On Sept. 20, Corporal Donald Payne became the first Briton to admit to a war crime.
Payne, 35, is accused of repeatedly banging the head of Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old Iraqi hotel worker, against a wall and floor until Mousa died -- an accusation Payne denies. Payne called his Iraqi prisoners in the jail in Basra "the choir," because he liked to invite friends to hear them shriek with the pain he inflicted.
"Corporal Payne enjoyed conducting what he called the choir," Julian Bevan told the court martial, which is taking place at Bulford Camp in southwest England and is expected to last 16 weeks.
"It was all done very openly," he said.
The next day, British Home Secretary John Reid went to Leyton, in East London, and told a room full of Muslims how to raise their kids so they won't grow up hateful.
"Look for the telltale signs now and talk to them before their hatred grows and you risk losing them forever," he told them.
The heckler in his midst simply provided Reid with proof of his moral righteousness.
"This is Britain," Reid told the Labour party conference last week.
"We will go where we please, we will discuss what we like, and we will never be browbeaten by bullies. That's what it means to be British," he said.
Reid and Payne are two sides of the same coin. The bully of Basra exercises his right to demean and degrade wherever he pleases -- the longstanding hallmarks of British colonialism. The hooligan from the Home Office vaunts the fair play, decency and social liberalism that ostensibly underpin core British values -- a longstanding feature of Britain's self-delusion.
Payne could have done with some parenting lessons of his own. Instead, he was given a uniform and a gun. The arrogance we imbibe and the atrocities we export do not just coexist -- they are co-dependent. That's also what it means to be British.
In Reid we find these qualities embodied in one man. Before he was the home secretary, he was the defense secretary. He is set to have an impact on Britain's racial terrain analogous to the one he has had on the killing fields of Iraq: making a fragile situation worse.
Reid is not alone in this. Last month, Ruth Kelly, the UK's communities secretary, called for a "new and honest debate" about race in their country. This should not be mistaken for the "honest dialogue" fellow Cabinet minister Peter Hain wanted to launch in 2002 or the "rigorously honest" discussion former home secretary David Blunkett sought to initiate in 2004. Quite what kind of deceitful debate they were engaged in back then and -- given their huge parliamentary majority -- what prevented their candor, is not obvious.
However, each followed a very familiar pattern; promising blunt truths, but pandering to soft bigotry.
Kelly was no different. She insisted that it is "not racist" to voice concerns about immigration and asylum -- a statement as true as it is fatuous since it depends on what those concerns are and what argument you're making.
"We must not be censored by political correctness" nor should we "tiptoe around the issues," she said.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? This was precisely the line taken by Michael Howard, the then Tory opposition leader, before the last election. Far from being censored, the tabloids have been serving this tripe up as a staple for the past decade and New Labour has been swallowing it whole and then throwing it up whenever it gets nervous.
Any candid discussion of race, immigration and asylum that was not racist would not just acknowledge fear and prejudice but challenge them both. Since ministers are not able to do that about ethnic minorities, maybe they should start off with a subject with which they are more familiar.
Let's have an open and honest discussion about white people.
Let's start by talking about how they don't want to integrate. The stubborn rump of around 10 percent of whites who, according to a 2002 Mori poll, are hostile to racial equality and antagonistic to the very existence of non-white people in the UK. Given a percentage point either way, that is the consistent figure who believe that to be truly British you must be white and who do not believe it is important to respect the rights of minority groups.
Let's discuss their inability to choose moderate leaders and the propensity of the leaders they do choose to murder innocent civilians abroad by the thousands. Let's analyze their vulnerability to extremists such as the far right British National Party (BNP) -- not to mention elsewhere in Europe -- where fascism is once again a mainstream ideology.
Let's talk about the religious intolerance that rages in Scotland and Northern Ireland and can be found in the highest levels of the state, where only Protestants can marry into royalty. And let's not forget the terrorists white people have been rearing at home for years, whether they are bombing London's Bengali community in east London, parliament or shopping centers in Manchester, and the no-go areas in housing estates, football terraces and boardrooms.
Only then, perhaps, will it become sufficiently apparent for those with insufficient imagination just how crude and crass the framing of the debate about Muslims has been. Any group of people will rightly bristle at the demand to answer collectively for the acts of individuals with whom they share an identity but over whom they have no control.
The tolerant, secular, liberal society into which Muslims are being asked to integrate lies somewhere between mythology and a work in progress, and the responsibility for transforming it into a lived reality lies with all of us. When it comes to poor whites lured by organized racism, Labour makes allowances.
"It is the poorest whites who feel the greatest anger because there is no way out for them," leading Labour Member of Parliament Margaret Hodge said about some of the citizens in her East London constituency earlier this year.
"The Labour party hasn't talked to these people. Part of the reason they switch to the BNP is they feel no one else is listening to them," she said.
We should not be in denial that some young Muslims have become attracted to extremism and fundamentalism in recent years, but nor should we be in denial about why that should be. Muslims did not invent terrorism, nor did they introduce it to the UK. Indeed, so long as Britain has occupied foreign lands, it has been vulnerable to sporadic acts of violence on its own soil.
Which brings us back to Payne, Reid and Kelly. For there is no honest conversation you can have about the strained racial fabric of the UK at present without talking about the war. Once branded left-wing heresy, this truism is now intelligence-service orthodoxy on both sides of the Atlantic. It has been "a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world," according to a leaked document allegedly written by a British Intelligence officer attached to the UK Ministry of Defence; and a "cause celebre for jihadists," in the words of the US National Intelligence Estimate.
The war didn't invent fundamentalism, nor did it introduce it into Britain. But it has clearly exacerbated it. So long as the likes of Payne can conduct their torture choirs abroad, the UK's racial landscape will be scarred.
So long as the likes of Reid are preaching to the racist choir at home, it will never heal.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with