Obama

In the wave of post-election relief and adoration sweeping not just America, but the international community as a whole, I can’t help but feel a little suspicious. Pretty-much-already-president Obama seems like the perfect leader-figure for the world’s economic super-power – wholesome, young, and easy for the public to identify with.

Perhaps my cynicism is too heavily influenced by the broken promises and underhanded techniques of– well, governments in general, really. But I can’t shake the feeling that change – the entire driving-point of the Obama campaign – is going to be very slow in coming, if it even comes at all.

I just don’t see any reason why this Democratic office would be any less corrupt, greedy and imperialist than the last, appealing front or no. My impression of a president of the US has always been that of a puppet, with all the real decisions being made by the guys behind the curtain. I’m likely wrong, but if the demands of big business haven’t changed, then the policies of any capitalist government aren’t likely to either. Or, if their needs HAVE changed, in the case of the current economic ‘crisis’, it’s still the same suits and companies influencing policy reform, regardless of whether the government is Democratic or Republican, and whether their frontman is likeable or not.

Analogies

As I’ve mentioned before, and as you may or may not have noticed, Russia is not a terribly popular country in the international community. I was discussing this with one of my flatmates, and I decided that I do, in fact, feel a little bit sorry for Russia. I’d like to say it’s ’standing up for the little guy,’ but Russia is hardly a very likable candidate for martyrdom – indeed, being a bit of a wanker (like pretty much all Western countries), it doesn’t really qualify at all.

Nor is it very little.

In fact, to me, Russia is kind of the fat kid of the international community – you know who I mean, we all had one in our primary school class. He was physically, of course, very big and had the potential to be powerful, but he used to be communist and now nobody wants to be friends with him. The fat kid was eternally bullied, ostracised and ridiculed.

Drawing from my experiences of childhood bullying – my little brother, who is Aspergic, is in a kind of similar situation as the Fat Kid. He’s not a terribly social being (understandably), and consequently gets picked on by a lot of the other children. The problem didn’t diminish over time, and we all assumed he’d just got used to dealing with it.

One day, we got a phonecall from the school – a boy had made a passing remark at my little brother.

And my brother had went batshit-crazy and tried to stab him with a pencil.

 

In the eye.

 

The point to take away from this is, if Europe, as a fairly economically well-to-do group of grade-schoolers, don’t start trying to embrace Russia and stop pissing it the fuck off, we’re going to get our eyes gouged out with a nuclear pencil.

The Russo-Georgian Conflict

Now that this whole thing has blown offer somewhat, I thought I’d share my thoughts.

Start of August. I’m waiting in town to be picked up by Adam (we were going to see The Mummy 3 on the opening night. It was pants), when I get a call from Matthew. Guess what? What. Shit’s going down over in Georgia. Where’s Georgia? Eurasia somewhere. Oh. How interesting. I hope America doesn’t get involved. Doubt it – unless there’s something in it for them.

So, next thing we know, America backs Georgia. Soon after, it emerges to public knowledge that the oil pipe running through the Caucasus is the main pipe which supplies oil from the middle East to the States (bypassing Russia and other countries that haven’t been getting along too well with the US lately). How surprising. It’s really quite sad how predictably this chain of knowledge unfolded. Ha ha ha. You have to laugh, otherwise you cry.

From what I can gather, Georgia started it – they essentially marched into the region of South Ossetia, which has de-facto independence from Georgia (not recognised by the UN, but has it’s own government) and started killing Russian peace-keepers and the like. Russia, in response to this, got out the tanks and rolled the fuck over them. I have to admit that while the initial move to defend it’s population in South Ossetia was justified, Russia was too heavy-handed. International calls came for a cease-fire, which Russia ignored, then agreed to, and then ignored again alternately. Kind of like a Middle-Eastern version of the end of Romeo and Juliet – you know, when she’s dead, but she’s not dead, but then he’s dead, and then she’s dead again. But with tanks.

For a little background info, Georgia is the third largest military presence currently in Iraq. At the time of the invasion of South Ossetia, American troops were in Georgia training the Georgian forces. Suspicious? We’ll probably never know. The point is, Georgia backed America in it’s ridiculous Imperialist war against Iraq, so it’s only fair for America to back Georgia in a similar pursuit.

I just find it disheartening that America, because it’s the dominant global power, thinks that it’s okay that it can go bouncing around the middle East and eastern Europe, throwing it’s weight around and incurring collateral damage in the forms of millions of civilian lives to pursue it’s own interests, and the international community thinks this is okay. Like they have an undisputed right. And I suppose they do – if we, the West, didn’t exploit oil-rich and rights-poor Middle Eastern countries, we wouldn’t be able to live as high a standard of middle-class luxury and complacency to which we have become accustomed.

In an ideal world, America, as well as the UK, would have taken a stance of mutual disapproval – since both countries in the South Ossetia conflict were in the wrong somewhat (Georgia for starting it, Russia for taking it way too far), we should have been a good example to the international community and sat back and said, ‘We do not approve of either of these actions, and so we will not take sides.’ Instead, the message we’re sending out is, ‘We are open to bribes.’

Nuclear Sandwich

As of August 20, Poland has formally agreed to allow offensive US “interceptor missiles” on its soil.

“The Warsaw signing followed the Czech Republic’s April willingness to install “advanced tracking missile defense radar” by 2012. In both instances, Russia strongly objected, and on August 20 said it will “react (and) not only through diplomatic protests.” Both former Warsaw Pact countries are now targets. The threat of nuclear war is heightened.” – The Palestine Chronicle

It seems a mighty coincidence that these arrangements, which have been in the works for years now, have concluded so soon after Russia began kicking the ass of another former satellite-state, Georgia. In any case, the American government claims that the missile defence systems being set up in and around central Europe are to protect America from rogue threats, such as Iran. However, according to the above article, Iranian missiles can’t reach Europe.  Washington rejected Russia’s proposed Azerbaijan-based joint US-Russian anti-missile system – to intercept and destroy Iranian missiles on launch. We have to assume, therefore, that America is, in fact, targeting Russia, despite what government officials say to the contrary.

Russia is of course being villianised for it’s consequent threats towards Poland, who it says will become a target if it goes ahead with it’s agreements with the States. But I think it’s easy to only see this situation from our side, the side of ‘the good guys.’

If I was Russia right now, I’d be shitting myself. Of COURSE America is setting up these defense systems to target Russia.

I can’t help but feel a little hard-done-by, as a European. We’re essentially being sandwiched between two bullying, Imperialist super-powers who are throwing their weight around and slowly but surely pulling out the big guns.

Imagine the common scenario of a bitterly divorced couple, who are using the children to get back at one another. It’s kind of like central Europe is the children, and Russia and the States are the parents.

Now, to take the scenario a step further, imagine the situation escalates to one of those reports that you occasionally hear on the news or in trashy gossip rags, where the father kills the children to spite the mother. Replace ‘exhaust-gas with the child-locks on’ with ‘nuclear fall-out,’ and there you have it.

Because we all know that if the shit hits the fan, central Europe’s going to be the battle-zone, so to speak.

I also can’t help but laugh at the irony of US foreign policy, which seems to deem every country not serving their interests to be not responsible enough to be ‘allowed’ nuclear arms, when we all know from history and our good friends Hiroshima and Nagasaki that “America + nukes = the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.”

I think what the American government, and the sycophantic hangers-on of the international community (as in, ourselves, the UK), need to keep in mind while carrying out the kind of foreign policy we’ve seen in recent years, is that the US may not always be top of the economic food chain. It’s easy enough to wage imperialist wars on falsified pretences for personal gain, or engage in the practice of what many would deem war crimes under the dubious flag of counter-terrorism, when you’re the world’s industrial superpower – when you hold all the cards. But if, one day, a country that is not so fond of American policy, or has been directly wronged by it, were to obtain an economic (and consequently, military) advantage over the US – and this is a realstic possibility in the current climate – then they would, to eloquently put it, be fucked. And it’s the US civilians who would suffer for it.

Glasgow East by-election

I was up all night during the week watching the news while the votes were being counted for the Glasgow East by-election, which was won by the SNP with a majority of 365 over the Labour party.

For those of you who don’t know, Labour is the current UK government, and the SNP, despite this being a London parliamentary election, are the Scottish government, and may be holding a referendum within the next few years over Scottish independence. The significance of this result is that Glasgow East was formerly the third most secure Labour seat in Scotland – it shows that Labour is no longer a suitable party for the large majority of working class living and working within Scottish cities, and that more and more Scottish citizens want to be distinct from the UK.

Or it shows that the populace are just pissed off at the government due to the ‘recession’ currently going down, and hence voted for the most viable alternative to spite them. And that’s the really depressing thing – nobody in this country is interested in politics outside of the price of petrol. People only care about how proposed reforms and policies will affect themselves, as individuals, rather than the populace as a whole. Morality takes a back-seat to inflation. The recession itself, at this point, is a situation that has been completely blown out of proportion.

At this point, any party can say that they’ll tackle inflation and all of the people who are mindlessly panicked over bugger all will vote for them, heedless of what other disgusting policies said party would intend to pass once in parliament.

The entire concept of democracy is a farce if the voters themselves are easily mislead by false promises and don’t know what’s best for them. We can’t say , just because in the last Scottish election the SNP were voted as the new parliament, that the political mood of Scotland is slightly left-wing and that the Scottish people want independence. We can only say that people are pissed off at having to spend more on refilling their fuel tanks, and are voting against the government who is, to an extent, helpless to prevent the situation. The voters are completely myopic – Scotland doesn’t have a political mood. The national mood is ‘apathy,’ and the national personality is ’selfish.’

It’s a dangerous set of adjectives to describe a voting populace – with nobody watching or caring what goes on behind the surface of a party’s veneer, any twats can get into power.

I only have one last thing to say on the matter – after WWI, it was Hitler who got Germany out of recession.

Rambo.

It’s just occurred to me while watching Lions for Lambs that Rambo may be the fictional solution to all of America’s problems. He’s the ultimate, all-American guerrilla war hero set in THE infamous guerrilla war in which the States suffered many embarrassing losses and defeats. The Vietnam War lasted from 1959 to 1975. The first three Rambo films – First Blood, First Blood pt. II and Rambo III were released in 1982, 1985 and 1988 respectively – the aftermath of the defeat of the anti-Communist forces. Patriotism and national pride in the US were, presumably, at an all-time low. The populace needed a pick-me-up. The character of Rambo in the second and third films was the perfect, unrealistic portrayal of American military gun-ho, fighting back against the evil of Communist forces with techniques that the real forces were unable to master.

It’s worth mentioning here that this Rambo is a changed character from the Rambo of First Blood – the novel by David Morrell portrays him as a man broken by war and his experience as a POW, and is a testament to the difficulty experienced by veterans in adapting back to their civilian lives in the face of an unaccepting and unsympathetic society. It’s not exactly a scathing attack on the careless attitude of the US government towards its veterans, but it’s certainly close when compared to the movie sequels – the first film, I’ll give it it’s due, almost did the novel justice. Relatively speaking.

Er, apart from the bit where Rambo died at the end of the novel as a result of his inability to let go of the military nature and training and trauma that had become an integral part of him. Apparently, at the beginning of the second Rambo novel, David Morrell wrote a disclaimer saying that he acknowledges that Rambo did in fact die at the end of the last book, apologising to the readers and basically explaining that the film producers offered him a LOT of money to write for the next movies (although I’ve yet to find evidence for this).

So, now, 2008 comes along – 20 years after the trilogy was put to rest, and Rambo is resurrected. It’s random – everyone thinks so. It’s also plotless and tragic, and I fail to remember anything Rambo actually said or did (most of the body count wasn’t even attributed to him), but never mind that for now. Now, attempts by Sylvester Stallone to get his career on the move again may be a big motivating factor (Rocky Balboa was released around the same time after a similar hiatus), but I think the reason is that there was a national demand for it – America is in a similar political and military situation that they were when the last films were made. They’re stuck on the losing end of a guerrilla war (Afghanistan) which has been drawn out for years already (as Meryl Streep’s character says, WWII only took 5 years) with no end in sight.

The film failed in its objective, regardless, as it was utterly dire and I fail to see how anyone watching it can avoid succumbing to abject despair, let alone be inspired with a patriotic fervour. Rambo goes into Burma to rescue the Christian missionaries, whose prior presence there had done bugger all to make any difference to the suffering of the locals. All of the military personelle he takes in with him die, as do most of the missionaries, then Rambo (after causing the deaths of an obscene amount of local infantry and civilians) and the few survivors leave, and the political and social status of the area remains, if not worsened, then at least unaffacted. But, I still conclude, Rambo is the fictional answer to America’s military problems.

Conservationism

I’ve been wondering – what are the actual reasons for someone being conservationist?

Okay, it’s pretty obvious from an aesthetic standpoint – pandas are adorable, and the world is just so much more colourful when we have plant diversity. And I don’t mean to belittle – the aesthetic standpoint is just as important as any other.

But from the point of view of basic human survival – the most fundamental urge of any species – it’s really not very consequential. Sure, the panda might become extinct. Who cares? We’ve got photographs. The only reason we’re so determined to prevent the extinction of any more species is because some day – far in the future, when we have sufficient technological advances to exploit them – they might become useful to us. Maybe. You know, in case all the cows and goats die of unrelated but badly-timed diseases, and we need to process snails to provide an economically efficient milk substitute.

I’m not tarnishing all environmentalist views with the same brush – I even agree that conservation is important, I’m just posturising – particularly issues like global warming, which will have immediate and obvious effects (i.e. a slight case of death).

Maybe I should write more about environmental issues. Eco-blogs seem to be the current ‘in’-thing on the internet – evidently, today’s generation of bloggers are turning their attention outwards, manifesting in a concern for all other human beings, species, and the planet.

And I, in my decadent, introspective, self-pitying rambling habits, should probably get with the times. =P

The Political Compass