Chapter 26
Sidetrack (iii) - Imagine
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there's no countries it isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
You may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us and the world will be as one John Lennon
The aliens on Beta Arietis had a problem. Again it concerned the dominant lifeforms on planet Earth and they didn’t understand it.
They’d been collecting the data that’d been flooding, in increasing volumes, through their radio telescopes for the last sixty light-years and had quickly noticed an alarming, inexplicable, aspect of human behaviour.
It appeared that violent conflicts would break out at regular intervals on the planet; in fact so frequently, it seemed, that rarely was there any planetary stability, let alone extended periods of peace. Using the wealth of digital records now accumulated, they were stunned to realise that humans had managed, and continued to manage, to kill each other on a massive scale. It was not as if they were defending their planet against evil or predatory life forms; in fact humans shared 99.6% of their DNA with each other, so they’re virtually identical, to the point where they might as well be part of the same family.
They summarised their initial findings, covering only the period broadly experienced by the individual they’d been following since its birth in Earth year 1959. These were startling enough on their own, prompting them to exclude as unnecessary the further detailed historical data that spanned earlier human history. Whilst these numbers from pre-1950 that stretched back over past millennia were equally as appalling, the research team adopted a hypothesis that, whatever the causal factors were, across the entire length of human history they were likely to be same.
Summary of deaths per conflict 1955 - 2015
1955 - 1978 Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia 4,300,000
1959 - 2021 Myanmar Civil War 250,000
1966 - 1998 The Northern Ireland ‘Troubles’ 3,529
1971 Bangladesh Liberation 3,000,000
1974 - 1991 Ethiopian Civil War 1,500,000
1975 - 2002 Angolan Civil War 504,000
1978 - 2021 Afghanistan Conflict 2,000,000
1980 - 1988 Iran- Iraq 500,000
1981 - 1986 Ugandan Bush war 500,000
1982 Falklands War 907
1983 - 2005 Second Sudanese War 2,000,000
1986 - 2021 Somalian Civil War 500,000
1990 - 1991 Gulf War 40,000
1991 - 1995 Bosnian War 105,000
1991 - 2002 Sri Lanka Civil War 300,000
1993 - 2005 Burundi Civil War 300,000
1994 Rwandan genocide 800,000
1996 - 2003 Congo Wars 6,200,000
2003 - 2021 Darfur 300,000
2003 - 2011 Iraq War 654,000
2006 - 2021 Mexican Drug War 250,000
2009 - 2021 Boko Haram Insurgency 350,000
2011 - 2021 Syrian Civil War 606,000
2014 - 2017 Iraqi Civil War 200,000
2014 - 2021 Yemeni Civil War 233,000
Plus a stack of ‘minor’ skirmishes that lasted a few months, or had dragged on for years, in out- of-the-way places that no-one has heard of or even cares about. After all they were only talking about another million or deaths over a sixty year time span.
Grand total - 35 million in the sixty years I’ve been on the planet; that’s 570 every day.
And just for the record, the ‘lowest’ estimates for war-related deaths in previous periods are:
0 to 500 AD 42 million
500 to 1500 AD 62 million
1500 to 1955 215 million
Check out the details on Wikipedia: the numbers killed by conflict are staggering, especially from Asian wars over recent centuries that I hadn’t even heard of or have a clue about.
I’m not sure which sounds worse. Either way it’s still someone; a man, a woman, a boy or a girl being blown up, shot, stabbed, or worse, every 20 seconds.
What really puzzled the alien researchers was that when they drilled down to the level of an individual, a family or local neighbourhood, the behavioural traits they observed were usually benign: humans often appeared helpful, friendly and compassionate towards each other. Any spats seemed to be containable and managed by an accepted set of community rules, rarely resulting in serious violence or conflicts. So if people generally rubbed along okay with each other at a local level, what were the factors that caused this harmony to fragment and disappear once regional and national groups became involved?
The computers on Beta Arietis didn’t take long to find the answers. At the heart of every significant conflict was either an apparent difference of view about an ideology or theology, or an attempt to secure an increase in wealth and resources at the expense of some neighbouring community. Sometimes it was one of these factors in isolation, more often they would occur in combination.
Also alarmingly obvious were the factors that actually persuaded otherwise ordinary, law-abiding humans to behave differently when faced with a vague threat from that ‘other lot’ beyond the horizon who had different thoughts on a topic or, when given the chance, to band together to try and grab control of some land or assets belonging to another group who lived the other side of some nebulous border. The answer to the ‘what factors’ question wasn’t so much a ‘what’ but was actually more of a ‘who?’
And that ‘who’ could be summed up in one word: ‘Leaders.’
Religious leaders, political leaders, monarchs and emperors, warlords and tribal chiefs. Those men who had smart minds and silver tongues, a surfeit of guile or bully-boy strength, inherited wealth or inherited titles. Those who gained an addiction to the tastes of power and a more luxurious lifestyle and were determined to maintain them. Invariably men, the traits amongst these leaders were the same, whether it was the local priest maintaining a spiritual control over his flock of parishioners; the baron demanding his taxes from the peasantry; the megalomaniac despots who mercilessly sacrificed whole swathes of their people and others in pursuit of some warped dogma.
It appeared that all the vast majority of the human race ever wanted was a peaceful life, one where they could natter with their friends over a drink, practise quietly whatever spiritual leanings they followed, laugh with their children, have the opportunity for some honest work to enable their families to be fed, clothed and housed and maybe even have a little left over for the occasional purchase to make their lives just that little bit easier or more enjoyable. And surely it wasn’t a lot to ask that every few years they could have a say in appointing those individuals prepared, or keen enough, to take on the responsibility, and rewards, of making the bigger decisions on their behalf. So what was it about the human race that allowed itself to appoint or tolerate, accept or surrender, or be intimated and bullied into accepting the wishes and objectives of some of their more persuasive fellow men? To accept this leadership, even with the knowledge that the consequences were likely to be severe, usually taking them in the opposite direction to their desire for a calm and happy existence? It wasn’t as if they didn’t know what the outcome would ultimately be. The history books, the tapestries, and the newsreels over the centuries provided the evidence. The losers were those who normally just wanted the quiet life. The starving family of serfs fleeing the consequences of a religious massacre along a muddy road in the Middle Ages wears the same haunted look of despair and pain as modern day refugees expelled from their village, escaping the retribution of the latest forces to overthrow their weak, corrupt government, or peddle the virtues of a different god.
And once they had made this observation, the aliens couldn’t fail to notice another distressing consequence of the conflicts on Earth: the often forgotten or ignored numbers of refugees left wandering across the continents, starving and cold, bereaved, at the mercy of the unscrupulous, and with uncertain, frightening, futures. Old and frail, young and vulnerable, educated or illiterate, all suddenly finding themselves without a home or anyone to turn to.
Note: Refugee summary
The latest data transmitted from an organisation ironically called the United Nations, revealed some stark numbers for the year 2020.
82.4 million people displaced. One in ninety of the world’s population. Over 40% are children.
35 million of these are refugees in another country.
A strange imbalance between the countries hosting refugees. Poorer developing nations take on a far higher share compared to richer developed countries. Why?
For example:
Turkey hosts 3.7m, Colombia 1.7m, Pakistan and Uganda 1.4m, Sudan 1.1m, Bangladesh, Lebanon and Iran 900k, Jordan 700k.
In some of these countries the number of refugees exceeds 10% of the native population.
The biggest host amongst developed countries is Germany with 1.1m which account for 1.3% of their population.
Britain is ‘struggling to cope’ with just 171,000 (126,000 refugees and 45,000 asylum seekers), a whacking 0.26% of the population. Oddly a section of the British people, including some in the government and media feel this number is already far too high and that the difficult assault course to find refuge on our island, an apparent beacon of freedom and fairness, the home of democracy, should be further strengthened.
What also seems bizarre is that refugees who have made it to Britain are then prevented from working until their asylum case finally reaches the top of the pile and is approved, sometimes years later. So rather than contribute to the society that has offered the chance of shelter and a future they find themselves unwilling burdens and the victims of snide and ill-informed comment. With post-pandemic and post-Brexit labour shortages, it would appear the country is missing a trick. (Update Jan 2023 - 161,000 people are now in the asylum queue in the UK).
Ukrainian update. 7.6 million have fled Ukraine since February 2022. The UK has taken 162,000 compared to one million in Germany and two million in Poland. Support once they arrive is good but overcoming the bureaucracy to obtain a visa is daunting.
War and refugees.
How does it keep happening? Why don’t the vast majority of citizens do something about it? What can be done?
The Aliens didn’t know the answer so they decided to ask someone closer to the problem, an actual human.
In response, I told them I honestly couldn’t explain it either but that I’d give them my thoughts and opinions. These are laid out, probably in a rather muddled manner, as follows.
WEALTH + STRENGTH + A STORY = POWER
A leader is nothing without power. It’s the vital ingredient that enables such a person to follow a course of action, carry out an idea, impose their own plans or implement the wishes of the electorate.
Without the ability to actually deliver on his or her rhetoric, promises, or threats, a leader is hamstrung and won’t survive for long before someone who does have the means arrives on the scene as a replacement.
Unfortunately, this need for power and the right to grant it is a balance fraught with consequences. To start with it’s a fine line between allowing a leader just enough power to do the job effectively and granting too much. Not enough and he will fail and the community won’t achieve its aim: a good harvest, a safe environment, education for the kids, and so on. Too heavy a dose can lead to an addiction; the desire for more; the sharing of any surplus with friends and family; the enjoyment of the accompanying comforts and trappings and, ultimately, a reluctance to give it up when the appropriate time or circumstances arrive.
Most people enjoy having a little bit of power and the kudos or small benefits that are often part of the package; I’m sure it’s in there in everybody’s genetic make-up. Similarly, most of us know where to draw the line or are constrained by the operating rules of whatever community or organisation we belong to. Consequently there is a limit or consensus that prevents someone becoming ‘too big for their boots’. The community can vote out the domineering Parish councillor who always wants his/her ideas adopted; the club can replace its captain whose mind is closed to new ideas, and in a functioning democracy local and central governments risk being replaced every few years by alternative policies and personnel.
Unfortunately it doesn’t always work. Some people possess a mutant gene that ignores power limitations and encourages further acquisition. They might call it a ‘mission’ or a ‘calling.’ Most others might call it greed, an addiction, or megalomania. Whatever label is applied, the consequences of power-grabbing behaviour can be severe and usually follow a familiar pattern that can quickly result in communities losing the ability to control the people they’ve elected to lead.
The blueprint for a stealthy power grab is straightforward:
- Build a team of followers and encourage, or manipulate, their appointment into key supporting roles.
- Gain control of communications and ensure all the messages are supportive whilst simultaneously being critical of alternative viewpoints.
- Convince the ‘electorate’ that your story is the one they need to believe.
- Create a threat to encourage the ‘electorate’ to rally to your cause.
- Win over the enforcement agencies, the police and military, with promises of enhanced resources and personal progression.
And at some point in the process, a threshold is reached. Control of information, security, and other levers of power are at such a level that any opposition is too weak to make a difference. At this point, the power-grab changes to power-consolidation and other factors come into play:
- Protect what you’ve got.
- Stamp out any dissent or alternate views through a mix of legislation and ruthless enforcement. Informers, show trials, torture, secret police, gulags, are still as much a feature of the modern world as they were five hundred years ago.
- Ensure the wellbeing of those in positions of authority. Their ongoing lifestyle must be dependent on the status-quo. Corruption and nepotism are key tools.
- Manage the electoral process by rewriting the rules, extending terms of power, rigging elections and denying any opposition a platform.
- Don’t forget to keep acquiring wealth and resources by whatever means necessary.
- Finally, remember to keep up the pretence of the story and warnings of outside threats from which the best protection is to trust in the leader.
Suddenly, before we wake up to what is happening, a rogue leader has become omni-powerful and, almost inevitably, the risk of war is escalated. We don’t have to look far for examples over the last century.
Perhaps internal opposition becomes so desperate that an uprising happens, sometimes sponsored by a neighbour or more powerful player concerned about protecting their interests: the result is state-sponsored civil war.
Ask Bashar Al-Assad and Gadaffi. Ask the French in Vietnam. Ask the Taliban, Mujahideen, or Viet Cong.
Perhaps the leader sees an opportunity for acquisition to enhance wealth. Look at the Hitler model from the twentieth century, the Empire-building of powerful nations from previous centuries or more recently in Tibet and Crimea. Sometimes it happens ‘relatively’ painlessly as the aggressor is powerful enough to ‘get away with it’.
Ask Putin, ask Mao. Sometimes it meets resistance. Ask Galtieri, ask Saddam Hussein, ask Slobodan Milošević and now, ask Putin again.
Perhaps the leadership wants to spread the dogma, share the story that’s being peddled, save the unbelievers, and expand their influence and wealth. Sometimes they get away with it and meet little push-back. Sometimes they meet resistance, especially if they threaten economic or ideological interests.
Ask the Pope. Ask the dour leaders of the USSR and their eastern European Cold War puppets.
Perhaps sometimes the leader needs to invent or exaggerate a threat to their supporters’ way of life. Being different or believing differently is usually good enough. Ask the Pope, the Archbishop, the Chief Rabbi, or the Ayatollah. Let the villagers in Kashmir ask the politicians in Delhi and Islamabad.
Let the out-of-work teenager in the Gaza Strip or the nervous, indoctrinated, confused teenager in a vulnerable kibbutz ask the politicians in Tel Aviv and Tehran. Ask the bowler-hatted leader of Belfast’s Orangemen why they parade outside the front doors of people in deprived nationalist areas or the faceless, balaclava-clad men in the shadows why they think the use of bomb and gun is a legitimate response to economic victimisation. Ask the tribal leaders of the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda.
Any of the above, especially if combined, can trigger a conflict. The bigger the players, the bigger their egos, the more fanatical the views, the more down-trodden the people, the more attractive the rewards, the more threatening the risk to the incumbents, then the bigger the potential for a drawn out and costly war.
And often we, the people, can’t do much about it, even in democracies where some semblance of opinion should still count for something. We’re either hoodwinked into believing it’s necessary.
Ask the Americans about the Vietnam or the Gulf, or ask the Serbians, Croats and Bosnians leaders why they couldn’t tell their people to tolerate each other.
Or we’re over-ruled. Ask Tony Blair about Iraq.
Or worse, we’re forced to participate by bully-boy tactics and fear: if we don’t sign up we’ll be victimised. Ask Putin yet again.
Why can’t these men be stopped before things run out of control, before they grab too much power, become warmongers, abuse the people who granted them authority in the first place and trample on other communities standing in their way? Why have the checks and balances failed?
Why is it that at a micro level we can usually manage to control unacceptable behaviour but find it so much harder at a macro level? Misbehaving children receive a telling off and banishment to the bedroom. Scraps in the playground are broken up by the teacher and the kids are sanctioned. Fighting footballers are sent off, skirmishing gangs are kept in check by the police. We grow up with a sense of right and wrong, learning where the boundaries are. These are normally imparted and sometimes enforced by parents, teachers, the community, religious leaders the law, the police and so on.
The problems start when those in authority, those we pay to manage our societies, fail to fulfil the role we entrust them with. When a bent copper turns a blind eye to the local crime boss trading in drugs or modern-day slaves on his beat, when a corrupt town hall official allows a rich businessman or party donor to circumvent planning laws, when a headmaster fails to deal with the school bully picking on the small Asian kid. The evidence is there for all to see. If those seeking power don’t receive a firm ‘not acceptable’ message, they’ll just keep pushing the boundaries further.
So for me it’s absolutely clear that, from a practical viewpoint, the laws of the land need to be enforced, fairly and consistently, and that means we need the best, most competent, individuals we can find into the legislature, the judiciary and the police. And just to guard against any temptation for drift in their impartiality and fairness, there needs to be a mechanism in place for audit, appeal and rotation.
But it’s not all about the practicalities. What about the softer side: those morals, that a society wants to engender and live by?
Let’s take a brief look at Religion and its leaders.
Imagine there’s no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Throughout history, the guardians of moral behaviour have been religious leaders. What a spectacularly bad job they’ve made of it, and worse, still continue to make. In fact, most of them have exhibited the same power-hoarding traits responsible for bringing death and misery to millions. Over the centuries, their ability to weave and control the stories preached to their fearful, ignorant, congregations has allowed them to remain in unchallenged authority and wealth, often becoming influential allies to fellow strong leaders. Does it need the stories in the Bible, the Koran or any other religious writings to explain to a community what is right and wrong? No, it’s flippin’ obvious! And it could just as easily have been banged together by a bunch of sensible scribes in ancient Egypt, a group of town elders in the Middle Ages, or a class of school girls yesterday!
‘Ten rules for living happily together. Your time starts now. On my desk by the morning please.'
‘Okay Sir. No problem.’
But the one thing that the priest, rabbi, shaman, and mullah all possess that the community leader or sensible parishioner doesn’t is that vital missing ingredient: the hotline to God. Somehow we’ve been persuaded that the Gods only speak to us, the masses, through them, and they’ve disguised this obvious myth in rituals, language and penalties. Fearful of an afterlife in Hell or being reincarnated somewhere unpleasant as a lower life-form, sold on the idea of meeting loved ones again in Heaven, or attracted by the unlimited pleasures of Paradise, we’ve been eager for their spiritual guidance through whichever fanciful mirage they’ve created for us. Not only that, we’ve been happy to pay for the privilege: sacrifices, tithes, taxes, bequests, all helping to ensure we end up in the right place and, if that’s not enough, we can always turn to prayers and confessions for further absolution.
It’s not all negative. Magnificent churches, mosques, synagogues, cathedrals and temples form an essential part of human heritage. There is succour and spiritual comfort available for those that need it, especially in life’s darker moments. Some establishments do essential charity work in the neighbourhood or can be a focal point for relief elsewhere in the world. And, for those regular attendees, it can be something of a club, a place to meet and socialise.
Whatever the pluses and minuses, it’s a fact that those in power are forcefully protective of their position, prepared to defend their particular theology at the expense of all comers.
’All life is sacred. Thou shalt not kill. Love thy neighbour etc etc.’
‘Oh yeah?’
What does the Vatican or the advocates of Protestantism have to say about the millions who died in the Religious Wars of the Middle Ages or at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of thousands of heretics all demanded by a string of Popes or Archbishops? Or, more recently, the atrocities of Nazism, the massacres in Bosnia or the apartheid system in South Africa? If it’s not a resounding silence, it may only just be a token appeal for peace, whilst behind the scenes exists a tacit alignment with whoever had the biggest army at the time.
What’s the Mullah telling his Sunni majority about the threat from the Shia minority in their country (or vice versa) let alone the risk from the infidel Christians or Jews on the neighbouring land? How many died in the Iran-Iraq war or the ongoing religious civil strife that stretches across the Middle-East?
How many Muslims and Hindus massacred each other in the mess that followed Partition? Where were the priests calling for calm? Nowhere! The fearful, mobs were mainly inflamed by the zealots and religious leaders. Kashmir, Sri Lanka, it’s the same story.
Why can’t the Israelis see that they’re in danger of exhibiting the same characteristics that they too were victims of across the centuries? Be strong, yes. Protect your way of life, yes, for sure you deserve it. But at the expense of others? It can only foster resentment which in turn breeds insurrection and perpetuates the cycle. Hard-line religious intransigence will inevitably meet hard-line religious rebellion.
And on and on and on.
Now for me this is the hard bit. Why do intelligent, sensible people still swallow it?
I can understand how, in historical times, it was almost impossible not to succumb to the stories. Life was hard, often short and violent, and explanations for natural phenomena, the mysteries of the universe, the cycle of life and death were in short supply. It was easy for a literate priest or Iman to impress their illiterate flocks with their access to Latin or Arabic texts, to prevent others from gaining access to the information or interpreting it for themselves. Even translating the Bible into English during the sixteenth century was a one-way ticket to the Tower. And in the past, the Church, Mosque, Temple or Synagogue were the focus of the community; the only places to be married, to be buried, and to guarantee salvation.
The twenty-first century is a different place. Science has offered solutions to many of the mysteries. Harvests in most of the world are no longer just a meteorological lottery; plagues can be explained and controlled, and communication, computing power and education drive things on at a faster pace each year. We can look out into the universe, we can look deep into the oceans, walk on the moon, send probes beyond the solar system. Nowhere have we encountered any physical evidence of any sort of God, let alone a Heaven or Nirvana.
Even if we agree that maybe we’re not talking about a physical ‘thing’, it’s still difficult to get my head around this apparent doubt-free acceptance. When obvious questions are raised, they can be brushed away or ignored; after all it’s not very friendly, polite or socially acceptable to challenge someone’s spiritual or religious viewpoints and of course it’s absolutely vital that everyone remains entitled to their belief system, their mode of worship and so on.
I’ve yet to hear a good response to any of the following questions which usually get raised in any theological debate:
Why is your God any better than any of the others?
Why does your God allow war, earthquakes, famine, child abuse etc?
What’s the purpose of all these rituals, the prayers, the incense, the kneeling, the ridiculous uniforms of the clergy, and so on? Is your God really bothered if you’ve missed one of your five a day or forgotten to say prayers at bed time?
What’s with ‘Amen’? What does it mean? You say it often enough?
How can one elected resident of Rome, chosen by just a handful of fellow entitled geriatrics, be the representative of God on earth according to 21% of the world population, the billion people who are Catholics?
Why doesn’t the Church practise what it preaches? It could start by releasing some of its vast wealth in land, buildings and treasures to help the poor.
God. Man or woman?
Is it really likely that every single action described of God and his disciples in the bible, Quran and Torah all took place within a small area of our planet centred on a middle-eastern city? I guess the rest of the earth and universe didn't really come into it.
What about other life-forms? Is it okay to slaughter cows or pigs or grouse? What about the aliens on Beta Arietis? Who should they believe in?
And these questions are all before we even throw in the jokers about ‘In the Beginning’ or, ‘What happens when we die?’
I suspect most people just need some form of spiritual crutch and probably want to keep their options open, just in case there is an afterlife. Others parade their religion to ensure favour in the community or gain political support. Only a week ago, the new US President called in on the Pope to receive a blessing; I wonder if he made a confession about the tragedy of the Afghan withdrawal? Have we got a problem when the most powerful man in the world still thinks he needs to adhere to such rituals? Others are still indoctrinated or fearful of persecution if they reject their nation’s religion: try doubting Islam when everyone else in the community is devout.
So what’s actually happening? Is religion on the way out as more people have doubts, or see through the storylines?
It’s a mixed picture and depends where you look.
Christianity is steadily declining in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, but is on the rise, often in conjunction with population growth, in Africa and South America. The USA is apparently stable but following more radical branches. Meanwhile, Islam is definitely on the up. Over the last thirty years, it has increased by 50% and now accounts for 30% of the planet’s inhabitants. Praise be to Allah.
Hinduism appears stable at around 15%, whilst others like Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism are seeing small but steady declines, mainly driven by reducing new entry rates and/or lower birth-rates.
So it looks like we’re a long way from seeing the back of religion, despite what science and common sense have to say about it. I guess most people just want to hang onto that sense of escapism. So we’ve just got to hope that the religious leaders of the future show a lot more appreciation of the responsibility that comes harnessed to their influence over our souls. They need to change from being complicit mass-murderers to being champions for fairness and tolerance.
Unfortunately I have my doubts, which takes me nicely back to the point on leaders and their propensity for war which is where we digressed and wandered off into thoughts on religion.
Back to Leaders.
Having called for robust, practical legislative and enforcement processes to control the behaviours of aspiring leaders to ensure they remain within acceptable boundaries, we also need something to keep a reign on radical religion. It’s a tough one because people should be free to hold whatever views they want and, within reason, have a platform from which to share their opinions. We’re back to sensible, enforceable legislation to encourage a secular society and prevent persecution of alternative views. And let’s keep religious leaders out of politics, from the Parish Council all the way to the House of Lords.
Maybe there’s another way to help keep these guys in check. We need the media and associated journalists, writers and commentators to stay on their case. As stated many times before, a ‘free press’ is a foundation for a free society. Once the leaders are able to exert a controlling influence things risk running downhill fast. Debates and opinions must be allowed to circulate in papers, on social media, on television and so on without being stifled and the legislation again needs to be strong and enforceable. But even this is fraught with difficulties, especially in the modern world where outlets are at the mercy of TV channels funded by vested interests, or social media algorithms capable of being manipulated in the background. What is real, what is fake?
Try this one for size. Would it be any different if the leaders were women? There’s not a lot of data to work with. Maggie took us to war but, ignoring the fact that things should never have reached that point in the first place, you could argue she was provoked into putting a bully back in his place. Indira Gandhi didn’t avoid going to war with Pakistan, whilst lower down the scale there’s plenty of evidence of women on committees or councils unable to resist drifting beyond the boundaries. Just look at the outrageous corruption that knowingly took place under Dame Shirley Potter’s leadership of Westminster City Council a few years ago. Maybe though, when it comes to finally pushing the buttons and actually releasing the dogs of war, a woman leader might just be more prepared to talk and find other ways.
Perhaps it would be different if each guilty leader, political, religious or otherwise, had to take personal responsibility for the murder of each victim. Give them each a gun, knife, or bomb and then ask their victims to file past, making direct eye contact. It would be a long queue of men, women and children and every 20 seconds the group of leaders who have betrayed our trust would be faced with the actual reality of their behaviour.
So what am I saying?
Report back to the research team on Beta Arietis?
Summary
Conflict and war are not caused by the people. They are forced on them by leaders, political, military and religious, who have been allowed to grow out of control, gain too much power and invariably start to abuse their position. Once this situation is reached it’s incredibly hard to reverse the direction without the use of force.
The answer has to be stopping a leader overstepping the mark which requires practical legislation and clear moral boundaries. To maintain and enforce these controls, we need excellent, capable people whom we can trust, people who can see beyond the pettiness of the local committee, see over the nationalism of the state, or recognise and accept the varied stories of religious orders are actually just that, stories. And we need to entrust them with the tools to do the job, respect their decisions and ensure we can mutually enforce any sanctions.
Where are these people? Where are these organisations? There are a few attempts to get it right but we’re a long way from success. The Standards Committee in the UK Parliament is currently being challenged by a political leader who doesn’t like its reports and refuses to accept its decisions. The United Nations is a great concept, and does a lot of good work, but it is ultimately largely toothless because its paymasters are exactly the leaders it’s trying to influence and moderate. Somehow it needs to be given the independence, respect and ability to enforce decisions. If you join the club, you should abide by the rules, which is all very well until one of the big boys, or a nasty little guy, doesn’t like it. Then what? It’s got to be peer pressure, sanctions, carrots and sticks, and talk, talk, talk.
And if that doesn’t work, what is the answer? Bob Dylan didn’t know and, sixty years later, no-one is still any the wiser.
How many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they are forever banned?
The answer my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
Note:
Just finished writing this bit watching with Dad, half-awake in his chair, the Remembrance Sunday parade at the Cenotaph. Our poppy-wearing, wreath-carrying, past and present mixed bag of leaders, political, military and spiritual, expressing, on behalf of the nation, gratitude for the losses of the past. Some conflicts certainly, sadly necessary, others much more debatable, but whatever the viewpoint it’s undoubtedly vital that we don’t forget.
Another note:
This was all written before Putin invaded Ukraine and that's a whole new story unfolding ..
Images removed: Belfast , Vietnam, Palestine, Afghanistan
Images removed: Celtic cross, Shiva, Islamic crescent, Buddha, Crucifix