It is ironic to hear David Cameron saying that there is a need to tackle the cause of the conflict in Syria when he was gung-ho for bombing the Assad regime out of existence just two years ago - until he was stopped by Red Ed in a House of Commons vote, which in turn, stopped the Americans joining in. If Assad had been got rid of it would have made the Syrian situation infinitely worse with many more Christians either fleeing or having their throats cut. I see that Cameron is going to try again to bomb Syria - this time ISIS, I think. The man should make up his mind who his friends are and who his enemies are!
Cameron's weaknesses are being cruelly exposed but in fairness to him he is riding several tigers at the one time. Britain is more hostile to non-white immigration than many countries, partly because that is the way they are (it is the other side of the nature that resulted in the creation of a powerful empire) and partly because they are now experiencing the consequences of large-scale immigration of non-whites from their former empire. The bottom line is that every state must make its own decisions about immigration but a liberal democracy should be expected to do so in a liberal and humane way.
The British, however, are seeing their country and their society change before their eyes so their anger is hardly a surprise. Given the imperial roots of the problem, I don't have huge sympathy for the British but I do recognize a political problem when I see it. Cameron is also trying to keep the UK in the EU and the Scots in the UK. He shouldn't worry about the EU. It is slowly collapsing but the Scots' situation is deeply worrying as the recent vote there was only half time. So, I have some sympathy for him.
Derek Scally's information (Wednesday 26 August, IT) was interesting:
"German politicians rarely visit these areas [i.e. east German areas where there is high unemployment and where people feel threatened by heavy immigration], nor do they have answers to German involvement in the causes of the refugee crisis. Such as how, in the first half of 2015 alone, Germany green-lighted arms exports worth €6.35 billion - almost as much as in the entire calendar year 2014. Arms exports to Arab states and northern Africa - from where millions of people are fleeing - more than doubled to €587 million...".
I'm surprised the editor of the IT permitted Scally's figures to be published but they have generated no traction nor will they, for the present. The public is upset by the sight of the dead child on the beach in Turkey (and rightly so) and is not, for the moment, interested in reading about the West's part in the Syrian tragedy or the tragedy of the wider Middle East going back to the foundation of the State of Israel. That will come but the timing will need to be right.
Likewise, if NATO had not bombed Libya's Gadaffi out of existence there would not now be emigrants trying to cross the Mediterranean from Libya. Gadaffi could easily have been induced to see to that. The media and commentators generally are not making that connection because they failed to say, at the time, that the overthrow of Gadaffi was a serious breach of international law. It was an act of outright NATO aggression, a throwback to 19th century imperialism. There is no doubt that Gadaffi would have slaughtered every man, woman and child in Benghazi, which is why the UN permitted NATO to stop him from doing so. NATO, however, was not empowered to overthrow Gadfaffi. Nor was it necessary for NATO plans to protect Benghazi. Arab League and/or African Union air forces - or even the Russians and the Chinese air forces - could have done it. (The Russians and the Chinese should have insisted on that at the UN Security Council. I don't know why they didn't.) The fact that NATO overthrew Gadaffi, which was designed to protect British and French arms sales to the "democratic" government that Cameron and Sarko believed would replace Gadaffi in the Arab Spring, was a significant feature, I suspect, in Putin's decision to annex the Crimea. He saw NATO engaging in imperialism in Africa so he decided to do the same in his neighbourhood. The Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 followed the Suez fiasco. The media didn't make the connection then and they are not making it now.
Merkel has agreed to take 800,000 refugees/migrants because (as per Suzanne Lynch's article in the IT on Saturday ("Migrant issue poses a threat to EU unity")) if she didn't the crisis could break the EU apart. (It might anyway.) Merkel is getting the credit ("slate for 1939-45 wiped clean", etc.) from people who should know better. She is acting to protect Germany's very own imperial project. I note that she is beginning to get some flack from her Bavarian colleagues but no doubt public opinion in Germany will see her through that particular hiccup. It will take time and good journalism (!) for people to realize that Merkel is acting in her own interests, not in the interests of the migrants (although no doubt she feels for them as the rest of us do).
I don't know if the migrants will stay in Germany or move around but Schengen should be abandoned. My guess is that if it will have to be, making the migrant issue the second major pressure point leading to a break-up of the EU. The third will be Russia.
Apparently, on a per capita basis (i.e. our share of the EU's population), we should take 10,000 refugees/migrants. We could take 5,000 without too much difficulty. As one of the editorials in the papers said yesterday (I think it was the SBP), it might mean postponing more money for the HSE or roads or whatever but we can do it. My guess is that within a few years the Exchequer would be benefiting from the 5,000. No one would expect us to take 40,000, the same proportion as Germany, because we are not trying to build a European empire, as is Germany. We could, however, take 5,000.
No comments :
Post a Comment