicaprio. in my case, it bordered on obsession, and one which it pains me to say im still battling today)

Other items of perhaps more far-reaching significance include, of course, the advent of new labour, Tony Blair leading the labour party to victory with a landslide result, putting an end to the Tory era.

What else?Diana died, Elton John sang about it, Dolly the sheep was cloned, the BSE crisis foreshadowed the many food-scares to come, Louisde Woodward shook a baby to death, and the IRA declared a ceasefire.

You couldn't make it up, in fairness.

Reclaiming Christmas

Is an atheist christmas a contradiction in terms? It's a view many Christians appear to hold, rolling their eyes as they do, at the annual church-goers, the dilletantes who go through the motions, all the style but none of the substance. They must wonder what it's all about for them, perhaps assuming they venerate and worship in the temple of the God of consumerism. How very vacuous for them. Perhaps, they've got a point.

The idea that atheists do, in fact, have souls too, might be tough to swallow for some believers and indeed non-believers alike, but it's a question that becomes of particular salience at this time of year.

The non-believers who partake in all the cultural ritual and hold no moral objections to the religious symbolism but simultaneously reject it with a certain measure of distate and unease, are not immune to criticism on the basis of paradox and hypocrisy.

In an atheist or agnostic christmas, it is the one day a year we pretend to beleive or do so in solemn remembrance of a time when we ourselves once beleived, or in honour of devout ancestors and relatives. It as if we can beleive through our past selves, or through those others, in admiration and respect for the strength of their convictions. Beleiving in the name of others - as a strange somewhat disembodied demonstration of faith by proxy.

Upon reflection, it seems to me this second-hand belief is not sufficient. I would rather celebrate in the name of my own personal convictions.

In his review of some "bright ideas" that have emerged this year, Will Hutton argues:
"If 2006 was the year of the rampant secularists, Richard Dawkins assailing religion as the source of much evil, 2007 has seen the case for faith begin to make a comeback. A life well lived for many is helped by a sense of higher moral purpose. Human beings still require a sense of the sacred.
Even if there is no God, the act of faith, the sense of purpose and the belief in the sacred have illuminating spillovers on the rest of us."

Although the stark polarisation between the believer and militant atheist seems to me unlikely to correspond to the reality (and the substitution of religion for faith in the opening sentence worthy of note), overall I think Hutton might be onto something.

But rather than keeping their heretic heads down whilst engaging in passive participation in the usual ceremonies, perhaps atheists need to depart from the traditional religious model and ideology of christmas, and fashion a new kind of sacred.

So when it's no longer about believing in Santa Claus, nor in Jesus Christ, what to fill the ostensible void with if not materialism?

Perhaps we can look to the traditional substitutes for religion championed by those with faith in a more tangible realm - socialism, humanism, historical inevitabilty... Or in terms of a focus which shifts from Humans to nature. Admittedly environmentalism doesn't sound very spiritual, and paganism, with its overtones of occultism & witchcraft, might likewise be a tough sell.

Hutton supports those making a case for "non-fundamentalist faith as a source of spiritual good, [which] must be tolerated" while "Dawkins-style militant atheism only widens hostility."

Tolerance is of course as essential for atheists as for any other kind of believers (Because as Hutton rightly points out, belief is not limited to belief in God). For some even, tolerance is not enough. But for those non-Christians among us who will be celebrating Christmas this year along religious lines, singing from the same hymn sheets as our more devout counterparts, where should we look for spiritual nourishment? The litany of secular greeting card concepts: peace, love, goodwill & so on, are surely key components of a secular faith.

But beyond this, perhaps we should endeavour to re-claim and re-brand the so-called "arrogance" of humanism, with its inherent capacity for irrational and boundless optimism - something just as basic and just as vital as belief in a higher being. Hope that is not embodied in the form of such a being, but rather in existence itself. Faith in our environment, in ourselves and in each other.

Going round again

Upon re-reading some my recent and not so recent posts, it occurs to me that perhaps something of a disclaimer is in order, just to point out that you might have to adjust the levels of your inbuilt sarcasm detectors to "mental", if attempting to gleam any threads of coherence at all out of my fragmented ramblings.

So I turned on the news this morning, as one does the morning after say - a big football match or a national election, in order to find out "the score" as it were, with Bali.

But of course, you don't get the results of a footie match or a national election being announced as "well, actually, we really haven't got a clue about the outcome". Unless it's a Belgian national election of course. Anyway, I found this most dis-heartening. But of course, it's so much worse than dis-heartening.

I like the way the BBC have covered the conference so far, I have to say. Incidentally, I also approve of the way the BBC exposed Gordon Brown's late arrival at the Lisbon treaty signing for the spineless, petty gesture that it was (and even interviewed my best friend Mr. Nigel Farage, who did a very good impersonation of someone for whom the world has more or less just ended). But back to Bali - I think the way they juxtapose the reports on the suits at the conference with the picture of "just down the road" in the rice fields, where people's livelihoods (and lives) are at stake, and they fear for their futures but hey, what can you do, etc, helps to reinforce the real scandal of the whole process. I don't mean to sound like Al Gore - but the immorality of it. Of shirking on such heavy, heavy responsabilities, of treating it like just another diplomatic impasse that has to be negotiated around with words that are just a little bit more ambiguous in order to keep people happy (cf. the Lisbon treaty, on that note).

Studying the rhetoric of colonialism, which may well turn out to be my vocation in life such is the passion I've uncovered for it, or "cultural diplomacy" if you want to be euphemistic about it (and they generally do) has on so many occasions struck me as bearing disturbing similarities to the rhetoric we hear nowadays regarding the environment. Oh the implications.

And no, I have to disagree with my learned African Politics lecturer, much as I revere him and his enthusiasm for political outcomes in a made-up imaginary country called The Gambia, I personally don't think the word "discourse" is an empty term. In fact, such a suggestion smacks of someone who clearly doesn't understand (french) sociology, and probably doesn't respect it either, if they're going around making statements like that. Discourse, is crucial. Not in itself, but because it's symptomatic of underlying attitudes and conceptions. Yes, I definitely think so.
If you want an example of an empty term, try - everyone's favourite - "sustainable development". Nobody in the world thinks sustainable development is a bad thing. It's something we can all agree on, and as a result - means absolutely nothing. This discovery, made at an early stage of my "Environmental sociology 101" class, was the source of considerable disillusionment for me because I actually thought we were making some real progress in this direction.

"Protection" is another favourite, that crops up in both. And problematic, because although it sounds nice & benign, in some contexts protection can mean annexation, can mean isolation, can basically mean theft. Depriving people of their livelihoods on the basis of "environmental protection" might sound like a moral dilemma, but it shouldn't. It's an ingenius way of turning the problem on its head. Yes, of course the (over)developed nations should lead by example, they should step up to the plate and commit to binding targets that slash their emissions so developping countries can go about meeting decent living standards without too much pressure and strain. But then remind yourself, that these are the very same nations, who 200 years ago decided to pump all the resources from their colonies, in order to fund their grand industrial entreprise (not to mention their monuments and palaces...). And instantly, it's the likelihood, rather than the emissions, which are slashed.

Between Gordon Brown's pig-headedness, Bernard Kouchner's casual quasi-threats of war against Iran, and George Bush every living breath, you don't have to look very far to realise that we are not living in an era of solidarity. Fairness and altruism, are not part of the equation, let's be clear about it.

Although there's been such scope for optimism this month, what with the EU-Africa Summit, the Lisbon treaty ratification, and ground-breaking talks at Bali, hopes for a real global breakthrough just haven't materialised. The problem is, the approach to diplomacy in these forums is still the same old dusty one that's always been deployed.

Case in point - Lisbon. Those who supported the original EU constitution aren't happy because it's been twisted out of shape and watered down so much, and those who opposed it initally are hardly any more enthusiastic. As for the Eurocrats, it's almost as if they're embarrased, trying to sneak it under the radar, to scrape back some legitimacy, but almost doing themselves more harm in the process. But this is inevitable if you're trying to resurrect & repackage a defunct and much-maligned document. The prognosis of Bali, at its most optimistic, seems to be about regenerating the Kyoto protocol, in a new & improved format that we can all agree on. But it's the same strategy of attempting to "replace" a treaty that failed, and has lost all credibility.

Perhaps it's no surprise that, for all their professed noble intentions, the same kind of diplomacy just leads to attempts to reproduce the same kinds of agreements. Which are inevitably destined to suffer a similar fate, unless they're modified to be made more pallatable - to the point of rendering them irrelevant.

The lesson is, sometimes - if at first you don't succeed, perhaps it's time for a radically new approach.

British primary school teacher arrested for naming teddy bear after prophet.

As news stories go, you couldn't ask for a better formula, or a more perfect cast...

The face of the well-intentioned noble european who sets out into darkest Africa seeking to bring education and light into the lives of those in need (stop me if you've heard this one before) and what does she get in return? Arrested, abused, and very nearly executed!

Happily, it's just a matter of Gordon Brown and his diplomats to the rescue and before you know it "common sense" has prevailed over extremism, and Ms Gibbons is, of course, on her way home within a matter of days.

And don't worry, it turns out Ms Gibbons is the gracious & forgiving type, and bears absolutely no hard feelings against the Sudanese or indeed Islam. Which is a damn sight more than they deserve. In fact, this mild, altruistic primary teacher who "wouldn't hurt a fly" sounds like an examplary individual in just about every respect, which of course makes the whole affair even more deplorable.

There's been many an indignant response to the claim from the Sudanese Embassy that the whole thing amounts to no more than "a storm in a teacup based on cultural misunderstandings", because we shouldn't be downplaying the event but instead taking it extremely seriously, despite exceptional and brief character of the whole affair. But the issue I want to address here is not about freedom of speech, religious law or whether or not 15 days in prison and/or 40 lashes for "insulting islam" is justified.

It's not so much the story itself that's objectionable, so much as the sheer amount of coverage it's been getting. And the way they've managed to use the incident to spark a "debate" about Islam.

The Sky News team has certainly been doing its bit, saying things like:

"There are going to be people who say "well this just proves what kind of a religion Islam really is..."
Are there? And are they going to be saying it on national television, or is that just you?

"Prominent religious leaders have all spoken out in unison to say that "British Islam" condemns this..."
Let's be clear about it - our own born & bred British muslims are one thing, the ones way over there in the axis of evil are quite another story. Why they should have bothered to speak out in the first place really doesn't at all seem obvious to me either.

I'm wary enough of the BBC but I absolutely loathe Sky News, it's the kind that had a camera fixed on the McCans front door for a week non-stop and calls it "breaking news". On that note, if you want a good critical & humorous perspective on TV news, I'll refer you to my hero Mr Brooker. Watching sky news doesn't so much supply information, as propose a partisan view of certain current events it has some vague notion of but really knows very little about, and tailors its scant information to adhere to the pre-conceived "plot" of the stories. If anything, it dis-informs.
I mean what is this story REALLY about?

It's just the kind of story we need to remind us all that there's dangerous extremist lunatics out there, that we should still be afraid and outraged by them - just in case we were getting rather too complacent about the state of the world and the global political consensus. And what's more, it also illustrates beautifully that our government has our best interests at heart, and will always fight our corner in the face of such trials. It's exactly the kind of fuel that threats of unilateral military action need in order to gain popular support and hey - Sudan rhymes with Iran, and everyone knows what they're up to.

Game on - nuclear annihilation.

This follows on quite nicely from my earlier discussion on sociology - that nothing above question or without an agenda of some sort.

This is what university in France taught me, and plenty of other things beside, but this is the central, fundamental key moment when something was clarified, something was lit up, and I felt as if I'd broken through a wall in my mind. Learning is normally a gradual, progressive exercice, happening over months and years, creeping too incrementally for you to realise, but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it comes in a flash. In France I was brutally & suddenly confronted to the harsh reality that even the most fundamental values and foundations, the ones we build everything else upon, the ones that shape us, are the result of a struggle, an agenda, they are part of a dominant paradigm - just one of an infinity of others. And what's more - it's all imaginary. This rhetoric, this nationalism, this so-called clash of civilisations, these "revendications a l'universel" - are all riddled with implicit conceptions, that need to be dissected and taken out of context and looked at in an altogether new light and it's like performing self-dissection, and in this way it's inevitably limited, because we can only extract to a certain point... a bit like the paradox of exploring the unconscious, yet essential in order to understand the world, not understand as in comprehend the News, but REALLY understand.

We look at the problems in the world today, in society - problems like racism, globalisation, immigration, xenophobia, descrimination, intolerance, religious fundamentalism, conflict, nationalism, genocide, sectarian violence, but these are all symptons. And this is why it's so difficult to make sense of them, without seeing beyond, without looking to the underlying causes - to the roots.

In fact, it's not so much about what's there - as what isn't. As what ISN'T on the news, what the politicans AREN'T talking about, what is ommitted. As Adam Hochschild argues, our world today is "shaped far less by what we celebrate & mythologise than by the painful events we try to forget" - Leopold's Congo being one example, but that's another story...

Politics vs. Sociology

Week after week, I am amazed at the disparity in terms of brain cell count (or to be more diplomatic - critical faculties) between the two disciplines my degree course uncomfortably straddles.

Political science - or, the 4 hours a week when I feel the overpowering urge to drop out of college, because I clearly haven't a prayer. I have no idea where these kids come from, or more to the point where their knowledge, poise and capacity to string words together to make beautifully incisive, pertinent & eloquent statements comes from.

Sociology - or, the 4 hours a week when I feel the overpowering urge to drop out of college because I'm surrounded by intolerable half-wits. There's a few people in particular, who've incurred my wrath with their inane contributions. I don't name names of course, but I will spout quotes. Especially gems such as:

"But isn't, like, nature, like, too big to manage? I mean - the Nile is, like, huge."

Yes. You're not wrong, the Nile is, effectively, huge. And so is the Amazon, for that matter!
...was the altogether too forgiving response of our docile lecturer. No sharp-tongued lashing to the tune of "Good God, the Nile might well be somewhat on the large side, but have you even stopped to consider, for one second, the sheer scale of the entire human industrial entreprise you STUPID CHILD."

The Irony (with a capital), as I see it, is the remarkable lack of correlation between these (admittedly anecdotal) observations, and the nature and demands of the disciplines themselves. Or at least, the disciplines as taught by our esteemed, now-ranked-top-53-in-the-world-according-to-the-Times, thank you very much mr Provost, educational institution - Trinity college.

Political science, in essence, once you've nailed down a decent research question, really boils down to applying rigorous methodolgy, quantifying "stuff", totting up data - a monkey could do it.
Sociology, on the other hand, as I learned last year in France (as opposed to how I was taught it for the two years prior) is complex beyond imagination. It's a horrifying mess of historical legacies, underlying socio-economic factors and, worst of all - individual motivations. But more than that - it effectively requires the ability to see the invisible, to posess real mastery in terms of critical thought, to be able to extrapolate the underlying values & assumptions which you don't see because you're not MEANT to see them, because you've been conditioned not to, and because everything has been engineered precisely so you won't see them, so you'll be without any shred of doubt that some things just are neutral, natural, eternal & universal - that some things just "are". When really, they just aren't. At all. Or at least, who says they are? Because somebody is or has, that much is certain.

And this is what so irritates me about the failure of some to take sociology seriously (justified in some respects - it's ok to be a joker in a joker's course such as "Gender & popular culture" of course, in fact it's almost impossible not to be, but we all know how I feel about that one). I didn't take it seriously, until I was faced with the revelation, that nothing is beyond question, or goes without saying (something I should have realised well before as it had been heavily hinted at in a remarkably prescient and important course the IB involves - Theory of knowledge).

When I say my degree course straddles two disciplines uncomfortably - this is not limited to the purely academic endeavours and the disparities between them. As this term has gone on, I've come to realise that the two disciplines correspond to two different, contradictory world views of my own.

In sociology, I find myself in staunch support of those who advocate a new form of citizenship, of greater participation, of realising democracy - in order to acheive environmental justice, perhaps as part of a pragmatic or "real" world approach to concretising that ubiqutous & slippery concept of sustainable development.

In political science, on the other hand, I adhere to Platonic view that really, we'd all be better off if we scrapped democracy and put in place a merit-based system where competent people are in charge, and make all the decisions on behalf of "the masses". I won't shy away from the terms "despotism" and "autocracy", because I'm well aware that's what it amounts to. But perhaps this model is limited to the theoretical, notional world of ideas, of the endless philosophical dialectic that ties itself in knots in search of the elusive utopia.

What fundamentally differs here is a judgement on the capacity of human beings to make intelligent decisions for themselves, to run their own lives, and just how much power & influence should be allocated to them accordingly.

And yet somehow, my appraisal of this capacity (ie. in sociology - considerable, in politics - zero) is curiously inversed to my experience, in terms of the scholars of both schools.

Obituary

Central Societies Committee treasurer Joe O'Gorman writes:

"Many of you will be saddened to learn that Matteo Matubara died on November 18th. He had been becoming increasingly frail over the past few months and it was obvious to all who knew him that he was not long for this world. He was the last of a number of eccentrics who pottered about College over the years whose only real link to the place is the most important: they were known by generations of students for whom, in many ways, they formed a nostalgic link with their time in College."

Matubara, or "Mat the Jap" as he was affectionately known by the student body at large, was indeed one of the more renowned & improbable Trinity personalities. He was the subject for all manner of outlandish rumours, stories and mythology as to where he came from, and why he inhabited the college as he did, wandering the corridors and cobblestones of Trinity, of which I heard only a few. These stories were passed around over the years, probably greatly distorted in the process, stemming from the general intrigue for such an idiosyncratic character, at once ubiqutous and elusive. Among the students he inspired sentiments of fear, mockery, curiosity, bemusement, indignance and affection. For my part, I now realise I'll probably never know the real story of Mat the Jap, but no doubt that will remain part of the mystery and charm that he will be forever associated with in my mind, indeed a nostalgic link with my days in College - a symbol of those years, and of Trinity itself.