Britain is braced for US President George W. Bush's arrival. London police leave has been cancelled, and the Stop the War Coalition is planning demonstrations and civil disobedience to "unwelcome" the president.
The highlight will be the toppling, Saddam-style, of a Dubya statue in Trafalgar Square.
Although Bush will not move into his guest suite at Buckingham Palace until Nov. 19, the action starts tomorrow when protesters will be burning him in effigy. For activists lacking the necessary skills, the coalition's website offers a DIY Dubya mask.
"Print George and photocopy him on to A3 paper or card," the instructions read. "Color and bend him to your satisfaction, and attach him to a guy [effigy] of your own choosing." Burning George, it promises, will generate "a warm feeling."
But not, naturally, the comforting glow that British Prime Minister Tony Blair envisaged when planning the first state visit by a US president. By now, weapons of mass destruction should have been secured, Iraq should be a secular democracy, and Bush should be emblazoned in glory rather than torched in paraffin.
Instead, the president has placard trouble. At home, he is haunted by the "Mission Accomplished" banner strung behind him on the USS Abraham Lincoln when he declared the Iraq war over. Now he is pretending, not quite accurately, that it was all the navy's idea, rather than the White House's. Over here, hubristic slogans are not the problem. The "Make Tea Not War" posters of the prewar marches are already being replaced with something pithier.
Peace is slippery to define. To Samuel Johnson, it was the product of mutual cowardice. To Cicero, it was liberty in tranquility. Now it means "Fuck Bush" banners and presidential pyres for bonfire night. This is the Turner Prize of protest, featuring Stop the War activists as the Chapman Brothers of mass action. The forthcoming civil disobedience will be non-violent, organizers stress, but the whiff of brutalism conjures up a world where no such caveat is feasible.
More military staff have now died in Iraq during the postwar period than in the invasion, and violence increases. Suicide-bomb attacks on the Red Cross building and three police stations killed 34 people and injured 200 in Baghdad, prompting the UN to pull out more staff in the week in which America planned to vaunt its success.
The Madrid conference of potential donor countries had raised US$33 billion of grants and (much less desirably) loans, a key bridge in Baghdad was to reopen and the curfew withdrawn as Ramadan began and Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, flew in. The result was carnage and an attack, killing a US army colonel, on Wolfowitz's hotel.
Meanwhile in Britain, both supporters of the war and its opponents are strangely paralyzed. The former have two lines of argument. The first, pathetic shot is that anyone who deplores what is going on must want Saddam back. The second is Panglossian drivel about how Iraqi misery is confected by Western pessimists too blinkered to see that the populace is happy, that schools are of a standard to satisfy the pickiest parent and that Russell & Bromley shoe shops will be springing up any day now in Kirkuk high street.
It is true that there is good news, too, principally outside the Sunni triangle. UNICEF, for example, points to a million children inoculated in September, and new school books. But the agency's spokesman in Geneva tells a bleaker story. Aid workers are confused and fearful. All but local staff have now left Baghdad offices besieged behind concrete barricades and moved to Jordan.
As for liberty, the UNICEF man warns that citizens do not yet have the basic freedom of sending their children to school in the knowledge that they will return unharmed. "Minute by minute, our efficiency is decreasing," he says.
Those of us who opposed the war can claim that we were more right than we thought. There were no WMDs, no nuclear program, no legal case and no link with al-Qaeda, until Bush and Blair invited them along. And yet the anti-war movement, whatever its stake on prescience, has proved a depressingly negative force, too. The populist spirit that politicized a generation and illuminated mass marches has curdled into pessimism and posturing. It may be excessive to hope that a peace movement can save a single Iraqi life. But it might show better that it mourned, or even noticed.
This is Britain's war, too. Yet the Prime Minister, its joint impresario, has faced nothing more irksome than a few "Bliar" placards and the sideshow of the Hutton inquiry. March against Bush by all means, but wonder, also, why we absolve our own politicians from intensive scrutiny and protest. In the US, by contrast, every CNN phone-in programme reeks of fury. Almost 60 per cent of Americans now want their troops reduced or out.
Bush's US$87 billion adventure is so unpopular that he may get his exit papers as well. A presidential race is on, the body bags (360 to Britain's 51) are coming home, and Iraq still inflames public debate.
Bush, cornered and in danger, has made a series of catastrophic decisions, culminating in ordaining a privatized future in which Iraq would get industrial oligarchs and a private healthcare system for the destitute. But he has also, more commendably, overruled the Democrats' wish that half the US$19 billion rebuilding costs should be loaned, not given. As for the loathsome neocons, they grow more humble by the day.
Defeat makes hard men malleable. If the Bush administration is to be persuaded of a sensible way forward, then this may be the last, frail chance. The proconsul, Paul Bremer, should be replaced by someone with UN legitimacy, and the Iraqi police and army expanded as fast as possible. There must be a timetable for a handover, but also the recognition that democracy (very probably an Islamic one) cannot be forged without the rule of law.
Elections without security achieve nothing, as Bosnia proved. That is not to argue against fast-tracking US troop withdrawal or to deny that American soldiers inflame the current problems. Even so, to walk away from a disaster of our making would be an unthinkable betrayal.
Yet, at this vital juncture, the leading anti-war movement parades only one idea. The US pull-out "within months" desired by the Stop the War Coalition is also the dream of cost-cutting Americans. The fact that Bush may himself feel secretly tempted to leave Iraq to anarchy or civil war makes it imperative that he and Blair, the architects of this disaster, are held accountable by the coherent and the peaceful.
No doubt Bush would be delighted to learn that some British opponents will be torching his image on bonfire night, perhaps with their children looking on. Such gestures, vapid and vaguely savage, are a gift. They make it easier for our leaders to ignore the demands of the quiet millions who abhorred their war but who now look forwards. We want solutions and progress, not revenge.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry