A week in the US, such as I have just spent, is enough to make anybody feel a trifle fed up with God, or rather with the relentless invocation of the deity by American politicians, led by their president. No public occasion would be complete without the blessing of the Almighty being sought for whatever endeavor tops the agenda, most prominently the war in Iraq. The appeal to faith, seldom mere ritual, is usually founded upon conviction.
There is an attractive rationalist case for insisting that candidates for election anywhere in the world are required to sign a declaration forswearing religious affiliation. Had this been done in Ireland a couple of generations ago, think what we would have been spared.
YUSHA
Few modern political careers are compatible with religious principle. Government by atheists would relieve us of the irksome moral conceit that impels US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to do deplorable things while remaining convinced that slots are kept open for them in heaven.
Even among the enemies of democracy, at the extreme end of the scale it is easier to deal with the Irish Republican Army, whose ambitions are political, than Osama bin Laden, with whom there can be no negotiation, only global submission to Islam.
I am not in the least anti-
religious. If pressed I would des-cribe myself as a social Anglican. Yet I find myself increasingly eager to be governed by politicians who profess no pretensions to a hot line to a higher power.
The West may find that the struggle against militant Islam is an inescapable challenge of the 21st century, extending far more widely than the present engagement with a few thousand fanatics. Most of us wish to explore every avenue of accommodation before reconciling ourselves to armed conflict. Yet we now face another four years at the mercy of a US president who perceives his own God as foremost among White House advisors and regards the contest with Islam as already begun.
The last British prime minister before Blair to perceive himself in a special relationship with the Almighty was Gladstone. Yet, oddly enough, Gladstone strongly resisted General Charles Gordon's attempts to force Christian Britain into military confrontation with Islam in Sudan in 1884.
British foes of the Mahdi used many of the same arguments for deposing him as were deployed by Bush and Blair against former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein: shocking tyrant; unspeakably brutal to his own people; threat to the stability of the region. Yet Gladstone rejected calls for intervention until Gordon, by calculated self-immolation in Khartoum, excited British public opinion to such a pitch that Gladstone felt compelled to act.
A relief force was belatedly dispatched up the Nile, which failed to reach Gordon in time, and withdrew amid much public anger at home.
This might be described as Gladstone's first Gulf war. Its anticlimactic conclusion provoked bitter criticism: for the failure to finish the job and depose the Mahdi.
The Mahdi died, of course, leaving his Sudanese empire in the hands of a successor, the Khalifa. The British launched their second Gulf war against Sudan in 1898, in a spirit of unfinished business not dissimilar from that which prevailed in the White House last year.
Kitchener duly disposed of the Khalifa and his Dervish followers at the battle of Omdurman, with an application of firepower ruthless enough to delight US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The British thereafter ran Sudan for half a century. Their benign stewardship became the best excuse for an imperialist adventure that otherwise possessed no justification whatever.
Interestingly, while the British felt pleased with themselves for having squashed Mahdism, they did not represent Omdurman as a triumph for Christianity. It was perceived simply as a victory for the Union flag (to use the British flag's official name).
Some of us would feel more comfortable today if US and allied foreign policy could be discussed solely in temporal terms, without bringing God into the deal at all. One of the more grotesque landmarks of the Bush presidency was established this time last year, when the Los Angeles Times revealed that a top general was touring Christian fundamentalist churches assuring congregations that he knew "our side" would prevail in the struggle with Muslim extremism "because our God is a real God" and the other side's was a phoney.
Now, every army has its share of lunatics. The litmus test is how their political masters treat them. The world waited in vain for Rumsfeld to sack this grotesque Strangelovian, whose words seemed to undermine every possibility of constructive engagement with Islam.
It never happened, of course. I was in Washington while the little drama was being played out. A defense academic said to me sardonically: "This administration will never sack a general for saying things that every senior figure in the Cabinet believes." And so it proved.
Bob Woodward vividly records in his book Plan of Attack an exchange with Bush, in which he asked whether the president had discussed the Iraq invasion with his father before making the decision to act. No, said Bush. He preferred to consult his "higher father."
Many of us at the mercy of the US president, which means most of the world, tremble in the face of this sort of thing. Even in the darkest days of 1940, Winston Churchill never seriously invoked the deity, though he had vastly better reason to do so than either Bush or Blair. Nor did Margaret Thatcher.
Today, the distortion of biblical teaching by American Christian fundamentalists, almost all allies of Bush, to support Israeli imperialist claims on the West Bank, significantly increases the difficulties of achieving a settlement in the Middle East. The political leverage exerted by the fundamentalists in the US against any surrender of biblical territory to Muslims is likely to grow greater, not smaller.
Most of us recognize that
constructive action to rescue the Palestinians would do far more for the West's long-term security than the draconian anti-terrorist legislation introduced by Bush and now Blair. Yet no prominent Western statesman dares publicly to question the role that God's American hijackers play in making the world more dangerous.
I am not making a case for the appeasement of the West's Islamic critics and enemies, but merely for policies likely to diminish the
fertility of terrorist recruiting prairies, based upon treating their religion with common respect. Christian Crusaders were a menace to international peace in the 12th and 13th centuries, Christian missionaries in the 19th. God spare us from assertively Christian -- or Muslim or Jewish -- national leaders in the 21st, if that request is not blasphemous.
Max Hastings is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and the London Evening Standard.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS